A DEFENCE OF THE SERMON Preached at the Consecration of the L. Bishop of Bath and Welles, against a confutation thereof by a nameless Author. Divided into 4 Books: 

The first, proving chiefly that the lay or onely-governing Elders have no warrant either in the Scriptures or other monuments of Antiquity.  
The second, showing that the primitive Churches endued with power of Ecclesiastical government, were not Parishes properly but Dioceses, and consequently that the Angels of the Churches or ancient Bishops were not parishional but Diocesan Bishops.  
The third, defending the superiority of Bishops above other Ministers, and proving that Bishops always had a priority not only in order, but also in degree, and a majority of power both for ordination and jurisdiction.  
The fourth, maintaining that the Episcopal function is of Apostolical and divine institution.    
By GEORGE DOWNAME Doctor of Divinity.  
LONDON: Printed by Thomas Creed, William Hall, and Thomas Snodham. 1611.   

TO THE MOST High and mighty Monarch, james by the grace of God King of great Britain, France and Ireland, defender of the faith, etc. All true happiness and prosperity, in this life, and eternal felicity in the life to come.  
THE prudent speech of the politic Historiographer (most gracious and dread Sovereign) is in some sort verified of us in this Church, 
Thucydi●  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, those which be in the midst are slain or at the least wise assailed on both sides: The Romanists on the one side blaming us for departing too far from the Church of Rome; our innovatours accusing us on the other side, for coming too near the same. Which contrary accusations of men being in contrary extremes, 
Medium beati.  are a good evidence for us, that we hold the mean. For neither are we departed further from the now-Roman church, than it hath swerved by Apostasy from the ancient Church of Christ, to which, in departing from them, we are returned: neither have we retained either for the substance of Doctrine, or for the form of Discipline any thing almost agreeing with them, which with them we have not received, either from the doctrine or institution of the Apostles, or from the approved practice of the Primitive Church. The which, as it is to be acknowledged to the high praise of God, and to the singular commendation of your Majesty; so also to the contentation and joy of all your loving subjects. God having vouchsafed unto us this especial favour, (for which his name is ever to be praised and magnified among us) that there is not a Church under the Sun, which both for the substance of Doctrine, and form of Discipline, doth come so near the pattern of the Prime and Apostolical Churches, as these under your gracious government. Your Majesty also having been a blessed instrument of God, not only for the retaining of the truly Catholic and Apostolic doctrine and religion in all your Dominions; but also for the establishing of the ancient and Apostolical government, where it was in use before; and likewise for renewing and restoring the same (though to your great cost and charges) where it was formerly abolished. These unestimable benefits, if we in this land do not acknowledge and profess ourselves to have received from God by your Majesty we must confess ourselves to be not only unthankful, both to God (who is the gracious Author) and to your Highness who are the happy means of these benefits) but also unworthy to enjoy them. If we do (according to our bounden duty) acknowledge so much: it remaineth, that we should testify our thankfulness to GOD Almighty, as in respect of his true Doctrine and sound religion continued among us, by walking worthy our calling, 
Ephes. 4 Tit. 2. ●●  and by adorning the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things: so also in regard of the Apostolical form of government established among us, 
Phil. 2. ● Heb. 13  by a due and respective countenancing of it on all hands. For howsoever a great number in these days have thought so much the better of themselves, by how much they have thought the worse of Bishops: yet is it most certain, that the contempt of Bishops is the cause, if not of all evil (which notwithstanding chrysostom seemeth to affirm) yet of very much evil among us. 
In 2 Ti●  This contempt therefore is diligently to be prevented and avoided, as by the godly and religious care, both of your Highness in preferring worthy men to this high and sacred function, and of the reverend Bishops in showing themselves worthy of that honour whereof they would, and indeed should be accounted worthy: so also by instructing the people to conceive a right of this holy and honourable calling. And for as much as the pernicious schism and division, which is among us, proceedeth from an erroneous conceit, either that the Presbyterian Discipline is the holy ordinance of Christ, or that the government by Bishops is unlawful and Antichristian: I was persuaded (for my part) that I could not perform a service, either more acceptable unto God, or more profitable to his Church; then to publish those arguments for the satisfaction of others, which had persuaded mine own soul, not only that the Presbyterian Discipline is a mere human invention, and new devise, having no ground either in the Scriptures, or other monuments of Antiquity: but also that the Episcopal function is of Apostolical and Divine institution. And whereas my Sermon published in defence of the holy and honourable calling of Bishops, hath been eagerly oppugned by a nameless refuter; I thought myself bound in conscience to deliver the truth, which I had defended, from his sophistical cavillations. The which, through God's good blessing upon my labours I have so performed, that there is scarce any one sentence of the Sermon (if any at all) oppugned by the adversary, which I have not defended by plain, evidence of truth. These my labours I have presumed to dedicate to your Majesty, as the principal Patron (under Christ) of that truth which I defend; not only entreating your Highness to accept in good part my poor endeavours; but also commending myself, and them, to your most gracious Patronage and Royal protection. The King of Kings bless, prosper, and preserve your excellent Majesty to his glory, the good of his Church, and your own everlasting comfort. Amen.  
Your majesties most dutiful and loyal subject, GEORGE DOWNAME.   

The Contents of this Book.  

The first book treateth chiefly of Lay-elders.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Answer to the Preface.  
THE scope of the refuter in his preface is as of Orators in their Proemes, to prepare the Reader, and if he be such a one as will be led with shows to draw his affections to himself, and to withdraw them from me.  
It containeth a Prologue to the Reader, & an Epilogue concluding with prayer, and with praise to God. The former consisteth of a declaration, and of a direction, to the Reader. He declareth three things, first, the weighty causes moving him to undertake this worthy work: secondly, his valiant resolution in undertaking it; thirdly, his manner of performance.  
As touching the first: 
Ad pag  that you may not think him, after the manner of factious spirits, blinded with erroneous conceits, and transported with unquiet passions, unadvisedly or headily to have attempted this business; he telleth you, that there were two motives, that moved him thereto; the one, his strong opinion, pag. 3: the other, his unquiet desire, pag. 7. His opinion was, that my sermon, defending the honourable function of Bishops, was most needful to be answered: for so he saith, I deemed it as needful to be answered, as any book our Opposites have at any time set forth. And that no man should think this his opinion to be fantastical or erroneous, he confirmeth it with divers reasons: but such, as who shall compare them either with the truth, or with his opinion (for the proof whereof they are brought) or one with another, he shall see a pleasant representation of the Matachine, every one fight with another. The first reason; 
pag  because he saw the Sermon tended directly to prove, that the calling of our L. BB. (as they now exercise it in the Church of England) is to be holden jure divino, by divine right, not as an human ordinance, their ancient and wont tenure, etc. In which speech are diverse untruths. For first, with what eye did he see that directly proclaimed in the Sermon, which directly and expressly I did disclaim, pag. 92. where I did profess, that although I hold the calling of BB. in respect of their first institution, to be an Apostolical, and so a divine ordinance; yet, that I do not maintain it to be Divini juris, as intending thereby, that it is generally, perpetually, and immutably necessary; as though there could not be a true Church without it, which himself also acknowledgeth, pag. 90. of his book. 2. where I spoke of the substance of their calling, 
pag. 2. & 52.  with what eye did he see me defending their exercise of it? As if he would make the reader believe, that I went about to justify all the exercise of their function, which in all, even the best governments whatsoever, is subject to personal abuses. 3. Neither is it true, that the ancient tenure of BB. was only jure humano, unless he restrain the ancientness he speaks of, to these latter times, which are but as yesterday. For in the primitive Church as hereafter shallbe plainly proved, the function of BB. was without contradiction acknowledged to be a tradition or ordinance Apostolical, and the first Bishops certainly known to have been ordained by the Apostles.  
And as his first reason fighteth with the truth, so the second both with his opinion, and with itself. For why was the sermon most needful to be answered? because saith he, it is evident that the doctrine therein contained, howsoever M. D. saith it is true, 
¶  profitable and necessary, is utterly false, very hurtful and obnoxious, necessary indeed to be confused, at no hand to be believed. In which words 3. reasons are propunded, which now come to be examined. 
¶  It is evident saith, he that the doctrine in the sermon, is utterly false, therefore it is most needful to be confuted. But say I, if it be evidently false, it needs no confutation. Things manifestly false or true, are so judged without disputation or discourse. Neither doth any thing need to be argued or disputed, but that which is not evident. This reason therefore if it were true, would with better reason conclude against his opinion. It is evident, saith he, that it is utterly false, therefore it needeth not to be confuted. The second br●anch: It is very hurtful and obnoxious, therefore etc. Obnoxious? what is this? subject or in danger to be hurt with evil tongues, subject to sophistical cavillations, and malicious calumniations. But hurtful it is not, for I not only said but proved also both in the preface & conclusion of the sermon, that it is both profitable and necessary. The third, It is necessary indeed to be confuted. As if he had said, it is necessary indeed to be confuted, therefore it is most needful to be answered.  
Of these reasons, the two first he proveth in the words following, the third being as you see, nothing else but an absurd begging of the question.  
The first he proveth by diverse arguments, such as they be. First then the doctrine of the Sermon is proved to be utterly false, because, it is repugnant to the truth, to the word of truth, to the scripture of truth. But how, after all these ridiculous amplifications, is the doctrine of the sermon proved to be repugnant to the word of truth? he had rather take it for granted, then that you should put him to prove it. But I shall make it clear in this defence of my sermon, that as there is not a syllable in the scripture to prove the pretended discipline, so the Episcopal function hath good warrant in the word of God. But when in the second place he proveth the doctrine of the sermon to be utterly false, because it is contrary to the judgement & practice of the prime Churches next after Christ, 
Ad pag  & his Apostles, I cannot tell whether to wonder at more, the blindness or the impudency of the man. Seeing I have made it manifest that the government of the Church by BB. hath the full consent of antiquity; there being not one testimony of the ancient writers for their judgement, nor one example of the primitive churches, for their practice, to be alleged to the contrary. How dared he mention the judgement and practice of the primitive Church, for the trial of the truth in this question, when there is not one testimony for the pretended discipline, nor one example of it, in all antiquity? let them bring any one pregnant either testimony or example, and I will yield in the whole cause.  
And where he addeth, that it is contrary to the judgement and practice of all reformed Churches, 
pag  since the re-establishing of the Gospel by the worthies in these latter times: is it not strange, that a man professing sincerity should so overreach, seeing a far greater part of the reformed Churches is governed by BB. and Superintendents, then by the presbyterian discipline, as I have showed in the latter end of this book. But he addeth four notorious untruths, concerning our own land, 
pag  saying, that it is against the doctrine of our Martyrs, contrary to the professed judgement of all our worthy writers, contrariant to the laws of our land, and contrarying the doctrine of the Church of England. The first he expresseth thus, 

See the whole story in the acts and monuments, and in the book called the B B. book.  
Reformat. legum ecclesiast. tit. de divin. officijs. Cap. 10.11.   Against the doctrine of our immediate forefathers (some of whom were worthy Martyrs, he quoteth in the Margin, Latimer, Cranmer, etc.) who in their submission to king Henry the 8. at the abolishing of the Pope's authority out of England, acknowledge with subscription, that the disparity of Ministers & Lordly primacy of B B. was but a politic devise of the Fathers, not any ordinance of Christ jesus: and that the government of the Church by the Minister, & certain Seniors or Elders in every parish, was the ancient discipline. Which allegations would make a fair show, if they might pass unexamined. The witnesses which he quoteth for both, were Archbishop Cranmer, & other BB. who allowing the Episcopal function both in judgement and practice, it is almost uncredible, that any testimonies can from them be sound alleged against the same. And I do greatly wonder at the large conscience of our refuter in this behalf, who throughout the book taketh wonderful liberty in citing Authors, alleging as their testimonies his own conceits, which he brought not from their writings, but to them. For the former, he allegeth the book of Martyrs, whereunto that part of the BB. book, which he mentioneth, is inserted; which having perused, I find nothing at all concerning the superiority of BB. over other Ministers: 
Pag edi● 157 Cypr. simpl● lat. Hiero evag.  that which is said, concerneth the superiority of BB. among themselves, all whom, with the ancient Fathers, I do confess in respect of the power of Order to be equal, as were also the Apostles whose successors they are. But we may not infer, because the Apostles were equal among themselves, that therefore they were not superior to the 72. disciples; or because BB. are equal among themselves, that therefore they are not superior to other ministers. For the latter, he quoteth the book called Reformatio legum Ecclesiasticarum. Which was a project of Ecclesiastical laws, which, if King Edward the 6. had lived, should have been set forth by his authority, drawn by Archbishop Cranmer, B. May, & other Commissioners, and penned (as is supposed) by D. Haddon. In alleging whereof, whiles the refuter goeth about to make the reader believe, that they stood for Lay-Elders, and the pretended parish-discipline, he playeth the part of an egregious falsifier. And forasmuch as sometimes in his book he citeth the 10. and 11. chapters, I will transcribe the same, the bare recital being a sufficient confutation of his forged allegations. For among other orders to be observed in parochijs urbanis, in parishes which be in cities, which begin at the 6. chapter of that title de divin. off: in the tenth this order is prescribed. Confectis precibus vespertinis, 
Reform eccls tit. diu. offic● Cap. 10.  etc. evening prayers being ended, whereunto after the Sermon there shallbe a concourse of all in their own Churches, the principal Minister, whom they call Parochum, the Parson or Pastor, & the Deacon if perhaps they be present, or in their absence the Minister's Vicar & Seniors are to consult with the people, how the money provided for godly uses may best be bestowed, and to the same time let the discipline be reserved. For they who have committed public wickedness to the common offence of the Church, are to be called to the knowledge of their sin, and publicly to be punished, that the Church by their wholesome correction may be kept in order. Moreover, the Minister going a side with some of the Seniors (or Ancients of the parish) shall take counsel how others whose manners are said to be nought, and whose life is found out to be wicked, first may be talked withal in brotherly charity, according to Christ's precept in the Gospel, by sober and honest men, by whose admonitions if they shall reform themselves, thanks is duly to be given to God. But if they shall go on in their wickedness, they are to receive such sharp punishment as we see in the Gospel provided against their contumacy.  

Cap. 11.  Then followeth the 11. chapter, how excommunication is to be exercised.  
But when the sentence of excommunication is to be pronounced, first the Bishop is to be gone unto, and his sentence to be known. Who if he shall consent and put too his authority, the sentence of excommunication is to be denounced before the whole congregation, that therein so much as may be, we may bring in the ancient discipline. Where indeed we see mention of Seniors and of ancient discipline; but that they meant nothing less than to bring in Lay-elders, or to establish the pretended parish-discipline, or to acknowledge that it was the ancient discipline of the Church, I will out of the book itself make manifest. Wherein the whole government and discipline of our Church, by Archbishops, Bishops, Archdeacon's, rural Deans, 
Tit. de Ecclesia, & ministris eius, eorumque officies. Cap. 12.  etc. is established. And concerning BB. this is there decreed, that the B. is at fit seasons to give holy orders, to institute fit Ministers to Ecclesiastical benefices, to remove unfit, to hear the testimonies of the Church, and complaints of their Pastors, to compound controversies arising betwixt the Ministers and the Churches, to correct by Ecclesiastical censures, vices and corrupt manners; to prescribe orders for amendment of life, to excommunicate those which wilfully and obstinately resist, to receive into grace those which be penitent, to visit the whole Diocese, as well in places exempted, as not, every third year. And finally, let BB. take care of all things which ex Dei prescrpto by the ordinance of God belong to them, and which our Ecclesiastical laws have committed to their knowledge and judgements. 
* Tit. de Ecclesia, & ministris eius, eorumque officijs. Cap. 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.  And that by Seniors they did not mean any Ecclesiastical officers, it is apparent, for where they reckon up all Ecclesiastical officers, prescribing their duties, beginning at clerks or sextons, & so proceeding to Churchwardens, to Deacons, to Presbyters, or Ministers, to archpresbyters, or rural deans, to archdeacon's, & so to Cathedral Churches, to Deans, to Prebendaries, to BB. prescribing the obedience which must be yielded to them, they do not once mention Seniors, or their office. If therefore it be asked, whom they understand by Seniors in the place alleged, I answer, that they understand some of the principal householders in every parish, whom in some places they call Vestry-men, in some masters of the parish, in some ancients of the parish. With what conscience therefore that book was alleged as approving Lay-elders, or acknowledging the newfound, parish-discipline for the ancient discipline, let the reader judge.  
The second he setteth down in these words: A doctrine, I say, clean contrary to the professed judgement of all our worthy writers, who in their answers to the Papists, that plead for their Hierarchy, with the same reasons that M. D. doth for his, do determine, that the government our BB. exercise over other ministers, is jure humano, by the positive law of men only; the which if M. D. saith true, is false: & so the Papists are left unanswered. Whereunto I answer, first, that the popish opinion is far different from that which I hold. For they hold the order and superiority of BB. to be jure divino, implying thereby a perpetual necessity thereof. Insomuch that where BB: are not to ordain, they think there can be no ministers or priests, 
Pag. 90. fine.  & consequently no Church. I hold otherewise as the refuter himself elsewhere acknowledgeth, in whose words I will relate my opinion, as he hath set it down, that I make the calling of BB. 
¶  no further of divine institution, then as being ordained by the Apostles, it proceeded from God, without implying thereby any necessary perpetuity thereof. For which he quoteth pag. 92. of my Sermon. If therefore the Papists do bring the like arguments to prove their opinion which is so unlike to mine, nothing hindereth but my arguments may be good, though theirs be nought. For those arguments which demonstratively prove the Episcopal function to be of Apostolical institution, do not straightways prove it to be Divini juris. Wherefore my opinion being so different from the popish conceit, who seeth not that the judgement of our Divines which is opposed to the doctrine of the Papists, is not opposite to mine? for though they do not hold the Episcopal function to be enjoined divino iure, as perpetually necessary; yet what man of sound learning doth or can deny, but that the first BB. were ordained by the Apostles.  

Ad. Pag. 5.  The third he delivereth in these terms; Yea a doctrine contrariant, to the laws of our land, which make it one part of the King's jurisdiction, 
¶  to grant to our BB. that Ecclesiastical power, they now exercise over us; 

Sir Edw: Cook: de jure regis Ecclesiast. fol. 8.  
In his premonition before one of his last books.   and also to take it from them at his pleasure: the which his Highness taketh to himself, and giveth to all Kings, where he professeth, that God hath left it to the liberty and free-will of Princes, to alter the Church government at their pleasure. The jurisdiction which BB: exercise, is either spiritual, respecting the soul, as to bind or lose the souls of men; or corporal, respecting the outward man, as to bind and lose the bodies. The former is derived to them from the Apostles, the latter is committed unto them by the King, to whose crown all commanding and compulsive power is annexed. Again, we are to distinguish between the power itself, and the exercise of it. For although the power itself, which is an habitual or potential right to exercise that which belongeth to the said power, be derived to them from the Apostles as a divine ordinance; notwithstanding, where is a Christian Prince, assisting and directing them by his laws, they may not actually exercise their power, but, according to his laws Ecclesiastical. I call them his, because by whomsoever at the first they were decreed, yet so many as are in force with us, they are the King's Ecclesiastical law. As for the authority whereof the reverend judge speaketh in the place quoted in the margin, it is the authority of the high Commission, which the BB: exercise not as they are BB: (for others who be not BB: have the same,) but as they are the King's Commissioners in causes Ecclesiastical. As touching the other allegation; it seemeth the refuter whiles he talketh of liberty to alter at their pleasure, thinks it left to his liberty to alter the King's words at his pleasure. 
Prefat: ad Lectorem in edit: latin●  The King indeed doth say, that it is granted to every Christian King, Prince, and Commonwealth, to prescribe to their subjects that outward form of Ecclesiastical regiment, which may seem best to agree with the form of their civil government; but so, as they serve not at all from the grounds of faith and true religion. But that it may appear how little the judgement of our most Orthodoxal, and judicious King, doth differ from that which I delivered in my Sermon, I will crave leave to recite his words. 
In hīnitio● 44. De p●● Rom. c. 25.  That BB. ought to be in the Church, I ever maintained as an Apostolic institution, and so the ordinance of God, contrary to the Puritans, and likewise to Bellarmine, who denieth that BB. have their jurisdiction from God. Now then (to come to the point) this argument maketh wholly against the pretended discipline, and not against the government of Bishops as I maintain it. The government of Bishops is by our laws allowed; so is not the pretended discipline. And though I hold the government Episcopal to be of Apostolical and divine Institution, yet not as generally, perpetually, and immutably necessary. But the pretended discipline is held by the favourers of it, 
T. C. l● part. 2.73. H. sert. 4.  so to be enjoined by divine right, that it ought generally in all places, and perpetually in all ages, and also immutably to be observed, as being not changeable by man. And so far do they differ from the King's judgement, that whereas the King thinketh the Church may be framed to the Commonwealth, they say the government of the Commonwealth must be fashioned to the Church. 
T. C. l● 181. v● Whitg.  But to fashion the Church to the Commonwealth, is as much to say, as if a man should fashion his house according to his hangings. And thus much hath he gained by his third untruth.  
The fourth remaineth. 
jewel ● fence of pologie. D. Whit● 'gainst ●● Car tw.  Lastly, it is a doctrine contrarying the doctrine of the Church of England, professed even by the BB. themselves, till of late da●es, etc. therefore utterly false. To this Antecedent I give no credit, though for proof thereof he citeth B. jewel, and Archbishop Whitgift▪ at random. For the doctrine of our Church appeareth best by the Articles and confession of our Church. First therefore the book of consecrating BB. Priests, and Deacons (which is approved Article 36.) saith, 
In Prefa  It is evident unto all men diligently reading holy Scripture and Ancient Authors, that from the Apostles time there have been these orders of Ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests and Deacons.  

a Fol. 15. edit. 1552.  Of which orders it is afterwards said, that God by his holy spirit hath appointed them in his Church.  

b Fol. 16.  And again, the Bishop is required to correct and punish according to such authority as he hath by God's word, such as be unquiet, disobedient, and criminous within his Diocese.  

c Artic. 5.  Likewise the confession of the English Church collected out of the Apology thereof, written by Bishop jewel: We believe that there be diverse degrees of Ministers in the Church, whereof some be Deacons, some Priests, some Bishops, etc.  
And it is to be noted, that our Church acknowledgeth nothing as a matter of faith, which is not contained in God's word, or grounded thereon.  
Again, if it were true that the Bishops having better informed themselves concerning their functions, had reform their iugdements according to the holy Scriptures and other writings of Antiquity: would it follow that their latter thoughts, which commonly are the wiser, (according to the old saying, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, were false and worthy to be confuted?  
And lastly, if this be a true proposition, which in the refuters Enthymeme is understood, that what is repugnant to the doctrines formerly taught in the Church of England is evidently false, though it agree with the present doctrine thereof; how worthy then is the pretended discipline to be rejected, which is contrary to the perpetual doctrine of this Church, both former and latter: especially the discipline of the newest stamp, I mean the newfound parish discipline published by the challengers of disputation, Anno, 1606 & maintained by this refuter, which neither agreeth with our Church, nor as I suppose with any other reformed Church in the world?  
His second reason, whereby he would prove that the doctrine contained in my Sermon was needful to be confuted, is, because he saw it to be dangerous. And that he proveth by 2. reasons. The former, because howsoever he had said in the former reason, that it is evidently false, and so not dangerous; now he saith the doctrine is by me so handsomely and likely handled, that it is so far from being evidently false, 
Pr●●● his 〈◊〉  that every word I speak hath such an appearance and promise of truth, that, in imitation of Bishop jewel against Harding, he thinks he may fitly use Socrates his words against his accusers: or as I think more fitly, the words of Agrippa, to Paul (who had uttered no untruth,) that I had almost persuaded him to be of my mind. 
Act.  But more fitly may I allege the very next words of Socrates, 
Socr●●● log.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Among many things which my adversary hath objected against me falsely, I marvel much at this one, that he willeth the Readers take heed they be not deceived by me, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, as my adversaries words may expound it, one that can tell his tale so handsomely, and carry the matter so smoothly, likely, and confidently, that although he utter never a word of truth, yet every word he speaketh, hath an appearance and promise of truth. For both my Sermons and writings show, that I affect not the perswasorie words of human wisdom and eloquence, but the plain style of simple truth. And therefore am no more than Socrates himself in that regard to be suspected, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as he saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. unless my adversaries call him an eloquent man and powerful in speech who speaketh the truth.  
Secondly, he proveth my doctrine to be dangerous, 
Ad pa●●●  by an induction or particular enumeration of the hurts, which (as he imagineth) were like to come to the Church of God thereby, if it were not confuted.  
The Papists (saith he) would be much advantaged, seeing that Antichristian doctrine (even after the renewing and reviving of their ceremonies among us) so freely preached and published, tending to the upholding of their Hierarchy from the Pope to the Apparitor, as well as ours; his reasons being indeed the very same with theirs, as in the answer to them it shall appear.  
The advantage which ariseth to the Papists by this doctrine preached, and the ceremonies still retained among us, may through God's blessing be this. That when they see us not so newfangled as our Opposites, nor so carried with hatred to their persons, as to depart further from them, than they have departed from the primitive Church, but are content to observe the ancient government, and lawful Ceremonies used in the primitive Church, though retained by them, they may be induced to join with us in reforming the Church according to the doctrine and example of the ancient and primitive Church.  
And whereas he calleth our doctrine, defending the calling of BB: Antichristian, and the ceremonies used among us Popish, it is merely spoken out of faction, after the usual fashion of our Opposites, who call their own doctrine and pretended discipline, 
Pag. 8. & 9  though lately devised, Gods own cause, the Discipline of Christ, their pleading for it, a giving testimony to this part of the word of his grace: but ours, though truly Catholic and Apostolical, they term Antichristian, and in their late writings they call the Hierarchy of our church, Dagon, the tower of Babel, the triple headed Cerberus, the restoring of BB: the building up again the walls of jericho: myself, & other Ministers of the Gospel pleading for the government established, they compare to Achabs 400. prophets, and such as plead for Baal. Yea but our doctrine tendeth to the upholding of the Popish Hierarchy from the Pope to the Apparitor, as well as of ours▪ God forbid! In the Popish Clergy above BB. and Archbishops, the Pope and his consistory of Cardinals are set as governors of the universal Church, in whom the Popish Hierarchy so far forth as it is properly Antichristian, consisteth. For seeing it is proper to Christ alone to be the head and governor of the universal Church, he is said properly to be Antichrist, who taketh upon him to be head and governor of the whole Church. And their government is justly called Antichristian who are his assistants in this universal government. As for the governors of Provincial and Diocesan Churches, that is to say, Archbishops and Bishops, in the Church of Rome, they are not Antichristian in respect of the large extent of their jurisdiction, but in regard of their subordination to the Pope, and dependence from him, as being members of that body whereof they acknowledge him to be the head. And therefore are no more Antichristian than their parish Priests. And as well might the refuter call the Persons or Pastors of parishes among us, Antichristian, because the Popish parish-Priests are Antichristian, as our BB. Antichristian, because the Popish BB. are such. Neither is the function of Bishops, more or yet so much to be ascribed to the institution of the B. of Rome, as that of parish Ministers. For Bishops, as we shall show, were ordained by the Apostles, and set over Dioceses, but the parishes were first distinguished in the western Churches, and Presbyters peculiarly assigned to them by the ancient Bishops of Rome, whose example other Churches did imitate, as diverse Author's report.  
Again, under the Deacons the Papists reckon five other orders which they esteem so many Sacraments: whereas we, with the primitive Church, and in the same sense with it, do reckon only 3. orders or degrees of Ministers or Clergy men, Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons. It is strange therefore that the doctrine of my Sermon concerning Bishops alone, should uphold the Popish Hierarchy from the highest to the lowest, or as they use to speak, from the Pope to the Apparitor, as well as our own. This therefore was a shameless untruth.  
Besides, howsoever the same three orders or degrees in name are still retained in the Church of Rome, as well as in ours, yet with great difference. For their Priests be Sacerdotes, sacrificing Priests, ordained to offer a proper, external, real sacrifice. Ours, are not Sacerdotes, that is Sacrificing Priests, but (as the Scriptures and ancient writers call them) Presbyters, that is, Priests or Ministers, ordained to preach the word, and administer the Sacraments. Their Bishops are subordinate to the Pope, and have their jurisdiction as they teach from him as the Vicar of Christ, succeeding Peter, not as he was an Apostle, 
Bellarm. de Rom. pontiff. l. 4. c. 24. & 25.  as all other Bishops succeed other Apostles; but as the head and chief governor of the whole Church, from whom, as the head and fountain of all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of other Bishops is derived and doth depend. Our Bishops are not subordinate to the Pope, neither have any dependence or derivation of their jurisdiction from him, but from God, partly as it is spiritual by the ordinance of the Apostles, who ordained the first Bishops, leaving them as their substitutes or successors in the government of the several Churches, and partly as it is corporal, or coactive, by the King's Ecclesiastical laws, furnishing them with plenary power to inquire after disorders in the estate Ecclesiastical, 
Statut. An. Eliz. 1.  all manner errors, Heresies, schisms, abuses, offences, and enormities, and to punish them. Which differences being considered between us and the Papists, it were more than a wonder, if the very same reasons which are brought to prove the Apostolical government of our Church, should also serve to prove their Antichristian Hierarchy. 
In Bruto.  But as the young man that Crassus speaks of in Tully, having found in the strand a small piece of a Galley, would straightway build a ship thereof: so out of one small agreement with the Roman Church concerning the superiority of Bishops over Prebyters, wherein they retain the doctrine of the primitive Church, he would build a total consent and conformity to their Antichristian government.  
Thus we have heard what advantage the Papists have by my Sermon. Now let us see what harm was like to redound to others thereby. Others saith he would be much scandalised; those that were in love with their own ease would easily crouch down like Isachars' ass, 
¶  &c: as for others, it would remoras obijcere ardentiorib. Cast blocks in their ways that ran well, or retardare zelum, make them slack their pace: at lest Sanctorum spiritus inquietare, disquiet the minds of all the Saints, to see a Sermon of that consequence, preached & published, by a man of that name & note in the Church. That is to say, if I understand him aright: the Sermon if it might be let alone, were not unlike to have these effects in those that are accounted the forwarder sort. First, they that were more moderate than others, & desired the peace of the Church, having yet some scruples in their minds, and somewhat doubting of the lawfulness of our Church government, were like enough to have their doubts satisfied, and their consciences settled. Others that were more ardent, whose zeal overran their knowledge, censuring and condemning they knew not what, would be brought to suspend their judgement, or at least to moderate their zeal: others who are factious and of the divided brotherhood, whom he calleth all the Saints, would be grieved at the heart, to see such likelihood of peace and union (which is so contrary to their humour) to be established in the Church.  
But as he had a strong opinion that my Sermon was needful to be refuted, so had he as strong a 
a Ad. p 〈…〉  desire it might be answered after some fashion, that the Schism or rent which is in our Church, being so beneficial as it is to some might not be healed, but that people might be retained in the former terms of a factious and Schismatical alienation from the state of our Church, and the governors thereof. Which his desire was much inflamed, when he understood that this work having been undertaken and committed to the press, the answer and press were taken, the Printer and concealer of the Author imprisoned. For then (good man) his soul was cast down within him to see a truth so profitable and necessary (as is the doctrine of their pretended discipline, having no ground neither in the Scripture nor antiquity, obtruded as the ordinance of Christ, & the only lawful form of Church government) 
b The 〈…〉 is to vn●●●●stand, th● former ●●●swere 〈◊〉 not sup●●●●sed, and 〈…〉 this re●●●● (if he 〈◊〉 the sam●●●●thor) 〈…〉 gotten ●●●py then hath w●●●some c●●●●ons and ●●●tions pu●●●●shed the 〈…〉 again, 〈◊〉 almost 〈◊〉 thing to abortiue●●● (as may 〈◊〉 gathere● those fe●●● sheets th●●● were pr●●● but an in●●● on of ga●●● bitterness  suppressed.  
Being therefore thus possessed with so strong an opinion, and transported with so earnest and unquiet desires, he grew unto his most valiant resolution. Which in effect, though he gild it over with glorious words, was nothing else but this, to publish and disperse a malicious diffamatory libel, and having so done, after the manner of other malefactors, to hide his head.  
You have heard the weighty causes moving him to undertake this business, and his valiant resolution to undertake it: now he will acquaint you with his manner of performance, which in general he 
c Ad pag. 8.  confesseth to have been done in much weakness and many wants, neither do I deny it. But he might to his oversight, proceeding from ignorance & weakness, have added his wilful falsifications & depravations, his forged calumniations, his Sophistical shifts and evasions to elude the light of truth convicting his conscience. But though he would seem to acknowledge much weakness and many wants, 
¶  it was but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, out of an affected modesty, for his conceit is which he shameth not to utter, that he hath brought evidence sufficient (I warrant you) to make it manifest (he doubteth not of it) that the doctrine in my Sermon is nothing less than true, 
¶  profitable, and necessary: that my Preface is full of witty calumniations to make them and their cause odious, and that my Sermon notwithstanding my great boasting, hath in it no one sound syllable of argument to prove my cause, and disprove theirs. What evidence he bringeth I shall not need here to relate, this defence of my Sermon will make it manifest. That I used either calumniations to make them and their cause odious, or any great boasting, which he talketh of, I utterly deny. Who it is that useth either calumniations, the examination of his book will bewray, or boasting, the very forefront of his book, this present place, and many others besides do testify. But I much disdain that he should say that there was not a syllable of any sound proof in my Sermon, 
¶  as before he had said, that in my sermon, I uttered scarce any one word of truth. 
¶  The proofs which I have used are such (I take God to witness) as satisfy mine own conscience. And I trust I may, without any great boasting, assume unto myself as good skill to judge of an argument, as this refuter, or some others of his side. Of his blasphemy against the truth which I delivered, I pray God give him grace to repent. And what was it that he hath thus censured? A Sermon uttered in the presence of God, in the room of Christ, before a most honourable auditory, by a Minister of the Gospel, shall I say as sound and faithful as himself, no I disdain the comparison (for by his fruits in his book whereby alone I can judge of him, he hath to my seeming plainly bewrayed an unsound judgement, an evil conscience, and an unsanctified heart) I trust I may say, by a Minister of the Gospel as sound and orthodoxal as his betters, as conscionable in all Sermons & writings, and as careful to deliver nothing but the truth of God. Me thinks he should rather have trembled to think of confuting a Sermon of such a one, as he (judging according to the judgement of charity) cannot deny to be a faithful Minister and Orthodoxal divine, then have dared thus to censure it, as having scarce one word of truth, and not one syllable of a sound proof. Is this the reverent estimation that you would work in the people's minds of the word preached, or must they think that none make conscience of preaching the truth, but yourselves? But if it shall appear to any indifferent and judicious Reader, comparing this my defence with his refutation of my Sermon, that he hath not been able to disprove any one of my proofs, nor to convince me of any one untruth throughout the whole body of my Sermon, as in my conscience I am persuaded he hath not; then do those two censures of his, the one, that thereiss scarce a true word, the other, that there is not one syllable of a sound proof in all the Sermon, contain so many untruths, as there are sentences or proofs in the whole Sermon.  
More particularly he telleth you, 
Ad pag. 9  both what he did not, and what he hath done. He hath made no large discourses to teach over anew the discipline of Christ (so he doubteth not to call their own devices) only he hath said, what the Author of the abortive book, and himself with their Coadjutors were able to say, either for it, or against the government by Bishops. The thing which he hath done, is that he hath fulfilled my desire, in applying distinctly his answers to my arguments.  
But my desire was not, that he should baulk those which he could not answer, or deprave and weak on those which he did, by fitting them to his own strength. Neither desired I alone that their answers might be applied to every argument in order, but also that their proofs might be produced. But forasmuch as he had none such as I told them theirs had need to be, that is to say, very pregnant and demonstrative, whereby they might hope to persuade both the abolishing of that form of government which even from the Apostles times hath been perpetually observed in the Church, and setting up of another which was never heard of till now of late, therefore in the chief points of controversy he hath been (for prooe need) very sparing to use any other proof besides the testimonies of new Divines, who are incompetent witnesses in a question of story concerning things done or not done, 14. or 1500. years before their time, themselves also for the most part being parties in the cause.  
Now follow his directions to the Reader. And first, that he should weigh my arguments with his answers, 
¶  and compare the one with the other, believing neither further than evidence truly produced leadeth him: the which direction I earnestly desire the Reader in the fear of God to follow, & not to regard his calumniation, whereby he seeketh to work in him, a prejudicate opinion against me, most falsely charging me that as another Pythagoras, I seek to be believed upon mine own word without authority, and good reason. For whether of us seeketh more to be believed without proofs, I dare appeal to his judgement, when he hath perused what is alleged on both sides. Howbeit I must needs say, he giveth the Reader a good proof in this place of his dexterity in alleging testimonies, 
jerom. Epist. 152. fame nemo credit, nisi inconsideratus. Tertull Apolog. c. 8.  when to prove that in disputation, credit is not to be given to him that speaketh without good proof, he citeth Jerome and Tertullian, dissuading men from giving credit to fame an uncertain rumours.  
His second direction is unreasonable, 
(a) Ad. pag. 10.  and the reasons thereof such as both contradict what he said even now, and are contradicted by that which he affirmeth afterwards. If thou findest (saith he) no sufficiency in his reasons to enforce thee to acknowledge his doctrine for true, justly think with thyself, it is not else where to be had.  
This is an unreasonable motion, that the weight of the whole cause should lie upon one short Sermon, uttered by so mean a man as myself. What reasons can he bring to persuade the Reader to accept this motion? forsooth, all men know me to be a Scholar. Not unlike, for so have I been ever since I was five years old. But what manner of Scholar, our Refuter will tell you in the very beginning of the confutation of my Sermon, such a one as in this Sermon do show myself to be little worth, 
¶  yea miserable poor indeed. His other reason is, that I having professed that I had read the chief treatises on both sides, 
¶  the Reader may be sure that in my Sermon is the pith and substance of all, 
¶  that all of us can say, either for ourselves, or against them. But how can this be, seeing he chargeth me to speak without proof, and that there is not one sound syllable of proof in all the Sermon, and that I seek to be credited upon my bare word, like an other Pythagoras, without authority or good reason? Neither is it possible, that all, which all of us can say, can be comprised in so short a Sermon. Wherefore if the Reader be not satisfied with that which I have written, let him have recourse to the writings of men more learned and judicious, who are able to give him better satisfaction. Howbeit, this offer I will make him, that if in my Sermon, and this defence thereof, there be not better evidence for the Episcopal government, then is to be found for the pretended discipline, I say not in the refuters book, but in all the writings of the Disciplinarians, I will be well content that he shall credit me in nothing.  
There remaineth his Epilogue, consisting, partly of prayer unto God, 
¶  that he would open our eyes to see his truth, and sanctify our hearts unto the love of it, and that he would grant us his peace; 
¶  and partly of praise and thanksgiving, in the last words. Whereunto, as I most willingly subscribe and say Amen, 
Psal. 17.1.  so am I to give this warning, that we pray not with feigned lips, ask that with our mouths, which neither we desire in our hearts, nor seek in our lives. For it will not suffice us in that day of the Lord, that we have desired him either to open our eyes to see the truth, if we do shut our eyes against it; or to sanctify our hearts unto the love of it, if when our consciences be convicted with the evidence of truth, we cease not to oppugn it; or to sue for peace, when we be so far from ensuing it, that when our brethren either speak unto us of peace, we make ourselves ready to battle, or seek to heal the rupture and Schism which is in our Church, we Sch●matically and factiously endeavour to make it worse.  
And thus have I answered his preface. As for his answer to mine, being a mere libel consisting of notorious cavillations, malicious calumniations, and personal invectives: forasmuch as there is not any material thing in it, which is not fully answered in the defence of my Sermon, I will not vouchsafe a reply unto it; the rather, because my defence of the Sermon itself being grown to a greater volume then at the first I intended, I should greatly wrong both the Reader and myself, if I should hold him, or trouble myself with personal discourses, which, if I should follow the refuters vein, would require a new volume. In making whereof, I would be loath to be employed, seeing personal quarrels breed endless & fruitless contentions, & being the chief blemish of all books of controversy, aught in handling of controversies wholly to be forborn. Besides, I do consider, that he being in the dark, and myself in the light, it would be a very unequal combat, for me to contend with him in this kind. Whereinto also though I did know his person, as indeed I do not, I should be loath to descend: seeing thereby we should but present a pleasant spectacle to the common adversary, who would take no small delight in beholding us casting mire and dirt to besmere one another, to the disgrace of our common faith.  
But if any shall object, that it is a great disgrace and disparagement unto me, to pass over in silence such reproaches as in the answer to my preface and confutation of my Sermon he hath cast upon me: he shall say nothing, but what mine own corruption hath already objected. Whereunto I answer, that it behoveth me to commit to the press, and by it to commend, not only to the generation present, but also to the posterity; not what my adversary deserveth to hear, but what becometh me to write: that our Saviour Christ, by his own example and precept, hath taught us, when we are reviled, not to revile again: that in this kind of contention it is better to be vanquished, then to overcome: that the testimony of mine own conscience, & of all that best know me, willbe a sufficient defence against flanders: that it is a happy thing to be evil spoken of for well doing. For my conscience is clearly and undoubtedly resolved, that I defend the truth; and it beareth me witness, that the end which I propounded to myself in publishing that Sermon, was the peace of the Church; which I hoped to procure by giving satisfaction to those that were of a contrary judgement. Neither do I doubt, but my endeavour in this kind (though ungrateful to some whose good I intended) is acceptable to God and to his Church.  
Wherefore in steed of answering that which is past, I will advise them for the time to come, that if they would be esteemed men of sincerity, who seek to keep their consciences clear, both towards God & men; they would, when they publish any book, (especially such as they dare not set their names unto,) have especial regard, that they seek not to defame or disgrace any man's person; lest they make themselves guilty of that most base and odious crime of libeling, which is so much worse in print then in writing, as the press is more fit to divulge then the pen: lest they subject themselves to the fearful curse of God, 
Deut. 2  for smiting their neighbour secretly; least by their bitterness and railing which are fruits of the flesh, they bewray themselves not to be led by the spirit of Christ, 
Psal. 15  nor to be in the number of them which shallbe saved. 
1. Cor. 6.  For howsoever they may persuade themselves (as some of them have professed in print) that in these secret practices both the Author and Printer are like jeremy and Baruch hidden of God, 
jer. 36. ●.  yet they discover themselves, to be such hiders of themselves, 
Psal. 64.  as the Psalmist complaineth of, that having bend their tongue, or that which is worse, their pen or press as a bow of slander, they shoot in steed of arrows bitter words, shooting at the upright in secret and fear not. Besides, they do expose themselves to this inconvenience, that whereas those, who shall vouchsafe them answer, would if they knew them, respect them according to the measure of God's graces, which they should acknowledge in them: by these libeling courses, they draw upon themselves such answers, as are fit to be returned upon libelers. Truly for my part, if I had known the person of the refuter, and could (in the judgement of charity) have acknowledged him to be a man of a good spirit, I would have answered him sometimes with better respect. But seeing I know him no otherwise but by his fruits, as he is the Author of this work, wherein he hath showed himself to be, in points material, a very cavilling Sophister; and in matters personal, a malicious libeler: let him take such answers as do not like him, not as directed to his person, which I know not, but to the person or vizard under which he masketh of a wrangling Sophister, and a spiteful libeler, to whom the sharpest answers which I have made, are but too mild.   

THE FIRST BOOK, TREATING CHIEFLY of Lay-Elders.  

CHAP. I. Answering the Refuters' Preamble.  
THE refuter, 
Ad pag. ●  before he would encounter the Sermon itself, thought good to spend some of his spleen upon the Author of the Sermon, the matter, and the text: proudly insulting over the Author; scornfully gibing at the matter, and captiously carping at the choice of the text. 
His insul●● over the ●●thor of th●● Sermon.  His insultation is joined with scorn, and with slander, therein behaving himself like another insulting Goliath, gibing Tobiah, slandering Sanballat. He insulteth I say, Goliah-like, despising the Author of the Sermon (coming against him in simple manner, like David, with 
(1) The points in 〈◊〉 Sermon, m●●● and plain●● handled.  five smooth stones taken out of the fountain of God's word, & streams of antiquity) as not able to stand in his hands, being as he saith, little worth, yea miserable poor indeed. He scoffeth Tobiah-like 
(2) Neh●● 4.3.  at my building as ruinous and tottering, so ready to type and fall, as if belike but one of the foxes 
(3) Cant● 15. The foxe● heretics schi● ma●l●●.  that trouble the vine do come upon it, the goodly mansion built for our reverend Bishops, as a tower of defence for their Lordships to rest in, (which proud and disdainful scoff he repeateth again pag. 8.) will fall to the ground.  
For answer whereof, I desire the Reader to compare the latter end of his preface, with this beginning of his confutation. For there, bearing the Reader in hand, that he hath sufficiently confuted my Sermon; he useth my praise as a step to raise himself, and to advantage his cause, giving me greater commendation, then either I do desire, or deserve: but here, beginning his confutation, he would persuade the Reader he shall easily perform it; his adversary being little worth, yea miserable poor● indeed, his building ruinous and tottering ready to type and fall. Which imputations, if they be not true, prove him to be a liar; if true, a worthless and witless fellow; worthless, who passing by all the worthies of our side, and their most accurate and learned treatises, 
Answ. to the 〈◊〉 pag. 15.  as himself termeth them; maketh choice, either of such an adversary to contend with, as is little worth, yea miserable poor indeed, or of such a building to assail, as is ruinous and tottering, ready of itself to type and fall. Witless, in making choice of such an adversary, in vanquishing of whom, being so weak and miserable poor, as he can gain no credit to himself or his cause; so can he bring no great disadvantage to the adverse party. The fault being in all reason to be ascribed to the weakness of the Champion, not to the badness of the cause. But if so weak and worthless a defendant, did in a Sermon provided in 9 or 10. days at the most, so foret●fie the cause of the Bishops, that the greatest worthies of the adversary party assailing it withal their force, have not been able in twice so many months to make the least breach therein, then must it be confessed, that howsoever his adversary may be inferior to him in other things, yet he is superior in the cause.  

1. King. 20.11.  But soft● let not him that putteth on his armour boast as he that puts it off. When I consider the weakness of your strength, and badness of your cause, I wonder at your confidence. You might do well to follow the counsel of ●rch●damus to his foolhardy son, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, either add to your strength, or abate from your confidence.  
And whereas Sanballat-like he saith, I make great boast in my Sermon of much riches, etc. I answer with Nehemiah, 
Ne●  it is not done according to these words, there is no such matter in my Sermon, but it is a fiction of your own heart. Such vaunting suiteth better with my adversary, who, as in the forefront of his book, most arrogantly applieth the words of wisdom and truth to these his own writings, 
Pro  which for the most part are either false or frivolous; Give care saith he, for I will speak of excellent things, and the opening of my lips shall teach things that be right: for my mouth shall speak the truth, and my lips abhor wickedness: so now in the very entrance he playeth Pyrgopolinices himself, 
Pl●● glori●● tu le●● design spiri●● si ver●● soli●●  taking on, as if with a little paper-shotte he could overthrow all my building, and blow poor me away as it were with a breath.  
Sect. 2. The matter also he scoffeth at, applying unto it the speech of one of the sons of the Prophets (whom he calleth 
(a) H●●● at the ●●● of the●●● 2. Ki●●●  a poor labourer, to make him, as it seemeth the liker to me) saying of his axe when the head fell into the water, Alas Master, it is but borrowed. Neither doubteth he with what forehead I know not (for he goeth under a vizard) to affirm, that my whole building from the foundation to the roof, is but old stuff taken out of D. bilson's book of the perpetual government of the Church. Which base calumniation framed (as it may seem) according to his own practice, he doth odiously repeat ad nauseam usque, even so often harping on this string, as I have occasion to handle, (though never so differently,) the same points with that most learned and reverend divine. To which objection I answer, that if it were true, it would prove the refuter to be but a childish, and yet an odious wrangler. Childish, for it is the fashion of wrangling boys in their Sophemes and disputations, when they cannot tell how to answer an argument, to tell the opponent, he had it in such a book. And it is the part of an odious wrangler to seek the disgrace of my person, by that which doth no whit advantage his cause. For what advantage is this to his cause, to object, that my proofs are the same with D. bilson's; seeing his proofs be such, as never were, and never willbe answered. But if the objection be false, as every man that compareth the treatises may easily discern; then, besides the testimony of odious wrangling, he shall gain to himself the commendation of a slanderous libeler. For, besides my consent in judgement with that most reverend learned man, which I most willingly and gladly professse, there is not any thing almost besides concurrence in diverse allegations, which should breed any just occasion of this surmile. And as for them, I do profess, that the most of them are of mine own reading, and those, which before I had either not read, or not observed, I did not content myself to allege them as it were at the second hand; but to examine the allegations, and to cite them out of the Authors themselves. So that, although the liquor many times is the same, yet I drew it at the fountain, and not at the stream; remembering who saith, Tardi est ingenij riwlos consectari, 
Cic. de orat.  fontes non videre. Which course, better Scholars than my adversary, would allow, especially to one that had no more time than I had, both to provide what to speak, and to speak what I had provided.  
And forasmuch as in many places of his book, he maketh references to D. bilson's book, to show, that what I deliver, was taken thence: I entreat the Reader once for all to compare the places. For thereby he shall see this caviller to have played the Rat, both in discovering his own falsehood, 
Suo judicio tanquam sore● etc.  and in betraying his cause. For as touching the former; I do unfeignedly profess, that I am not conscious to myself, either in that Sermon, or any other writing that I have published, to have taken any one line, from any, without citing the Author. His cause also shallbe notably disadvantaged, because those things which I did perhaps briefly, and as it were, in haste set down; the Reader shall sometimes in the book (whereunto he is referred) read the same points fully & accurately handled, to his great satisfaction, and good contentment.  
And whereas he objecteth, that my house is built of old stuff, etc. Let him know, that in these kinds of buildings, the oldness of the stuff is a great commendation. For that, which is the oldest, is the truest. And that which hath been of greatest antiquity, for the time past, will also be of the longest continuance for the time to come. As for those buildings which our new Church writes have lately set up speck and span new, 
1. C●●  building Churchframes as it were of wood covered over with straw, which will not abide the fire, I verily think they will not continue until they be old.  
His third quarrel is against the choice of the text, 
Ad 〈◊〉 His 〈◊〉 at the 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉 Abo●●  as it were the plot of ground whereon to set my building. The which because it is allegorical, is compared to a marish ground, where though I dig deep, and do what I can, I shall hardly find fast ground whereon to lay my foundation. The which quarrel doth please him so well, that he repeateth it again, pag. 3. But without cause. For seeing the exposition of the allegory is not doubtful, but is confessed on both sides, that as by the 7. stars, are meant the 7. Angels, so by the Angels the Bishops of the Churches: who seeth not, that this assertion, that the calling of Bishops is lawful & good, is built on the foundation of the Apostle john, as it were upon a Rock. For although some object, that by the Angels are meant, either all Ministers in general, as the new sect of disciplinarians doth, 
Bez. i●●● 2.  or the precedents of the Presbyteries, as the Elder and more learned disciplinarians do, who do not stand for the newfound parish-discipline; yet I do prove both by the text itself, and by other evidence, that the calling of Diocesan BB. is in this text commended unto us under this title of the Angels of the Churches. But hereof more in my answer to the third pag.   

CHAP. II. Dividing the Sermon, and defending the first part thereof which he calleth the Preface.  
Having thus quarreled with the Author, the matter and subject of he Sermon, he setteth upon the 
(a) The division of the Sermon, with the sum of the Preface thereof.  Sermon itself. Which in the abortive book, was dismembered into six parts, and yet one main part left out. In this afterbirth, into 3; viz, the Preface, the body of the Sermon, and the conclusion. The Preface, he saith, is concerning the text, and the five points I undertake to handle; and that again he mangleth into 4. sections.  
But if my adversaries were as good in dividing, as they are in making division; or so skilful in analysing logically, as they are captious in comptrolling that which hath been logically composed; they would, either have followed the ordinary division of orations, 
Arist. Rhet. 3. 1●.  saying, that the Sermon consisted of 4 parts, which are, 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the proem, (to pag. 2. lin. 3.) 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the proposition or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein the points to be handled are first deduced out of the text, to pag. 6. l. 16.) and secondly enumerated and distinctly marshaled (pag. 6 & 7.) 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the confirmation proving and defending those five points, (from pag. 8. to 94.) 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the conclusion containing the application, (pag. 94. to the end:) Or, if this division had not liked them, they might out of the transition pag. 94. have observed a distribution of my Sermon into 2. parts; viz. the explication, continuing to that place, and the application from thence to the end.  
The explication containeth 2. assertions: the first, that the pastors or governors of the primitive Churches (here meant by the Angels,) were Diocesan Bishops, & such (for the substance of their calling) as ours be. The second, that the function of Diocesan BB. is lawful and good. Of these two assertions, the former, is an explication of the text; the latter, a doctrine collected out of the text so explained. These assertions are, for the handling of the text, first propounded to be discussed, in that which he calleth the Preface, and afterwards proved, in that which he calleth the body of my book. The former, as I said, may be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the proposition; the latter, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the confirmation. Now for the trial of the first, viz. wheth●er by the Angels of the Churches we are to understand Diocesan BB. or not, these two points are propounded to be examined; first, what manner of Churches they were whereof they were Bishops, whether parishes only, (as our new disciplinarians say,) or dioceses, as we and the elder disciplinarians hold: and consequently, whether themselves were parishional, or diocesan BB. 2. what manner of pre-eminence they had in their Churches, in respect whereof they be called the Angels of the Churches, whether only a priority in order above other Ministers, and that but for a short time and by course; or a superiority in degree, and majority of rule for term of life. And this is the sum of that which he calleth the Preface. Now I come to his sections, and his quarrels against the same.  Serm. Sect. 1. pag. 1. Our Lord and Saviuor Christ, having appeared to S. john, in a glorious form, etc. to heaven at the mids of pag. 3. 
In these words two questions (which be determined in the 2. assertions, 
Sect. 2. Concerning the 2. 〈◊〉 propounded: and who are meant by 〈◊〉 gels.  even now mentioned) are propounded. The former, what manner of persons are meant by the Angels of the Churches. And why this question was to be discussed, I alleged, as he saith, 2. reasons. The first, because when the holy Ghost expoundeth the stars by Angels, this interpretation itself is allegorical, and therefore needeth some exposition.  
The second reason is propounded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 preventing a secret objection against the former reason, which might be this: though the interpretation be allegorical, yet the exposition of the allegory is agreed upon, to wit, that by the Angels are meant the Bishops of those Churches, and therefore further explication needeth not: to this I answer in a discretive sentence, granting the antecedent, but denying the consequence, that, although it be agreed upon, that the Angels are the Bishops of the Churches; yet, in these times it is become a great controversy, and needful to be decided, what manner of Bishops they were, which in former ages was not wont to be called into question.  

A● pag. 3.  Against the former reason, the resuter first objecteth 2. things: the one, that it maketh against myself; the other, that it is: 〈…〉 and 〈◊〉 he telleth me how I might have bestowed 〈…〉 maketh against me, he proveth thus 〈…〉 faith he is allegorical, therefore it was 〈…〉 etc. Whereunto I have answered, that the meaning of the allegory is on both sides agreed upon, and that our adversaries themselves confess, that the Angels were the Bishops of the Churches: and therefore, by their own confession, the text was as fitly chosen, as if it had been said, the 7. stars are the Bishops of the 7. Churches. Yea but, saith he, though it be granted that the Angels be the Bishops, yet not such Bishops as you speak of. Then the unfitness of the text (be like) is not because it is allegorical, but because in his conceit it is impertinent. Which his conceit proveth the exposition of this text to be needful, as I showed in the second reason.  
Yea, but hereby, saith he, the first reason appeareth to be superfluous. It followeth not. Of the same thing there are many times given two expositions, a shorter called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a larger called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of both there was need in this place. The necessity of the former ariseth from the allegory, which I briefly expound according to the received interpretation, viz. that the Angels signify the Bishops of the Churches. The necessity of the latter, ariseth from the controversy, 
Sect. 3.  which some have raised in these times, etc.  
After he hath showed that my first reason might well have been spared, he telleth me, that I 
Whether the Angels were 7  might have spent my pains better in opening a doubt, which either I did not, or would not see. And what is that I pray you? For it is great pity, I had not your help. If I would needs have these Angels to be Diocesan Bishops, I should have given some reason, why the number of them is not limited, as well as of the Churches, to seven & no more. And from hence reasoneth thus.  
If the holy Ghost by Angels had meant Diocesan Bishops (whereof there is but one in a Church) then would heehave limited them, as well as the Churches, to the number of seven:  
But he hath not limited them to seven:  
Therefore by Angels he meaneth not Diocesan BB.  
The assumption he proveth, because if the holy Ghost had intended to signify no more but 7. Angels, he would have said, the 7. stars are the 7. Angels of the 7. Churches. And having so doughtily proved that the number of the Angels is not limited, from thence (as if he had made all Cocksure) he inferreth 2. things: 1. that the holy Ghost, in not limiting the number, would have us to understand, there were more Angels or Bishops then 7. in these Churches: 2. that where every Epistle is directed to the Angel of each Church as to one, we are not literally to understand one, but by a synecdoche more than one. Which light as he calleth it, standing at the entry door, if I had had his eyes to have discerned, I should no doubt have seen an high point in a low house.  
But were not I pray you the Angels or BB. to whom S. john writeth, just seven? help me, I beseech you, to remove this veil, which hideth the light, you speak of from me. 
The stars which Christ h●ld in his hand were just seven, or limited to the number of 7. Apoc. 1.16, 20. & 2.1.  
The Angels of the 7. Churches were the stars which Christ held in his hand. Apoc. 1.20.  
Therefore the Angels of the 7. Churches were just 7. or limited to the number of 7,  Again, of 7. monads or unities, such as be 7. singular persons; the number is just 7.  The Angels were 7. Monads or Unities, as being 7. singular persons; therefore of the Angels the number is just 7. 
That the Angels were 7. singular persons, it appeareth by the inscriptions of the 7. Epistles written unto them, viz: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Angel of the Church at Ephesus: to the Angel of the Church at Smyrna, etc.: where, whosoever is able to count 20. may easily find just 7. I will recite them, and let the refuter keep the tale. The Angel of the Church at Ephesus; 1. the Angel of the Church of Smyr●a; 2: the Angel of the Church at Pergamus; 3: the Angel of the Church at Thyatira; 4. the Angel of the Church at Sardes; 5: the Angel of the Church at Phyladelphia; 6. the Angel of the church of Laodicea; 7: seven Angels, neither more nor less.  
Moreover, to whom the 7. Epistles were written, they were just 7: for they were written singulae singulis; the first to the first, the second to the second, etc. To the Angels of the 7. Churches, the 7. Epistles were written: Therefore the Angels of the 7. Churches, were just 7. The same is testified by Arethas, unto these 7. Churches, blessed john (saith he) reckoneth, 
In Apoc. 1.11.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: overseeing or superintendant Angels, just of the same number: and by Ambrose, we must understand the 7. Angels, to be the governors of the 7. Churches; 
Ambros. in Apoc. 1.  and afterwards he calleth them the 7. rulers of the 7. Churc●●s.  
Yea, but the holy Ghost if he had limited their number to 7. would have said that the 7. Stars are the 7. Angels of the 7. Churches.  
Whereto I answer, that he hath more plainly limited the number, then if he had said so. For if he had said, they are the 7. Angels of the 7. Churches, such a captious Sophister as my adversary, would have expounded septem, 7. by septeni, seven a piece, and so have multiplied them by 7. as if there had been according to the number of the supposed Deacons at jerusalem, 7. in every Church. But when he saith, the 7. stars are the Angels of the 7. Churches: he plainly signifieth, that there were just so many of them, as of the Churches: that is to say seven.  
Seeing therefore the number of the Angels is limited to seven, it is not material what the refuter inferreth from the not limitation of them.  
And whereas he saith, that by the Angel in each inscription we are to understand more than one: I would know of him, first, what reason he hath to forsake the grammatical sense? And where the holy Ghost speaketh but as of one, how he dare without good reason expound him as speaking of more than one? Secondly, whether in one particular congregation there were more Pastors than one? Thirdly, whether himself did not teach, pag. 2. that the Angels signify such BB. or Ministers, as were Pastors only of particular congregations: 4. whether in Ephesus there were more particular congregations, seeing in Ephesus as himself saith, pag. 3. there were more angels. For one that had his faculty in syllogizing, might appose him with these Syllogisms.  
1. The Pastor or Bishop of a particular congregation is but one, and he, as the new discipline teacheth, the supreme Ecclesiastical officer in every Church.  
Each Angel of the Churches, saith the refuter, did signify a Pastor or Bishop of a particular congregation: Therefore each Angel did signify but one.  
2. Where were many Angels, were many Pastors of particular congregations, and where were many Pastors of particular congregations, there were more particular congregations then one.  
But at Ephesus, saith my adversary, were many Angels, and so many Pastors.  
Therefore at Ephesus, there were more particular congregations then one.  
Which two conclusions, are directly contradictory to his other assertions, both here, & else where in his book.  
Sect. 4. Having thus manifestly proved, 
BB. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called the ●●gels of the●●● Churches.  that the Angels of the seven Churches were just seven; and consequently, that there was one, and but one, in every Church, whom the holy Ghost calleth the Angel of that Church: it will be easy, both to free my Text from the cavil, which more than once my adversary objecteth against it; as also, out of the text, to clear the main controversy, which is in hand. For, whereas he objecteth that all Ministers are Angels, Pag. 2. & 4 and 6. as I myself teach in the Sermon of the duty and dignity of Ministers: And therefore, that nothing can be gathered from this Text, which is not common to all Ministers: for that the Angels are Bishops (saith he) who denieth? but withal, who knoweth not that so are all Ministers? I answer, that all Ministers, who have charge of souls, are in a general sense called Angels, Pastors, Bishops, because they are messengers sent from God, to feed & to oversee his flock. But yet, where there are many ministers, who are in general called Angels, Pastors, Bishops; if there be one, and but one, who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is called the Angel, the Pastor, the Bishop of that Church, he is plainly noted to have a singular pre-eminence above the rest. Whereof see more in my answer to pag. 6. 
Infr. S. 12.  And this is so plain a case, that even Beza himself (though a chief patron of the pretended discipline, and one that showeth himself as loath as may be, 
in Apoc: 2.  that the Episcopal degree should be hence proved; confesseth, that by the Angel of the Church at Ephesus (& so of the rest) we are to understand, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, him that was the Prelate, or Precedent of the Presbytery; for so elsewhere he confesseth, that justin Martyr calleth him, 
In Philip: 1.  whom others call the Bishop, And although he would have us think, that this office of Presidentship was not perpetual, but for a short time, and that by course: yet he would have us also note out of 1. Tim: 5.19. where Timothy is willed, 
Notandum in hoc loco Timotheum in Ephesino Presbyterio, tum fuisse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Antistitem, ut vocat justinus. Bez: in Tim. 5: 19  not to receive an accusation against a Presbyter, but under 2. or 3. witnesses; that Timothy was at that time the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as justine calleth him, that is Antistes, the Prelate or Precedent in the Presbytery at Ephesus. Now it is absurd to imagine, that Timothy was sent thither, to be Precedent among them as his course only or turn should come, as though the other Presbyters there were equal to him.  
Moreover, we are able to show by the testimony of the most ancient Authors in the Church, who were these singular persons, whom the holy Ghost doth call the Angel of the Church at Ephesus, and likewise at Smyrna. For as before this time, Timothy had been the Angel, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Beza, confesseth, so at this time, Onesimus was the Pastor of Ephesus, as Ignatius testifieth, & Polycarpus the Bishop of Smyrna: If therefore Onesimus was but one man, and likewise Polycarpus: then we may be bold to conclude, that the Angel of the Church of Ephesus, was but one singular person, and likewise the Angel of Smyrna; and so of the rest. So much of the first reason. 
Sect: ●   
The second indeed (saith he) necessarily occasioneth us to inquire what manner of BB. these Angels were, 
Ad Pag. What 〈◊〉 of Bishop Angels 〈◊〉  because, as I said, some of our times have made a question of that, which in former ages was not wont to be called into controversy; so saith he, because B. Bilson and B. Barlow have fancied to themselves another sort of Bishops, then either the scriptures of the new Testament do mention, or any sound Divines do teach thereout.  
This then is the controversy which remaineth to be decided, whether sort of BB. such, as those learned Fathers, and myself, do defend, or such as my adversary and his adherents do stand for, is that kind of Bishop, which hath been but of late devised, and never till of late obtruded on the Church. And on which side the judicious Reader shall see better evidence, & more pregnant proofs, I adjure him, in the name of God without partiality, to assent thereto.  
The second question is, concerning the quality of the function, 
The 2. quest concerning the quality their function  which is determined in the second Assertion, viz: that the calling of B.B. (who are here meant by the stars and Angels) is lawful and good. And this is a doctrine so necessarily arising out of the Text, that if it be proved that Bishops are here meant by stars and Angels (which was the thing I undertook before to prove, & now doubt not by God's help to make evident) it cannot be denied but that their calling is both approved as good, and commended as excellent. Neither would the refuter have wrangled with this passage, having nothing to say, but that which with an idle Coccysme he oft repeateth, and in this place is altogether impertinent, that Diocesan BB. are not here meant: were it not that he was resolved before hand to cavil with whatsoever he should find in my book. Especially if you consider, that elsewhere he would make me believe the proof of this doctrine to be superfluous, the former point being once proved.  

Sect: 6.  Serm. Sect. 2. Pag. 3. For the deciding of the former question, two things are in the words offered to our consideration. For whereas they are said to be the Angels of the Churches, we are first to consider what manner of Churches they were, whereof they were the Angels; and secondly, what manner of pre-eminence they had in those Churches, in regard whereof they are called the Angels of the Churches.  
As touching the first: we are to try, whether these Churches whereof they were Angels or BB. were Parishes or Dioceses, and consequently, whether they were Parishional or Diocesan BB. &c: to pag. 5. own case.  
That these 2. things are offered to our consideration (saith the refuter) we deny not: but if he had walked with a right foot in the path he entered into, 
For the deciding of the former question, 2 things are to be known, by explication whereof the Text is explained.  he should by his Text have taught us the meaning of these 2. points, and not quite contrary, as he goes about, by these two points to teach us the meaning of his Text.  
To whom I will not give that answer which Festus did to Paul, that too much learning hath made him mad: for he seemeth not to be greatly sick of that disease: but I may truly say that too much anger and wrath (which is furor brevis) which he unmeasurably showeth in this Section, hath made him so to forget himself, that he wrangleth without wit and against sense. Unless any man that is in his wits will say, that it is not lawful for a Preacher to explain his Text. For what was it that in this Section I had in hand? was it not to endeavour the explication of my Text, and to show what manner of BB: are here meant by the Angels of the Churches? for the explication whereof, what could more fitly be propounded, than the consideration of these 2. things? viz: what manner of Churches they were, whereof they were the Angels or BB: and what manner of pre-eminence they had in those Churches, in regard whereof they are termed the Angels of the Churches; that from my Text rightly expounded of Diocesan BB. I might deduce the doctrine of the lawfulness of their calling, and from it infer the use.  
Indeed if I had been now propounding the doctrine gathered out of the Text, or urging the use thereupon inferred, there had been reason I should prove them, as afterwards I do, by the Text already explicated. But when I am about to explicate the Text, & propound the points that are therein questionable to be discussed for the clearing of the Text, who seeth not that the handling of these points is the very explication of the Text, and the Text that which is explicated? And if the Text be that which is explicated, who could be so senseless, as either to require that the points should be explained by the Text, or to find fault, that by the handling of them the Text is explained.  
But now he is pleased of his grace to consider them. 
Sect. 1. Whe● the Chu● were Di●●ses, or Bushes, and BB. Dio● or Parish●nall; and this was propounded▪ discussed.  And whereas I yield as a reason of my propounding the former point to be discussed, divers newfangled Assertions of the newfound parish discipline, whereof I spoke but too mildly, as you may see: he chargeth me with bitter inveighing, scornful, upbraiding, overflowing of the gall, with spitting out unsavoury reproaches, making a calumnious outcry in the end of the Section: and much ado he had, not to apply to me that saying of Solomon, (with whom it better fitteth, let the Reader judge) Proud, haughty, and scornful is his name that worketh in his arrogancy wrath, 
Ad Pag. Pro. 21. ●●  and in the end out of the super-aboundance of his charity, he is afraid for me, that I care not to lose much of my peace within: that all I here speak is Night work, proceeding from great distemper of the brain, etc.  
Was my adversaries back or conscience rather galled, was he guilty to himself, of being one of the coiners of those new opinions, that he thus flingeth and kicketh, when they are so gently touched? Who, knowing that those Assertions were some of those 16. positions, for the trial whereof, the unchristian and unmodest offer of disputation was made, which are there magnified, as being such chief points in controversy between us and the Papists, that if in them the BB. (joining as they pretend, with the Papists) have the truth; then extreme wrong is offered to the Church of Rome, by our separating therefrom, and all Protestant Churches are for that cause Schismatical: that if the Priests and Jesuits can satisfy them in these points, they would be reconciled to the Church of Rome:  
Who, I say, knowing this, could with more mildness have spoken of such Schismatical novelties? For where he saith, that almost all of them have been always generally maintained and practised, by all sound reform Churches, he seemeth, either not to care what he speaketh, or by sound reform Churches, to mean none but Brownists, or such like. Between whom and these unchristian and immodest challengers, there went as we say but a pair of shears; These, remaining after a sort in the piece; the other, being by open Schism cut off: Which again they have manifested in their late petition to the King's Majesty: 
Anno. 1609.  This being the sum of their suit, that they may be tolerated schismatics.  
But to let pass their new-coined positions, (excepting those that concern this cause,) with the Libelers bitter wranglings, and vain janglings, There are two things in answer to this Section, which I may not let pass: the one, is his defence of the challengers; the other, a great advantage taken against a word, which as he saith, I dropped by the way.  
His defence is, against that calumnious outcry, as he calleth it, 
Wh 〈…〉 Kin 〈…〉 a m 〈…〉 some 〈…〉 rish 〈…〉 oce 〈…〉  in the end of the Section, where I briefly note, that by what reason they deny the Bishops to be members of the true Church, because forsooth they be not of some certain parish, by the same, they may as well deny the King, who having a more general reference to all the Churches within his dominions, as being the Governor of them all, in Great Britain and Irel●nd; is further from being a member of one only parish, than any Bishop in this Kingdom.  
He answereth, that the challengers hold the King and his Household to be an entire Church of itself. But tell me, do they hold it to be a true Church? that so the King may be thought to be a member of a true Church. Or if they do; Why may they not with the like reason acknowledge a Bishop and his family, to be an entire family by themselves? But it is no matter what they hold, unless they were more learned and judicious.  
The advantage which is taken at my words had need to be very great, 
Ad pa 〈…〉 Sec 〈…〉 Their 〈◊〉 that by sertion 〈◊〉 cesan 〈◊〉 Popelin answered.  or else the refuter and his copartners do show themselves to be very weak men: seeing it is five times repeated in print; once in their late petition, with great amplifications; once in the Abortive book, with this note in the margin, sic tu beas amicos? Thrice in this Book, with great triumphs and insultations: not only in the treatise itself, but also every where in the margin, demanding with scorn, in this place, 
Pag. 1ST  Is this your kindness to your friends? in the second, sic tu beas amicos? in the third, quid facias odio, sic ubi amore noces? 
Pag: 4●   
The Reader must needs expect some great matter, 
Pag: 1ST Montes perbi su●●● Aug: 〈◊〉 Psal. 10▪ Quid d 〈…〉 tanto fe●● hic prom●●●sor hiat●. parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Horat: de art: Poet.  seeing these hills thus to swell, The words whereat they take advantage were these.  
Lest they might seem to set up an absolute Popeling in every parish, who should have not only supreme, but also sole authority in causes Ecclesiastical, they adjoin to him (that is, to their Parish Bishop) a Consistory of Lay or only governing Elders.  
Out of which words they frame this proposition; They which have not only supreme, but also sole authority in causes Ecclesiastical are absolute Popelings: hereto they add an assumption of their own, All Diocesan Bishops, have not only supreme, but also sole authority in causes Ecclesiastical; and from thence infer their victorious & triumphing conclusion; therefore all Diocesan Bishops are absolute Popelings. And this, they say, is mine own reason, whereby I make Diocesan Bishops absolute Popelings.  
Mine own reason? in which there is nothing mine, but the proposition, which also is stretched beyond, not only my meaning, but even my words? this proposition (I deny not) may be framed out of my words: they who give to a Bishop, not only supreme, but also sole authority in causes Ecclesiastical, do seem to set up an absolute Popeling.  
From which words, if they had been retained, this might have been concluded, if I did give to our Bishops, both supreme and sole authority in causes Ecclesiastical, as I do not, that then I might seem to set up absolute Popelings. But it were well with my adversaries, if to seem, and to be, were all one. And yet, I do not so much as seem, to any that is wise and indifferent, to make our Bishops, as they say, absolute Popelings. The application of this to the BB. is made in the assumption, which is both false and foolish, and is not mine, but theirs.  
They say, it is not only impleyed and intended, but is one of the chief and principal points I undertake to prove throughout my Sermon. But their saying is false and frivolous. How do they prove it? For the question being (saith our refuter) whether the Churches should be governed by Pastors and Elders, or by Diocesan Bishops: whereas they say, by Pastors and Elders, adjoining the Elders to the Pastors, and making them both subject to the whole congregation, etc. M.D. taketh all from them all, and putteth the reins into his Diocesan alone, so making him by his own rule the absolute Popeling.  
Here I entreat the Reader, to keep in store for future use, the state of the question, as it is here propounded by the refuter. In the mean time, let us after his own manner examine his argument.  
The question being whether the Churches should be governed by Pastors and Elders (for I will for your credits sake leave out that Brownistical and anabaptistical dotage concerning the chief authority of the people)  
or by Diocesan BB. whosoever taketh all from Pastors and Elders, and (shall I add) the people too, and putteth the reins into the hands of the Diocesan alone, he giveth him not only supreme but also sole authority in causes Ecclesiastical, and so maketh him an absolute Popeling.  
But the question being as I said, M. D. taketh all authority from the Pastors, Elders and people, and putteth the reins into the hands of the Diocesan Bishop alone.  
Therefore M. D. giveth to the Diocesan, not only supreme, but also sole authority in causes Ecclesiastical, and so by his own rule maketh him an absolute Popeling.  
Sect. 10. To let you see, 
In their 〈◊〉 four untruths co●●●tained. The first 〈◊〉 truth.  how the refuter climbeth a ladder of untruths, to seat our Bishops in the Papacy, I will begin with his assumption, wherein are two untruths. First, that I take all authority from the Pastors, Elders, and people. The Elders, indeed, I reject as a new devise: in the parishioners, I acknowledge some authority in choosing, or consenting to the choice, of some Church-officers; but authority to govern, much less to ordain, depose, and deprive their Pastor, I know not any. They are the sheep, which must hear their pastors voice, and be obedient to their spiritual guides: They are the flock which must be ruled and taught, not followed and obeyed.  
As touching the pastors of parishes, I leave to them that pastoral power, which ever was granted to them since the first distinguishing of parishes, and allotting of several Presbyters to them, that is to say, both po●●statem ordinis, the power of order▪ as they are Ministers, & potestatem jurisdictionis spiritualis seu internae▪] a power of spiritual and inward jurisdiction, to rule their flock after a private manner, as it were in foro conscientiae, in the court of conscience, as they are pastors of that flock.  
By which power they rule and guide their flock, not only in their public Ministry, but also in their private attendance, or if ye will so call it, superintendence, as occasion shallbe offered. For as touching their public ministry; they are the leaders and guides of the people in God's service; they preach the word, therein teaching, confuting, instructing, reproving, correcting their hearers; they administer the sacraments, as the stewards of God's house; by the one, admitting into God's family, those which belong to his covenant; by the other, nourishing the household of Christ, in due season: and both by the word and sacraments, exercising so much of the power of the keys, 

In the book of ordination it is presupposed, that a Minister may and aught to Minister the doctrine and sacraments and the discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this realm hath received the same.  
Fol. 12. interrog. 2.  
The second untruth.   as of right belongeth to them, as well binding the notoriously scandalous and impenitent, by denouncing the threatenings of God against them in the word, and by repelling them for the time from the sacrament; as also losing the penitent believers, by applying to them the gracious promises of the Gospel, and adding thereto the sacraments as seals.  
So that all power is not taken from the pastors: neither is all given to the Bishop alone. For in the government of the Church, others are joined with him: some under him, some above him. Under him, in the mother Church or Cathedral, the Dean and Chapter, which in the ancient Church as hereafter we shall show, were called Archpresbyters, and presbyteri civitatis: in the other Churches of the Diocese divided into several precincts, the Archdeacon's and rural Deans, governing them as the Chorepiscopi were wont in the primitive Church. Not to speak of the Chancellers and Officials, the former being adjoined to the Bishops, the latter to the Archdeacon's, by reason of their skill in the Ecclesiastical laws. Above him, not only the Archbishop and his courts, but also the provincial Synods, assembling chiefly for ordaining Ecclesiastical Canons and constitutions, by which the Bishops are to rule, and to be ruled. In making whereof, though the Ecclesiastical authority especially appeareth, yet neither all the Bishops alone, and much less any one Bishop, concludeth any thing, but with the consent of the Presbytery. And therefore this may to the former authority of Ministers be added, that in making Ecclesiastical laws, they have a voice, either by themselves, if they be sent to the Synod, or by such as themselves shall choose.  
Sect. 11. In the proposition likewise are two untruths. 
The thi●● truth.  For first, it is not generally true as it is necessarily intended in the proposition (for otherwise the Syllogism is a mere Paralogism) that whosoever doth give to the Bishop alone, the power which is taken from the several pastors with their Elders and parishes, doth straightways give the sole authority Ecclesiastical to the Bishop.  
Indeed, 
The four●● untruth.  if we were so mad, as to think that there were no Ecclesiastical government but parishional, there were something in his speech. But when beside and above the government not only parishional but also Diocesan, we acknowledge a superior authority in the Archbishop and his courts, in the provincial synods, especially that authority of making Church-lawes, whereby both Dioceses and parishes are to be ruled: it is apparent, that although I did take all authority from parish-bishops and their Elders, yet it would not follow that I give the whole authority Ecclesiastical to the Diocesan alone.  
But that which he saith of my ascribing the supreme authority in causes Ecclesiastical to the Diocesan Bishops, that is the supreme and the loudest lie, and maketh the assumption of his chief Syllogism most evidently false. Do I, or any of us say, that the Diocesan Bishop hath the supreme authority in causes Ecclesiastical? doth not our Church subject the Bishop to the Archbishop, and provincial Synods? doth not appeal lie from the sentence of the Bishop to the Archbishop, and likewise from him to the King's Delegates? doth not himself acknowledge pag. 69. the Bishops so to be subjecteth to the two Archbishops, as that if we may judge by the outward appearance and practice, we may in his opinion seem to have but two Churches, and those provincial, the one of Canterbury, and the other of York? do we not all, with one consent, acknowledge, the King's Majesty to have the supreme authority in causes Ecclesiastical? and whereas the greatest authority of Churchmen is exercised in Synods, and the greatest authority of Synods is the making of Church-lawes; yet the ratification of them we submit to the King (according to the Practice of the 
(a) 
Euseb. in vita Constant. lib. 3. saith that Constantine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Council▪ Tolat. ●. in sin●, edict. reg. de confirm. council.  
Conc. Const. 5. Rogamus clementiantisam saith the counsel to the Emperor Theodos. ut per litras 〈◊〉 pietatis ratum esse jubeas conf●●mesque concilij decre●um.  
Con. Chalc. ●ct. 3. sacro 〈…〉 edicto 〈◊〉 Marti●us the Emperor 〈…〉 confirmamus.   ancient Churches living under Orthodoxal Kings) in so much that they, and all our Church-lawes, are called the King's 
(b) Sir Edw. Cook do iure regis Ecclesiastico.  Ecclesiastical law.  
Now then, if neither I take all authority from the pastors, nor give all to the Bishops, nor ascribe unto them● sole, nor supreme authority; what have the libelers gained by all their triumphing outcries, but the manifestation of their own manifold untruths? Yea but the title of absolute Popelings agreeth better to our Diocesan BB. then to their parish BB.  
Neither did I say that they are such, but that if they did not join unto them a consistory of Elders, they would seem to set up, not only a Popeling, but an absolute Popeling in every parish▪ a petite pope indeed their pastor is in regard of that supremacy they ascribe unto him, (making him the supreme Ecclesiastical officer in every Church) which we deny to our Bishops, and were it not, that he hath a consistory joined to him, as the Pope hath of Cardinals, he would be more than a pope.  
And again, whereas our Bishops are to be guided by laws, which by their superiors are imposed upon them; their pastors with their Elders and people having (as the Pope saith he hath) a supreme, immediate and independent authority sufficient for the government of their Churches in all causes Ecclesiastical, and therefore for making of Ecclesiastical laws, they are to be governed by their own laws. For the chief thing in Ecclesiastical government, is the authority to prescribe laws Ecclesiastical. If therefore each parish hath (as they say it hath) sufficient authority within itself, for the government of itself in all causes Ecclesiastical, immediately derived from Christ; then questionless they have authority to prescribe laws Ecclesiastical.  
And as the Pope doth not acknowledge the superiority of a synod to impose laws upon him, no more do they. They will give synods leave to deliberate of that which may be best, 
H.I. & supplic. an 1609.  and to persuade thereto, but they will not be ruled by them. As for the King's supremacy in causes Ecclesiastical, how it may stand with their main assertion, wherein they ascribe to every parish an independent authority immediately derived from Christ, sufficient for the government of itself in all causes Ecclesiastical, I will not dispute.  Serm. Sect. 3. pag. 5. 
Sect. 12.  Concerning the second, viz. what was the pre-eminence of these BB. in the Churches, in respect whereof they are called the Angels of the Churches; others more wise and learned then the former, granting they were BB. of whole cities & the countries adjoining (that is to say of Dioceses) notwithstanding the sway of the government they ascribe to the Presbyteries of those Churches, consisting partly of Ministers and partly of annual or Lay-presbyters: making these Angels or Bishops nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or precedents of those Presbyteries: and such precedents as were not superior to other Ministers in degree, etc. to pag. 6. in their turns. 

The 2. what pre-eminence the BB. had, and why this point was propounded.  Of the two points serving to show, by way of explication of the text, what manner of Bishops were meant by the Angels, the latter I propounded in this section to be examined. A reason whereof I allege a controversy betwixt us and another sort of disciplinarians, who are as I said, more wise and learned then the former, who though they grant that which the former denied, yet do greatly differ from us concerning the pre-eminence which the Angels or ancient Bishops had in the Churches. So that in this section are 2. things, first the proposition of the second point, concerning the pre-eminence of BB. in respect whereof they were called the Angels of the Churches, secondly, a reason thereof. To the proposition he answereth, that they had this name Angels, in regard of their general calling of the ministery, not because of any sovereignty or supremacy over other their fellow Ministers, as (he saith) I imply here, and plainly but untruly affirm afterwards. In which few words are 2. untruths. Whereof the former is an error, that they are to termed in respect of their general calling of the ministry. For though to be called Angels, generally agreeth to all Ministers: yet for one and but one among many Ministers in one and the same Church to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, called the Angel of that Church, is not a common title belonging to all Ministers in regard of their general calling, but a peculiar style belonging to one, who had singular pre-eminence above the rest, 
Conf. wit. Hart. pag● 461. Act. 20.1 Apoc. 2.1.  that is to say, a Bishop. So saith D. Raynolds: in the Church of Ephesus, though it had sundry Elders and pastors to guide it; yet among those sundry was there one chief, whom our Saviour calleth the Angel of the Church, and writeth, that to him which by him the rest should know. And this is he whom afterward in the primitive Church the fathers called Bishop.  
As touching the latter: where he saith that I do here imply that the Bishops have a sovereignty or supremacy over other Ministers, and afterwards do affirm it plainly, that plainly is a plain lie. Sovereignty and supremacy over other Ministers none but Papists give to their Bishop, and they to none but to the Bishop of Rome. Superiority indeed belongeth to Bishops over other Ministers, and so much is intended in this place.  
To the reason, 
Sect. 13. Ad pag. 7. The refuter mistaking the reason and craftily concealing th● division whic● is among them) is bol● to charge 〈◊〉 with four untruths.  if it had been obscure, he should have answered, as Aristotle teacheth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I understand not. For better were it to plead ignorance, then to wrangle with that he doth not, or will not understand. For I do plainly note in the Sermon two sorts of disciplinarians, who are opposite unto us in this controversy; the one, a new sect of disciplinarians lately risen amongst us, (who have coined the newfound parish discipline, which cometh nearer the practice of the Brownists, then of any well ordered Church) of whom I spoke in the former point: the other, a sort of grave and learned divines, such as Calvin and Beza, etc. who stand for that discipline, which is practised in Geneva, and some other reformed Churches; showing that as they do not consent with our new disciplinarians in the former point, so they descent from us in the latter, touching the superiority of Bishops.  
The refuter understandeth all as a grant made by them, whereof some part he acknowledgeth to be true, the rest he rejecteth as false. And though in neither he do understand what was intended, yet he is as bold as blind Bayard to blunder out this blustering speech, that with one breath I blow out both truth and falsehood.  
Neither doubteth he, though merely ignorant of that which he avoucheth, to charge me with four untruths; denying 1. that they grant Bishops which here are called Angels, to have been set over Dioceses, that is to say, the whole city and country adjoining.  
2 That they teach the only governing Elders, to be lay or annual.  
3 That the Angels of the Churches were nothing else but precedents of the Presbyteries.  
4 That their presidentshippe was only for a week or a month, and that by course as being common to them in their turns.  
For the manifestation of the truth in all these points, I shall not need to seek further then to the writings of Calvin and Beza. 
That Calvin and Beza, etc. hold 1. that the Churches were Diocesan.   
Sect. 14. As touching the first, Calvin teacheth, that in the primitive Church (when in the government thereof there was nothing almost dissonant from God's word) each city had a college of Presbyters, 
Inst. lib. 4. c. 4.  who were Pastors and Doctors; and that to every city was assigned a certain region, which should receive their Presbyters (meaning the pastors of several parisnes) from thence, 
Sect. 1. Sect. 2.  and should be accoumpied as part of that Church. Every College was subject to some one Bishop. But if the country, which was under his Bishopric, was larger, then that he could in all places discharge all the functions of a Bishop; in certain places throughout the country were appointed certain Presbyters, who in business of less importance should be in his steed. These were called Chorepiscopi, because in the province they represented the Bishop. Likewise 
(a) de gradib. ministr. c. 24.  Beza teacheth, that the first distribution of the Church into Dioceses, was framed according to the division of the provinces under the Roman Empire, into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as it were precincts of government, which Pliny calleth conventus & iurisdictiones, in the chief cities whereof the precedents kept their courts of judgement, of which sort Pliny 
(b) Plin. lib. 5. cap. 29. & 30.  reckoneth 9 in Asia the less, five whereof are mentioned in the Apocalypse (viz. Laodicea, Sardes, Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamus. Neither are we, saith he, to imagine that this order at the first proceeded rather from a council or decree of the ancient fathers assembled together, then from the very instinct of nature, and instigation of necessity.  
Now saith he, in the chief Town of every Diocese, the 
(e( So by A●●brose his w●●●rant he calleth a B●sho● who saith th●●● Timothy wa● such a one at Ephesus.  first Presbyter, who afterwards by a dangerous Catachresis, was called a Bishop, in the daily common jurisdiction, Praeerat caeteris, tum urbanis tum aliis eius regionis, com-Presbyteris, id est, totj Diocoesi; was Precedent over his fellow Presbyters, both of the City and Country, that is, the whole Diocese. And because sometimes the Country was of larger extent, then that all upon every occasion, could conveniently meet in the City; and forasmuch, as other small Cities and Towns did need common inspection or oversight, they also had their Chorepiscopi, that is, Countrey-Bishops, or Vice-Bishops.  
For the second, 
§ Sect. 15.  that they acknowledge their only governing Elders to be of the Laity it is plain. 
2 That the only governing Elders be of the Laity, and annual officers.  For whereas Calvin divideth the Church into two Orders or Ranks, Clerum, sc. & plebem; the Clergy and Laity, he plainly saith, that these Elders are chosen from among the Laity. And forasmuch as being chosen, they do not become to be of the Clergy, 
Inst. lib: 4: c. 12. Sect. 1. li. 4. c. 3. Se. 8  he must needs mean, that they still continue to be of the Laity. And that he thought they should be annual, the order of the Church of Geneva by him set down, doth declare.  
Both which points Beza acknowledgeth together. 
de grad: Ministr: c. 11.  In this City of Geneva saith he, those governing Elders, (which in the title of the chapter he called annual) are chosen yearly, not of the base sort of the people, but out of the very order of 25.60. and 200. men: (which be the councils of state in Geneva, 2. being chosen out of the 25.4. out of the 60. and 6. out of 200.) not without the knowledge and consent of the people: I say, every year new are chosen, or the old confirmed. So every where (saith he) in other free Churches, according to the condition of the place, the like choice is observed. For of the Laity, some are chosen to this Eldership in Scotland yearly, in the Low-countrieses they are chosen for 2. years, the half of them being changed every year.  
Now it may not be doubted, but that those which be of the 25. or 60. or 200. in Geneva, being all Statesmen (as their governing-elders Bee) are Laymen.  

 Again, great consideration must be had (saith Beza) that Princes and Noble men, and such as have authority and pre-eminence in the Church, be chosen to be of the signory.  
And surely, saith he, in another place, (proving that there ought to be such Elders of the Laity joined to the Ministers) unless some chosen men out of the body of the whole congregation, 
The Presbyteral & 〈◊〉. pag. 112.  do sit in that assembly, whereby the whole Church is governed, Scarcely shall the universal name of that Church agree to that assembly, wherewith notwithstanding Christ adorneth it: Namely, because they being chosen out of all the parts of the whole Church, should represent the whole Church.  
His reason therefore is, that as the whole Church consisteth of the Clergy and laity: So that Senate, which is to represent the whole Church, must consist not only of the Clergy, but of the Laity also.  
And in another place he proveth by a necessary disjunction (as he thinketh) that if there must be a Presbytery at all, 
De grad: Minist: cap. 11 pag. 64. § Sect. 16.  a good part thereof must be chosen out of the Laity. Whence do they think they are to be chosen, if not of them whom they call Laymen? etc.  
Thirdly, that they make the Angels of the Churches or ancient BB. in respect of their superiority, 
3 They held that the Angels were but Precedents of the Presbyteries.  only Precedents of the presbytery, etc. Nothing is more plain.  
The Presbyters (saith Calvin) in every City chose one out of their number, to whom specially they give the title of a Bishop, lest from equality (as is wont) dissensions should arise. But yet the Bishop was not so in honour and dignity superior, 

Inst. lib. 4. c. 4. Sect: 2.  
Vid T. C●li: 1.109. & 110.  
Eccles. disciplia. ang, pag. 181.182.   that he had dominion over his colleagues. But what office the Consul had in the Senate, to propound matters, to ask voices, to go before others in counseling, admonishing, exhorting, by his authority to rule the whole action, and to execute that which by common counsel hath been decreed, that office did the B. bear, in the assembly of the Presbyters.  
Again, every College of Presbyters only for preservation of peace and good order, were subject to one Bishop, who did so go before others in dignity, that himself was subject to the assembly of the brethren, meaning the Presbytery.  
Calvin therefore maketh the Angels or ancient Bishops, nothing else but precedents of the Presbytery, or moderators of the Assembly.  
Beza, 
In Apoc. 2.1  as by each of these Angels he understandeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Precedent of the Presbytery, (as before I noted; So he will acknowledge the first Bishops, 
de grad: Ministr: cap. 20 114.123.  to have been no other but precedents of the Ecclesiastical Senate, Precedents over the assemblies of Pastors, (to wit, of diverse Parishes, belonging to one Church) whose authority he will acknowledge to be nothing else but the Dignity of the first place in the sacred Assembly, with the right of ruling the common action, without any dominion over those which sit with him. And such a presidentship he acknowledgeth to be a Divine ordinance. 
cap: 21.   
And whereas Jerome saith, there was a time when the Churches were governed by the common counsel of the presbyters, he would not have him so understood, as if they had not always a precedent. 
cap: 23.139 140.  And whereas D. Saravia objecteth, that in Saint john's time, these 7. Churches of Asia had by Divine ordinance 7. BB. set over them, whom he calleth the Angels; Beza replieth; Wherefore urge you this against Jerome & us? 
cap: 23.159.160.  For when he saith, that the Churches at the first were governed by the common counsel of Presbyters, we may not think he was so unwise, as to dream that none of the Presbyters was Precedent of the assembly.  
And most plainly in the next Chapter.  
As touching the first Presbyter (saith he) or Bishop of the Diocese, 
cap: 24.168.  what his Dignity was, and wherein it did consist, I have often showed; that it was wholly of Order, and not of degree. Every one of his fellow-Presbyters or Pastors ruling his own Parish, and that first Presbyter or Bishop of the Diocese, having a superintendencie or in-spection over all his fellow-Presbyters, thus far, as to admonish them of their duty; as also having assembled his Presbytery, either on set days, or extraordinarily, to propound matters to them concerning the Diocese, or the Censure of manners, to ask their voices, to pronounce what to the rest seemeth good. From which judgement, it was lawful to appeal to a Provincial Synod.  
As touching the last point, what the learned disciplinarians hold, 
§ Sect. 17.4. That they held the Presidentship to have been but for a short time, and by course.  may be gathered by the practice of Geneva, and other Churches, which they did reform, as was pretended, according to the discipline of the primitive Church; the Precedents of the presbyteries in those Churches being not perpetual, or for term of life, but for a short time. But omitting the rest, 
(a) Sec T.C. lib. 1.110. Eccl. discipl: Ang. pag. 184.  Beza often urgeth this point, that the ancient BB: had this presidentship, but for a short time, and that by course. And as he professeth the presidentship in the Presbytery of every Church, to be a divine ordinance, & immutable; So he acknowledgeth those BB: alone for divine, who had this presidentship but for a short time and by course.  
How be it he confesseth, that howsoever, the order itself, 
De Minist: grad: cap: 23 pag. 142. ca: 141.153.  (Namely, that there should be a precedent in each presbytery) is perpetual and immutable, as being essential: Yet ordinis modum; the manner of this order: though it were a divine ordinance, that it should be by course and for a short time, was variable, as being but accidental.  

ca: 140.141.  But his words which most plainly testify that, which I delivered, are these; In what sense it is to be taken, that Jerome saith, The Churches in the beginning, were governed by the common Counsel of the Presbyters. Ambrose teacheth; namely so, as there should be one among them, not superior in degree, but first in the dignity of Order and Honour; to which office every one should succeed in their turns. Now, what space of time was prescribed to this Presidentship, 
●ed hebdomadi●am hanc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, fuisse, probabile est. pag. 143.  Ambrose describeth not. But it is probable, that it was a weekly course, such as that of the aaronical Priesthood.  
And after, speaking of that change which Jerome noteth, he giveth this reason thereof; That the Primacy of Order, by course or turns of mutual succession, was by experience found not sufficient for avoiding of Schism: the dignity of this Primacy being communicated unto each of the Pastors in their turns.  
Therefore that which had been common to all in their turns, it was thought good to translate unto one; and that one chosen by the judgement of the whole Presbytery.  
Let the refuter therefore take home those four untruths to himself, which he objected against me; whether out of unmannerly ignorance, or rather cunning-rudenes. For it can hardly be thought that such bold challengers of the BB. and so confident an undertaker of this business, could simply be ignorant of these things: 
The refu● his Cop●● plead for discipline, n●● taught by ●●uin and o● learned Pr●●●tants, no●●ctised by 〈◊〉 reformed Churches.  but rather cunningly sought to conceal the division, which is among themselves; fearing lest their favourites, (whereof some follow, some go before them, out of a zeal not guided by knowledge) should take notice, that the aforesaid challengers, and this Champion stand for a Discipline, neither taught by Calvin and Beza, and such other learned men, nor yet practised by the reformed Churches: whereof I desire all men to take notice.  
And verily, for my part, I was of opinion, till I saw H.I. book to the King, and the unmodest & unchristian offer of disputation: that they who stand for the pretended reformation among us, had sought for no other discipline, then that which Calvin and Beza taught, and the reformed Churches, especially of Geneva doth, and Scotland did practise. But when I saw the novel Assertions, whereon the newfound parish discipline is founded, urged with such bold vehemency, I must confess, I was much alienated from that side. And so I hope will all moderate Christians, when they shall consider how they make no end of broaching more and more Novelties.  Serm. Sect. 4 pag. 6. 
Sect. 18. The 5. poin● propounded.  Now for the clearing of this matter which we have in hand: Forasmuch as both sorts obtrude Lay-Elders, to extrude Bishops; I would first prove against both, etc. to the end of pag. 7. 
Hitherto the two Assertions contained in the explication have been propounded to be discussed. Now, in this Section, I made way to the proof hereof, by enumerating distinctly the several points which I purposed to handle, for the proof of either. And first for the former, which is the explication of my Text (viz:) that the Angels or Pastors of the primitive Church were Diocesan Bishops, and such, for the substance of their function, as ours be.) I endeavoured to prove it, both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by disproouing the presbyterian discipline, wherein I intended a disjunctive argumentation, that (the question being, whether the Churches were governed by presbyteries, as they say, consisting for the greater part of Laymen, or by BB: as we hold,) the disproof of their presbyteries, might be a proof for our Bishops: and also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by showing what the authority of the Angels or ancient Bishops was, as well extensiuè, against our new disciplinarians, (viz:) that the Churches whereof they were Bishops, were Dioceses, and themselves Diocesan Bishops; as intensiuè, against the Elder, and more learned disciplinarians, that BB. were superior to other Ministers, not only in order, but in degree also. etc.  
And for the proof of the 2 Assertion, which is a doctrine arising out of the Text before explained, concerning the lawfulness of the Bishop's calling, this is proposed to be proved, that the fanction of Bishops, is of Apostolical and divine institution; and this, as in the end of the Section is signified, was the thing chiefly intended by me. These points I did not thus propound in Dichotomies, which the greatest part doth not so well conceive and remember, but for more easiness, was content to make a bare enumeration of them.  
And this is the frame, of that which he calleth the body of my Sermon, the which our refuter endeavoureth here to put out of frame: For having first, of the five points which I propound, referred the first four to the former part of my main distribution (as he calleth it) where I inquire what manner of Bishops the Angels were; and the last to the latter, which respecteth the quality of their function: in the next words, as if presently he had forgotten himself, after he hath showed his scornful and disdainful spirit, he setteth up a frame of his own to work upon. The mansion (saith he) that he buildeth, is a Princely and pleasant Palace for our Bishop's Lordships, under the roof whereof, their Honours may dwell safely, as in a Sanctuary, without danger of the adversary, and much delight. Look we upon the bare frame, as it standeth, without glazing, painting, &c: it is of this form: 
The function of the Bishops of the 7. Churches is lawful and good:  
The function of the Bishops of the Church of England, is the function of the Bishops of the seven Churches.  
Therefore the function of the Bishops of the Church of England is lawful and good.   
The proposition of this syllogism is laid down, pag. 2. and 55. where he saith, that the office and function of Bishops, here meant by Angels, is in this Text approved, as lawful and commended as excellent: That is is lawful and good; having divine, both Institution being Angels, and approbation being stars.  
The assumption is in the same second page propounded thus: The Bishops of the 7. Churches, (for the substance of their calling (were such as the reverend fathers of our Church are. The which he saith, by the grace of God he will plainly prove, and that in the four first points of the five, for to them he there referreth us for that purpose. pag. 61.  
We are therefore in the next place to see, out of which of those four points it is concluded, and how: Which to my understanding must be out of the second, third, and 4. points, after this manner.  
The function of those Bishops, whose Churches are Dioceses, and themselves Diocesan Bishops, superior to other Ministers in degree, having sole power of Ordination and jurisdiction, is the function of the Bishops of the 7. Churches.  
The function of the Bishops of the Church of England, is the function of those Bishops whose Churches are Dioceses, and themselves Diocesan Bishops; superior to other Ministers in degree, having sole power of Ordination and jurisdiction.  
Therefore the function of the Bishops of the Church of England, is the function of the Bishops of the seven Churches.  
In lief of the proposition of this Syllogism, we have the prosyllogisme, or proof of it, in the 2.3. and 4. points before named, etc.  

Sect. 19 The refuter by a forced Analysis, hath put the frame of the Sermon out of frame, to make himself work.  Behold, to how great trouble too much Learning will put a man! Nimia est miseria doctum esse hominem nimis. If his skill in the Analysis of a Treatise had not been extraordinary, all this stir had been needless. But if you mark the end of his overbusying himself in resolving my Sermon, and then putting the ends together to make up his own frame, perhaps he will not seem so skilful in resolving, as wilful in dissolving the same. The end of his double dealing, appeareth in the sequel to have been double.  
For first, whereas there are of the five points which I propounded, two of principal use, serving directly, the one to disprove their Presbyterian discipline, the other to approve the government by Bishops, (both which, he could wish that I had spared) he would feign make his Reader believe, that of these two, 
Pag. 9  the former, is impertinent; and the latter, superfluous; 
Pag. 107.  or as elsewhere he speaketh, the former bootless, the other needless. 2. When he could not tell how to wrangle with the other 3. points, he bringeth them to his frame, 
Pag. 53.70.84.  as it were to the rack: first, finding fault, that they do not directly prove, that which he would have them: and then, by torture, making them to say what he pleaseth, that he may the more easily contradict them.  
To countenance these sophistical shifts, he hath brought my Sermon to the Smith's forge, and having hammered it well, he hath reduced the whole body of it into one syllogism, with the proofs thereof. Using this syllogism for the parts of my Sermon, as the tyrant used his bed for his guests, cutting off those parts which seem to reach over, and retching out those which seem to come short.  
But let us examine his Syllogism which with the prosyllogisme of the assumption he propoundeth as the Analysis of the whole body of my Sermon. The function of the Bishops of the seven Churches is lawful and good, etc. I do not deny but that out of diverse places of my Sermon patched together, some such Syllogism as this may be framed. But in Analysing we must respect, not what we can devise or collect, but what the writer did intend, and our Analysis must be answerable to his Genesis. It is apparent that I propounded two things to be distinctly proved, the one as the explication of the text showing what manner of Bishops the Angels were: the other as a doctrine collected out of the text, concerning the quality of their function, viz. that the calling of Diocesan Bishops is lawful and good. This, which I propounded as a doctrine to be collected out of the text, pag. 2. and as a conclusion to be proved in the last part, pag. 55. and is indeed not the proposition, but the conclusion of the Syllogism which himself frameth, he would against sense make the Reader believe was by me propounded as the proposition of his Syllogism. As for the proposition which he assigneth to me, I did not express, but took it for granted in the collection of the doctrine out of the text, which may be collected after this manner: Bishops are such as are here meant by the Angels of the Churches, therefore their function is lawful and good. Of which collection if any man should make doubt, the consequence would be proved by the addition of the proposition. The calling of such, as are here meant by the Angels of the Churches, is lawful and good, etc.  
Wherefore as there were two distinct parts propounded by me, so if he had drawn the same into two distinct Syllogisms concluding the same question, and not confounded the parts of the Sermon to make the principal branches thereof to seem heterogeneal or superfluous, he had not much miss of my project. The former Syllogism as I have said might be this.  
The calling of such as are here meant by the Angels is lawful and good.  
Diocesan BB. are such as are here meant by the Angels, therefore the calling of Diocesan BB. is lawful and good.  
The proposition I took for granted, and therefore did not express it. The assumption is the same with the former assertion, and is proved by the four first points. The conclusion I did not express, being implied in the collection of the doctrine out of the text.  The latter Syllogism is this. That calling which is of apostolical and divine institution is lawful and good: 
The calling of Diocesan BB. is of apostolical & divine institution, Therefore it is lawful and good: of this Syllogism the assumption, is the same with the fifth point here propounded.  
So that of the five points, which I propounded, not any one is either impertinent or superfluous, the four former serving to prove the former assertion which is the assumption of the former Syllogism, the fifth and last being the assumption of the second Syllogism.  
As for the second Syllogism which he assigneth to me, I utterly disclaim it: because as no one part thereof is propounded by me, so both the premises are false and contrary to my meaning. For neither to the Angels of the Churches, nor to the Bishops, do I ascribe that sole power of ordination and jurisdiction which he speaketh of, as after shall appear.  
But that his Analysis of my Sermon was merely forced against the light of his own conscience, appeareth, first, by the quarrels which thereout he hath raised, seeing by his Analysis, of the five parts the first seemeth impertinent, the last superfluous, the three in the mids not proving that for which as he saith they are brought. For could he persuade himself that his Analysis or resolution was answerable to my Genesis or composition of the Sermon, when he saw two parts of the five could not be brought to his frame, and the other three not to be suitable unto it? Secondly, by the distribution of my Sermon, and the transitions which I use, wholly disagreeing from his Analysis. Thirdly, by the Analysis propounded here by myself, and by the defence of the several parts here ensuing, wherein I shall by the help of God manifestly prove, that neither the first of the five was impertinent, nor the last superfluous, nor the other three concluding besides the purpose. But now we are to entreat of them severally, having first given you to understand, that he divideth the body of my Sermon as he calleth it into five parts, & every part into diverse sections: as namely, the first, which concerneth the Eldership, into eight sections, in all which the sum of that which I maintain is this, that there were no other Presbyters in the primitive Church, but Ministers.   

CHAP. III. Defending the two first Sections concerning Elders.  Serm. Sect. 1. pag. 8. And first I am to show, that there were no other Presbyters in the primitive Church, but Ministers. A sufficient proof whereof may be this, &c: to obtrude upon us, in the end of the 8. pag. 
AS touching this first point, the refuter endeavoureth two things. 
Sect. 1. That the ●●pute con●●●●ning Lay●●ders is no● impertinent Pag. 49. fine.  First, as he saith, he wardeth and repelleth my blows: and then, that we may see what a man he is of his hands, he showeth, that he also can strike if need be. His former act is a reproof of my treatise, the latter a proof of his own assertion. And first in gross, he rejecteth the whole discourse of Elders as impertinent, and after descendeth to the particulars. 
A● pag. 10.  For the first: Reason would, saith he, that M. D. had showed us, how this first point pertaineth to the proof of the matter in question. Whatsoever he conceive of it, I discern not, what affinity it can have with any member of his former assumption, etc.  

Pag. 6. li. 18.  I might answer, that common sense would, that what he seem done, he should conceive and acknowledge to be done. And charity would (which self love would not) that if he discerned not the affinity of this point with his pretended assumption; he should rather have suspected his own Analysis to be forced, then have blamed me for his own want of judgement. But that he may discern this passage concerning Elders to be pertinent to the matter in question; I would but entreat him, to take notice what is in question between us. The question, discussed in the Sermon, is twofold. The first de facto, whether the primitive Church were governed by Diocesan Bishops, as we say; or by Presbyteries of such Elders, as they spoke of. The second, de iure, whether the Church may lawfully be governed by Bishops, as we hold; or must needs be governed by their Presbyteries, as they affirm. The first question is handled in the former part of the Sermon, the second in the latter.  
The question debated in the former part of the Sermon, I say again, is this; whether the primitive Churches were governed by Diocesan Bishops, such as (for the substance of their calling) ours be; or by such Presbyteries, as the Presbyterians stand for. And those, either parishional, consisting of the Parish-Bishop, and a company of lay or only governing Elders, as the new and shallow sort of disciplinarians do boldly, though ignorantly affirm: or Presbyteries in the cities, consisting of the precedent and other Presbyters, whereof some are Ministers, but the greater some lay or only governing Elders, as the Elder and more learned sort of disciplinarians do teach.  

* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Arist. M●taph. li. 10. c. 5.  In this question, as the refuter will confess, (unless he will confess himself to be ignorant in logic) this disjunction is implied; either the Church was governed by Diocesan Bishops, as we say; or by such Presbyteries, as they speak of. And this disjunction, though it be not absolutely necessary, yet is it necessary ex hypothesi, and so presupposed on both sides. For, this being the question, whether the Church were governed by Bishops, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid.  or such Presbyteries; it is granted on both sides, and agreed upon betwixt us, that it was governed either by the one or by the other: and that one, and but one of these assertions is true. For if both parts of the question or disjunction were true, it were but a foolish question, 
Pag. 6. in med.  as the Philosopher saith. And that this is the question between us, the refuter hath truly witnessed in respect of the parts of the disjunction, though in the latter he falsifieth my assertion, where he saith, the question between us is, whether the Churches should be governed by Pastors and Elders, or by Diocesan Bishops. The question indeed the facto for the time past, is, whether the primitive Church were governed by Diocesan BB. or such Presbyteries as they speak of. The question de iure respecting also the time present and to come, is, whether the Church may or should be governed by Bishops as we say, or must be governed by their Presbyteries, as they affirm. This therefore being the question, whether by our Bishops, or their Presbyteries, and this question implying a necessary disjunction: who seeth not that the disproof of their Presbyteries, is a direct proof for our Bishops. The disjunctive argumentation standeth thus.  Either the primitive Church was governed 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 implied in the very question between us: and the disjunction is therein by both parties presupposed as necessary.  
The assumption is, that first point of the five, which now we have in hand. The conclusion determineth the assertion which in the former part of the Sermon was propounded to be proved, viz. that the primitive Church was governed by Diocesan Bishops.  
This passage therefore concerning Lay-Elders, will I hope be acknowledged not to be impertinent.  

Sect. 2. The sum of that which in the Sermon was said concerning Lay-Elders.  Now that the Church was not governed by such Presbyteries as they speak of, I proved in this passage. Because howsoever with great vehemency the Presbyterian discipline by lay or only governing Elders hath been by them urged and obtruded upon us; yet they are not able to prove that ever there were any Presbyters which were not Ministers.  
For, the question, which now we have in hand, being, whether there were any such Presbyters in the primitive Church, as were not Ministers: forasmuch as the Presbyterians are the opponents and plaintiffs, not only holding the affirmative, that there were such, but vehemently urging that still there ought to be such; we chose the respondents and defendants, holding the negative, to wit, that neither there were such, nor now need to be: the Reader therefore is to understand, that, this burden of proving, lieth upon them which hold and urge the affirmative, that there were and still ought to be Lay-Elders: and that in us it is a sufficient proof of the negative, if we can maintain, that they are not able to prove the affirmative. And whereas all their proofs may be reduced to two heads, for either they be such testimonies where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Presbyter is named, or where at the least the function itself is (as they suppose) meant; to these two heads therefore I oppose two contrary assertions. The one, that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presbyter, doth always signify a Minister: the other, that there is no one pregnant testimony mentioning or meaning the lay or only governing Elder. The former of them, being affirmative, I do briefly confirm by three reasons; the latter, being such a negative as cannot otherwise be proved (for the induction of the particulars were infinite) I do therefore maintain it against the principal instances of the adversaries. And this is the sum of this passage. Now I come to his cavils, with the particulars.  

§ Sect. 3.  The two assertions (which I did even now mention) opposed to the two heads of their proofs, the refuter casteth into one Syllogism, and having so done, wrangleth both with the substance of each proposition, and also with the manner of setting them down. The Syllogism is this.  If in the writings of the Apostles, the ancient fathers and councils the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presbyter (noting an Ecclesiastical person) doth evermore signify a Minister or Priest, and there cannot any one pregnant testimony be alleged out of the scriptures, councils or fathers, mentioning or meaning any Lay-annuall-onely-governing-presbyters, than were there no other Presbyters in the primitive 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 cavil against the former part of the antecedent and the consequence deduced therefrom.  the former whereof he rejecteth as superfluous, because the latter is as firm and full without it. And yet having rejected the former, he saith the consequence is infirm and weak. But if the former be therefore superfluous, because the latter is firm and full without it, by this reason it shall not be lawful for a man to bring two arguments for one thing, the one concluding the question without the other. Yea but these two are joined in one proposition, and therefore either must afford necessary help to the other, or the one is superfluous. Blame him then that joined them, and disdain th●t sophistical shifts of the refuter, devised to make himself work. Yea but if they be not joined, the former willbe weak and of no strength, for it will not suffice that I say the word Presbyter doth evermore signify a Minister, unless I added only. For though it always signify a Minister, yet it may also signify him that is no Minister. But in mine understanding, if it always signify a Minister, it never signifieth him that is not a Minister. Neither will it serve their turn that they make Presbyter the genus of teaching and governing-elders, unless they can show, that as always it signifieth a Minister, so in some place, an onely-governing Elder also, and they must remember that in this cause of Elders, they are the opponents, and therefore they must prove that the places which they allege for their Lay-presbyters, not only may, but of necessity must be understood of them, or else in vain do they urge and obtrude them upon us.  
And surely we must needs esteem it a very partial genus, and such as yet was never heard of, that is always predicated of the one species, and never of the other. If animal, did always signify a man, and were never predicated of any other thing but man, we should hardly think it were the genus, but the self same species, and convertible with it; as indeed Presbyter is with Minister, and therefore not the genus of it▪ and that I proved, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Arist. Poster 17.  when I said, it always signifieth a Minister, because in english it is priest, and in the scriptures is confounded with Episcopus, and noteth such a person as must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, able to preach.  
But let him add only if that would please him, though so much be signified without it. No, it will not serve the turn, for though Presbyter do always and only signify a Minister, and never signify an only governing Elder, yet there might be governing Elders, who were signified by other names. Why but then there were no Presbyters but Ministers, which was the point to be proved. And what then becometh (which is the chief scope of this place) of all those testimonies, wherein the word Presbyter is mentioned, which T. C. and others do allege; supposing the most of the places in the scriptures, councils and fathers, where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or, Presbyter is mentioned, to be so many proofs of your governing Elders? call you this a weak proof, which doth not only at once bereave you of all those testimonies where Presbyter is mentioned, and wherein your chief strength did lie; 
§ Sect. 4. His answer to the latter part, and to the consequence inferred thereon.  but also prove, that there were no Presbyters but Ministers. This consequence therefore was not to be denied.  
And much less the other. For if there cannot be produced so much as any one pregnant testimony out of the scriptures, councils, or fathers, mentioning or meaning, any lay, annual, onely-governing Elders, with what proofs will they urge them, or with what conscience can they obtrude them, as the ordinance of Christ? An argument taken from the scriptures alone negatiuè, was wont to be a sufficient disproof of any pretended ordinance of Christ; and shall not an argument hold negatively from Scriptures, Fathers, Counsels, and all?  
Notwithstanding, the consequence must needs be infirm and weak, for although there be no proof of any Lay-annuall-onely governing elders, yet may there be, & indeed is for all that, proof sufficient, for such only governing Presbyters as are ecclesiastical, & and to be perpetual. Wherefore which way soever the proposition lie, the consequence thereof I flatly deny, saith our rhyming refuter.  
But here I entreat the Reader to try the spirit of this Sophister. For if himself acknowledge, that my meaning is, simply to deny the onely-governing Elders; then can he not be excused from this imputation of setting himself to wrangle against conscience. But so much he acknowledgeth, when he cometh to the assumption, for otherwise he could not have wrangled therewith. 
Pag. 12.  M. D. meaing (saith he) is simply to deny all kind onely-governing Elders, therefore I deny the assumption. His meaning was not to deny all, but annual and Lay-Elders, therefore I flatly deny the consequence.  
Thus you see, how he is carried with a spirit of contradiction, not caring to gain say himself, so he may seem to contradict me. But so far was the consequence from being to be denied, 
Though by the refuter they were lewdly united as afterwards will appear.  because I mention Lay, and annual, that rather it was to be granted; These words being added, ad maiorem cautelam, and distinctly propounded, to make the consequence so much the stronger, and to signify that I spoke of all Elders whatsoever, that are not Ministers, call them as you will, whether Lay, or annual; or only governing Elders.  
And here again, let the Reader observe, that the new sect of Disciplinarians will not have such Elders as lately were in Scotland, and still are at Geneva, and the Low Countries▪ No, they scorn such, those be Lay & annual, as you have heard, but these may not be so.  
Therefore let the elder sort of Disciplinarians be accounted wise, who, though they were feign to yield that the greater part of their presbyteries should be of the Laity, yet they did foresee that the Ministers would bear the sway (as indeed they ought) because they were perpetual, the others annual, or but for a short time; whereas these men, making the Lay-Elders perpetual, and referring matters to be ruled by plurality of voices, absurdly subject the Ministers to be ruled and overruled by them, who, in the most Countrey-parishes, are more fit to hold the plough then to sit at the stern of the Church.  
And so, desperate or frantic whether are they now grown, that although they make their parish-Bishop the supreme officer in the visible Church; and do hold that every parish hath a sufficient and independent authority, immediately derived from Christ, 
Supplicat. anno. 1609.  for the government of itself in all causes Ecclesiastical: Notwithstanding, offer to submit their Bishop and his Consistory: yea, their whole visible Church, with their whole managing of causes Ecclesiastical, to the oversight and superintendency of each justice of peace.  

§ Sect. 5. H●s answer to the assumption and first to the former part, that Presbyter always signifieth a Minister.  Having thus wrangled with the proposition, he setteth himself also against the assumption, containing the two aforesaid Assertions: The former whereof, viz: that the word Presbyter, (noting an Ecclesiastical person, in the Church of Christ) evermore in the Scriptures, councils, and Fathers, signifieth a Minister, he denieth. For, if the word only be added▪ it is utterly false. For I shall make it evident (saith he) that the word Presbyter doth sometimes signify one that is not a Minister. 
A● pag. 12.  And if it be left out, it will be false nevertheless. For it shall appear, that sometimes the word is used for an Ecclesiastical person, that is no Minister.  
So that, by his own confession, all is one, whether the word only be inserted or omitted, the contradictory being one, and the same, that sometimes it signifieth one that is not a Minister.  
But though he delay the Reader for his own proofs, (which I dare assure him will not satisfy his judicious expectation) yet seeing he setteth himself to catch and snatch at every word, he should not have passed by those arguments ●hereby I proved my Assertion, and I am persuaded, would not, if silence had not been his best answer. For a man of his Acumen, might easily out of those few words have raised three syllogisms, which he could not so easily answer. But the labour which he thought best to spare, I will undertake for him. For, 

1. If the word Priest, (freed as it is in our Church, from the popish abuse, and conceived without all relation to real sacrifices) be the proper English of presbyter, as it noteth an Ecclesiastical person, than presbyter signifieth a Minister only, and as well might question be made whether there were any Lay-priests, as Lay-presbyters; but the former is true, therefore the latter.  

2. That word, which in the Scriptures is confounded with Episcopus, or Bishop, doth signify a Minister only.  
But Presbyter by their own confession, 
Cal. in Tit.  is confounded with Episcopus, or Bishop.  
Therefore presbyter, doth signify a Minister only.   

3. That word, which being in the Scriptures confounded with Bishop, doth also note such a person as by the Apostles rule must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, able to preach, doth signify a Minister of the word only; for in none but Ministers is that property required.  
But Presbyter is such a word, as being in the Scriptures confounded with Bishop, doth also note a person, who must by the Apostles rule be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or able to preach. Therefore the word Presbyter, doth signify a Minister only.     
The latter part of his assumption (saith he) in case he urge the words Lay, 
His answer to the latter part of the assumption.  and annual, may perhaps be true, and his cause never the better, nor ours the worse by it, it being enough for us, if there be Ecclesiastical governors, 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 he, is simply to deny all kind of only governing Elders, I as plainly deny the assumption. So that both his propositions in this Syllogism do want their armour of proof, and wait upon M. D. as two poor servants upon their master for their cloth, before they can do him any service.  
Mark well the spirit of this man. For having denied without reason the consequence of the proposition, being (even as himself propoundeth it) undeniable, were it not that he cavilled with the words Lay & annual, which in his answer to the assumption, he confesseth were not to be cavilled with: and having barely denied both the former part of the assumption, which I fortified by 3. reasons, which he could not answer, and also the latter, without any show of reason, though the proof of the contradictory in both lie upon him, (which course any man might take to answer the best argument that ever was propounded,) notwithstanding he scornfully craketh, as if he had done some great act, which might give occasion to leave fight, and fall a crowing. For my part, I greatly wonder a● him, how he could either content himself, or hope to satisfy his reader with such answers. For if it be a sufficient answer to say. I flatly deny the proposition, & I do as plainly deny 〈◊〉 assumption; who cannot answer sufficiently any Syllogism whatsoever? But if a man having thus answered, shall take occasion thereby to insult over his adversary, verily as he deludeth egregiously his Reader that is simple, so he maketh himself ridiculous, if not odious, to him that is judicious.  

§ Sect. 6. :  Having seen how substantially he hath dealt with the substance of each proposition, let us now see how mamnerly 〈◊〉 he dealeth with the manner of laying them down. For in regard thereof, he chargeth me with three no small faults. First, inclination to popery: 2. falsehood: 3. contempt and scorn. The which imputations, if he cannot make good by sound evidence, he will show himself unmannerly in objecting them.  
How then proveth he the first? He saith, and saith it again, that I delight to call the Ministers of the Gospel by the n●me of Priests, which all but those that are Popish, or desirous to please the Papists would rather forbear.  
First, I deny that those which call Ministers by the name of priests, are popish. For those worthy instruments under God, of that happy reformation, which is among us, & separation from Popery, in the book of Common prayer, in the book of Orders, and in other their writings, do ordinarily use that name. And when they distinguish the Clergy into three degrees, they usually reckon these three orders, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, therein imitating the most ancient and purest writers, both of the Greek & Latin Church, who seldom using the word Minister, distinguish the same degrees by words of the same signification: viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Episcopi, Presbyteri, Diaconi, that is, Bishops, Priests, Deacons.  
Yea, but the Popish shavelings have appropriated the words to themselves., and protestant writers find fault with them for calling the Ministers of the Gospel by the name of Priests, to which purpose he allegeth D. Whitaker, & D. Raynolds Whereto I answer: of the word Priest, there are two uses, whereof the one is an abuse, the other is the right & proper use of the word, according to the native signification thereof. The abuse is, when it is ascribed to the Ministers of the Gospel, as it is the English of Sacerdos, which signifieth a Sacificing Priest, and implieth a relation to sacrifices. Thus the Papists abuse the name when they apply it to the Ministers of their Gospel, with relation to their sacrifice of the Mass.  
And thus D. Whitaker denieth both Sacerdos and Priest (as it is the English of Sacerdos) to agree to the Ministers of the new Testament. 
Ad Duraeun.  The right use of the word is, when it is used as the English of Presbyter, and without any relation to sacrifice. For Presbyter is the name which the Apostles and all antiquity gave to the Ministers of the Gospel, 
Conf. with Ha●t. 4●3. 464  and the English of Presbyter is Priest, as D. Raynolds doth confess, where also he showeth, that the Papists play the sophisters in using the word Priest, after a double sort, the one, as it is derived from Presbyter, the other, as it signifieth the same that Sacerdos. For Priest, as i● signifieth a man appointed to Sacrifice is 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Sacerdos, and not Presbyter. The name which the Apostles give a Minister, 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  is Presbyter and not Sacerdos.  
And again, though th' Apostles call the Ministers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whence our English name of Priests is derived; yet they did not call them priests, as the name of priest hath relation to Sacrifice. For the word Priest hath two meanings: the one of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the other of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whereof the one is given by the Apostles, but doth not imply authority to sacrifice; the other, doth imply authority to Sacrifice, but is not given by the Apostles. It is plain therefore, that the word Priest is rightly used in the signification of presbyter, but abused, as I said, in the Sermon, to signify Sacrificing priests.  
I confess, that the first Translators of the Bible into English, in these latter times, being, (as D. Fulke saith) not Lords of men's speech, 
Mo● trium literarum tyrannus.  but overruled by the popish use of the word, as it were by a tyrant, did give the name priest to Sacrificing priests, as the papists do, and having so done, when they were to translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Presbyteri, which do not signify Sacrificing priests, but Ministers of the Gospel, they avoided the name, lest they might seem with the papists, to make the Ministers of the Gospel Sacrificing priests. And so I do confess that their purpose was godly, who translated presbyters not priests, but Elders: though I dare not say that the cause was sufficient. For if they had called Sacerdotes Sacrificers, as the French do in their Translations, 
Sacrificateurs.  they might safely have given the Name Priest to the Ministers, and left the name of Sacrificers to the popish priests.  
The name Priest saith D. Fulke, we do not find fault with, as it cometh of presbyter, 
Co●r. Rhem. in Matth. 23. S. ●. In Act. 14. S. 4.  but as it is commonly used for a Sacrificing priest.  
Again, as for the name priest, as it is derived of the Greek, we do not refuse it, but rather wish that the Sacrificers of the Law had never been called by it.  
And again more fully, we do not contend for the terms, nor refuse the name priest, 
In Lam. 5 l. 4.  when it signifieth the same whom the Apostle calleth presbyter: but when by abuse and vain cavillation of papists, it is taken to signify a Sacrificer.  
To conclude therefore, according to the true Etymology, we confess the name to be good, and do use it in our service book and otherwise, knowing that it implieth no sacrificing, as you most fond 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 Law, but priests, to make and observe that difference which the holy Ghost always observeth in the New Testament, they call the one Priests, the other Elders. But if they had called the one Sacrificers, and the other priests, that priests might have been known to differ from Sacrificers, it had been a small matter, and perhaps hindered you of this vain quarrel. It is not a popish abuse therefore to call Ministers priests, but to give the name priest, to Sacrificers.  
And likewise, it is an abuse of Innovators, to give the Name presbyter, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (as it is a name of an office, and not of age,) which is proper to Ministers, to them who are no priests. Who, though they may be called Saecerdotes, that is, Sacrificers, as all Christians may, yet presbyters they cannot truly be called.  
But how doth he prove that I delight to have the Ministers of the Gospel called priests? Forsooth because there was no necessity laid upon me to call them so, but might have contended myself with the name of Ministers.  
Whereto I answer, that I mention the Name Priest, (the proper English of presbyter;) as a necessary argument, to prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or presbyter, doth signify a Minister, as I showed before, affirming that they might as well make question, whether there were any Lay-priests as Lay- presbyters. For this was the first argument of the three; to none whereof the refuter could see any necessity laid upon him to answer. It is necessary with him (belike,) to wrangle with words, but not to answer arguments.  
Now to conclude my answer to his first accusation, I appeal to the refuter himself, and to all which either know me, or have read my other Books; whether this imputation was laid to my charge, out of an upright conscience, or not rather out of an uncharitable desire to bring me, though unjustly, into the dislike of the people, to whom the Name priest is odious, as D. Fulke truly noteth; because they know not the Etymology of it. 
n Matt. 23.  For if they knew that the English word Priest, as also the like words in French and Italian, were derived from Presbyter, and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Presbyter, is the name which the holy Ghost and all antiquity ordinarily giveth to the Ministers of the Newe-Testament; They would rather condemn them that abuse, either the name Priest, to Sacrificers, as the Papists do; or the name Presbyter, whereof Priest is the true English, to signify Lay-Elders, as our Disciplinarians do: then he would mislike our Church, which useth the word aright? Namely, as the proper and true English of Presbyter, from whence it is derived, without any relation to Sacrifices at all.  
Whereunto this is to be added, that howsoever our first Translators in King Henry his time, avoiding the word priest, translated Presbyteri, by Elders; Yet by Elders they understood no other but Ministers. As appeareth by this speech of M. tindal.  

Presbyteri Pag. 251.  All that were called Elders (or Priests, if they so will,) were called BB. also.  

§ Sect. 7. His second accusation, chargeth me with untruth.  Secondly, he chargeth me with untruth, for saying, that question might as well be made, whether there were annual Ministers, or Lay-Priests, as annual or Lay-Presbyters.  
But this I proved, when I demonstrated by three arguments, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or presbyter, doth signify none but a Minister. 
Ad Pag. 13.  For if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or presbyter, as it is the name of an Ecclesiastical office, doth signify nothing but a minister or priest, as I proved; then that question might as well be made of Ministers or Priests, as of presbyters.  
But how I pray you doth he convince me of falsehood? with an if begging the question, if Presbyter doth not signify only a Minister, than question may be made of Lay-Presbyters, though not of annual Ministers or Lay-Priests. As if he should have said, if you will grant me the question, and deny that which you have already proved, and I could not answer, than I shallbe able to charge you with untruth. Yea, but the untruth of my speech was before manifest in the former part of the answer to the proposition. His words there, be these: that the consequence is weak, because there might be other Presbyters in the primitive Church, though the word Presbyter did evermore signify a Minister.  
So that this was but a poor shift for want of proof to refer the Reader as oft he doth to another place, where he should find little to the purpose. In both places, as you see, all that he can say is, that seeing it might be there were Presbyters that were not Ministers, and if there were such, which I have disproved, then that would appear to be false, which I have proved to be most true.  
I come to his third accusation: 
§ Sect. 8. The third imputation of scorn and contempt.  It would be noted saith he, with what contempt and scorn he calleth the Elders in question, Lay-annuall-onely-governing Elders. And it would be noted say I, with how bad a conscience he wilfully depraveth the manner of uttering my words, to give some small colour both to his unconscionable denial of the proposition which himself contradicted in answer to the assumption; and also to this forged calumniation. For whereas I propounded the words distinctly with a Comma or note of distinction, lay, annual, onely-governing Presbyters, using these divers titles more fully and certainly to express whom I meant; he hath joined them with notes of union Lay-annuall-onely-governing Elders, as if I had in contempt & scorn of them, framed a nickname for them, compounded of all these words.  
And whereas he saith, that I call them lay in disgrace of the Elders, and reproach of those who stand for them, as though they committed the government of the Church to such as are base and private persons: the truth is, that he disgraceth the laity intolerably, as if there were no lay persons but base and private men. Indeed if I had said, that such men as be not of the Clergy, are to be called idiotae, (as some of your side would have them called, rather than lay men) you might have had some colourable pretence for this accusation. But when with Calvin we divide the whole Church into the clergy and laity: 
Instit. li. 4. c. 12. li. 1.  under the laity, we comprehend the noble as well as the base, and public persons as well as private, and men of excellent gifts as well as Idiots.  
And it is but a silly exception, which you do usually make, that you would not have them called lay, but Ecclesiastical. For first, that word doth not distinguish them from the Ministers. And secondly, because Ecclesia the Church, being divided into the Clergy, and laity, those which be lay men (as not being of the Clergy,) may have Ecclesiastical offices, and in regard thereof may be called Ecclesiastical officers, as Church wardens among us, officials, Chancellers, and commissioners in causes Ecclesiastical, as well as your Elders, whom though you make Ecclesiastical officers, yet you cannot deny them to be Lay-Elders.  

Let our great Clergy men saith he, know and be all men by these presents given to understand etc.  Now to avoid this imagined disgrace, he would have all men to take notice, what manner of persons they would have by prayer and imposition of hands ordained and set a part to this Ecclesiastical office: not such as each parish is like to afford, but according to the utopicall Idea conceived in their own brain. And though there must be many of them in every parish, men religious, of great gravity and piety (you may be sure) and of good years, adjoined to the Ministers: and though matters are to be carried by plurality of voices, every one having the like right of suffrage; yet we must not in any case think, that they will overrule 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 Presbytery, there is no superiority of degree or power, but a distinction of order; and that all matters are managed by common and equal right in giving their voices: the whole consistory being for that cause called a Presbytery, because, howsoever otherwise there may be distinction of degrees among them, yet in this common function the Ministers are made equal with the Elders, and the Elders with the Ministers. So that they wrong them shrewdly, who shall say, where all have equal right, and where all things are swayed by the greater number of voices, the one or two voices at the most of the Ministers, are like to be overruled by the multitude of Elders.  Serm. Sect. 2. pag. 8. 
§ Sect. 9 The dese●● of the 2. se●● on, serving prove that there are 〈◊〉 sound testimonies fo● Lay-Elders and that the● are but two that I thou●● worth the answering.  For although many places are usually alleged out of the scriptures and fathers: yet I do unfeignedly profess, that to my knowledge there are only two allegations, which I esteem worth the answering. The one, out of 1. Tim. 5. the other out of Ambrose on the same chapter. 
Where the words of the abortive book seemed bitter and spiteful enough, 
Ad pag. 1.  there our refuter followeth that copy: otherwise to that potion of wormwood, he addeth an infusion of gall, as in this place. It is strange saith the abortive book, that a man of such skill in logic as I acknowledge D. D. to be &c: and more strange that one of his temper &c: is it fit for D. D. modesty, etc. Not so, saith the libeler, you must not attribute any skill in logic, or modesty to him now: we must make our followers believe, that since he hath written in defence of the Antichristian calling of the prelate's, those petite pope's, he hath lost all modesty, and skill in logic too. For if we cannot answer his arguments, nor take away his answers, let us disgrace his person: so will our followers be sure to prejudge any thing he saith, and which is our desire, the people whom he thought to satisfy, shallbe kept in the same terms they were wont. But my purpose is not by reciting his words to spread this part of his spiteful libel, and much less by vouchsafing an answer to multiply words in this kind with so odious a wrangler. To pass by therefore his barking eloquence, or dogge-rhetoricke, the reader is to understand that in this section and those which follow, I endeavour to defend the two former assertions, viz. that they can neither prove that the word Presbyter doth signify any but a Minister, nor yet produce any one pregnant testimony mentioning or meaning their lay or onely-governing-elders.  
Now I would know of my adversary for my learning, how such a negative as this should be maintained. Whether, by induction of particulars, or by special insisting upon the instances which the adversaries give: not the former, for that were to examine every sentence in the scriptures, counsels and fathers, which were infinite. If the latter, should I in one of the least parts intended in the Sermon, where I had promised brevity, stand upon every particular allegation which could hardly have been discussed in a whole Sermon? or should I make choice of some of the principal, which are of more weight than all the rest? the latter course I was necessarily to make choice of. And therefore supposing our opposites to insist on those two testimonies, which are of more weight than all the rest, yea then all, that all of them can say beside in this cause, I endeavoured to defend my assertions against them. And although I did not intend to dispute Syllogistically as the opponent, but to defend the truth as the respondent; yet this my defensive answer is brought to the anvil, and forged into a Syllogism after this manner.  If neither Paul in 1. Tim. 5.17. nor Ambrose upon 1. Tim. 5.1. (he should have added, which two allegations only I esteem worth the answering, or which two are of more worth than all the rest) do not mention or mean any lay or only governing Elders, than no pregnant testimony can be alleged to that purpose. But neither doth Paul, nor Ambrose, in those places mention or mean any lay or only governing Elders: Therefore no pregnant testimony can be produced to that purpose. 
The refuters three wonders.  
In answering the proposition, he wonders, and wonders again at three things. 
§ Sect. 10.  First at my want of modesty, in that I gloriously despise, and insolently reject the judgements of those divines, who besides those two, allege many other testimonies, when I say, I esteem these two only worth the answering. Whereunto I answer, that I esteemed no other, in that shortness of time, worthy to be stood upon but those two.  
And if that answer will not suffice him, I plainly profess, and yet without despising the judgement of any learned man, that these two testimonies are the two main pillars, whereon their whole building leaneth: and that, as their other testimonies depend upon the presupposal of these as giving witness to their Lay-Elders: so these being taken from them, the rest have scarcely any probability in them, but may as easily be rejected, as objected. And this I will say, because I am so indignly provoked, that if my adversary, or any of his copartners, can produce but any one testimony, either out of scriptures, or fathers, that either may be compared with either of these, or that in itself, without an eye to these, hath so much as any show of a necessary or demonstrative proof, I will then be content, that they should wonder, & wonder again, at my want of modesty.  
Secondly, he wonders at my want of logic in making so feeble a consequence. The consequence, though it be not absolutely necessary, yet upon supposal, that these are the two chief proofs, without which, all they can say beside for their Elders, is scarce worth the answering, it is necessary. For, if any testimonies prove their Elders, then certainly the chief, and which be, as it were, all in all.  
Thirdly, he wondereth at the weak prop, whereby this consequence is underset; which is my unfeigned profession, that to my knowledge, there were only these two allegations, which I esteemed (in that shortness of time) worth the answering; which was reason sufficient for my insisting on those two alone. If this prop be so weak, let his knowledge, and the skill of all his adherents, show but one other testimony comparable to these two. But that he may leave both wondering and wandering, I do again plainly and confidently affirm, that the whole cause of the Lay-Elders relieth on these two places; and therefore as in the former negative assertion I did imply; so now I express, a challenge to him and all his partakers, to produce any one such testimony if they can. This challenge I say was implied, when I professed that they cannot allege out of the scriptures, Counsels, or Fathers, any one pregnant testimony mentioning or meaning, any lay, or only governing 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 allege, and approve also (I doubt not) to all judicious and indifferent men, 
His answer to the challenge.  but that others before now have said enough to that purpose. And at this time, (professing myself an answerer only, not an opponent) it is not my 
(a) The abortive book hath the●e word, no man can reasonably look that we should dispute the question.  part to dispute the questions, but defend the truth, so far only 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 upon it. For whereas I said, and say again, that besides these two testimonies, they can produce no more of any moment in comparison; he saith, that he both could and would produce many more. He would, I do not doubt, if he could: but because he doth not, you may be assured, he cannot. What he, and all of them can do, he performeth afterwards, when he will let you see that they can strike also; and yet that all, is as nothing to these two.  
The reasons of his refusal are two; the one, because others before now, have said enough to that purpose; but that I denied upon certain knowledge. And what they have said to any purpose, hath been confuted also before now; and that, though often repeated, and oft refuted, as threadbare as it is, himself doth afterwards produce, having nothing to say, that hath so much as a good show of a necessary proof, as hereafter shall appear. The other, because he being the answerer only, 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 only defend the truth.  
The which is a sophistical, and if I may freely speak what I truly think, a lewd shift, to elude my answers and the reasons thereof, and to delude the unlearned Reader.  
For who I pray you, be the opponents and plaintiffs in this controversy, we or they? Those which be in possession do not use to be plaintiffs.  
Neither would there have been any controversy betwixt us, if they did not oppose: forasmuch therefore as they are the opponents, urging the pretended discipline; we the defendants maintaining the established discipline among us; it is a sufficient defence of our cause, especially where we hold the negative, if we show that their proofs are not sufficient; and their proofs are not sufficient, which do not necessarily and inevitably prove, that which they urge.  
Neither let them ever hope to bring in their Lay-Elders, till they have necessarily proved that they ought to be admitted.  
But the lewdness of this shift is then most manifest, when as I ex professo undertaking to answer their objections, he will needs make me the opponent: and where it is required of them, necessarily to prove what they say, and is sufficient for me, to show that their proof is not necessary; absurdly, against all order of disputation, he maketh himself the respondent, and me the opponent. So that my answers must be put into Syllogisms, and his proofs be thought sufficient, if he can but say, that they make not against his cause, though they do not prove it. Examples of this shameful dealing we shall not want long. For in the discussing of their allegation out of 1. Tim. 5.17. which is their chief objection, it is most manifest, that they are the opponents, and I the answerer. But my adversary maketh me the opponent, and my answers must be oppositions, and so put into Syllogisms: and in the end as you shall see, whereas that is the only place in scripture which they can with any show of necessary proof allege for their Elders; he would make the Reader believe, that he hath acquitted himself well, if their Elders be not necessarily disproved out of that place. When indeed, if they be not necessarily and inevitably proved out of it, they have no ground nor warrant for them in the scriptures.  
Again in my preface (where the refuter understandeth me to have made a challenge, 
§ Sect. 12.  & as it were to have cast down the gauntlet) as I desired they would distinctly answer my arguments, so also that they would produce their proofs, (for it is an easier thing to pull down, at least to seem so, then to set up:) in his answer to my preface, he accepteth of the offer, acknowledging that I desire nothing but reason; and doth not only promise to satisfy my desire, but also beareth the Reader in hand, that he hath brought sound demonstrations, pregnant proofs, arguments strongly grounded upon the scriptures, &c: but now, when he should come to the performance, when I again renew the challenge; averring, that they have no such proofs, and expecting that he should produce them, if he have any: his answer is, that alas he is the respondent, and it cannot with any reason be expected, that he should bring proofs or dispute the questions.  
And that you may yet more fully note the absurdity of this disputer, (of whose great acts in this book, I hear no small vaunts) though he say, it is not his part to produce proofs, neither can it with reason be expected of him, which afore he confessed to be reason: yet this is to be understood of needful proofs, whereby he might prove something, which is by us denied. But if there be any thing, which seemeth to make for his cause, and which we freely confess, as for example, the consent of diverse protestant writers with them in some things, there he will be sure, to be plentiful in proving of that, which no man doth deny.  
And this is the chief thing, which he and his consorts in compiling this book, have laboured. As if they should have said: do you indeed grant, that diverse protestant writers expound such and such places as we do? and do you not deny, but that diverse of them agree with us in some things? Marry that will we prove at large, and although reason grounded on scripture, testimony of antiquity, and no small consent of new writers be against us: yet we will make a fair muster of those new writers which be for us: and though the greatest part of them be parties in the cause as well as ourselves, yet we will allege them as witnesses without exception, and will never have done with alleging their testimonies. For though the learned will easily discern the desperateness of our cause, yet the unlearned sort, who are carried away with shows, seeing such a multitude of learned men on our side, will still cleave unto us, etc.  
And this shall suffice (saith he) for his proposition. To his assumption I answer, by denying it, and affirming that both these places do speak of only governing Elders, and that I will clear (as the opponent, no doubt) by the places themselves, which now come to be handled.   

CHAP. FOUR Containing my first Reason, why Lay-Elders are not proved, out of 1. Tm. 5.17.  Serm. Sect. 3. pag. 9 The Presbyters (saith Paul) that rule well, let them be accounted worthy of double honour, especially they, who labour in the Word and doctrine. From whence they gather a distinction of Presbyters, or Elders; that some are Governing Elders only; others, also Ministers. Whereunto I answer, that not any of the Fathers, nor any other before our age, did ever understand this text of any other, but of the Ministers of the word; they conceiving of it, as if the Apostle had said, Let those Ministers or Priests which rule well, etc. 
THeir reason briefly standeth thus: The Apostle in this place, doth set down 2. sorts of Elders, the one, only ruling; the other labouring also, in the word and doctrine.  
Therefore besides the Ministers which laboured in the Word and Doctrine, there were other Presbyters or Elders, which were no Ministers.  
This, as I said, is the principal reason that is alleged for the Lay-Elders, wherewith the Disciplinarians do wonderfully please themselves.  
T. B. is so confident, that he judgeth them to be of no sound judgement that will not acknowledge two sorts of elders to be contained in this place. 
D● grad. Minist. ●. 13  Another T. B. that spied them under the wings of the 4. Beasts, Apoc: 4. saith plainly: they are blind, and of no understanding, that cannot or will not see them in this place. T. C. setting some colour upon Act. 14.23. to make it show for Lay-Elders, at length he saith, Why should we follow conjectures? when S. Paul, 1. Tim. 5.17. doth declare what these Elders are? The author of the counterpoison affirmeth, that the Apostle in express words, doth in this place set down their two sorts of Elders. And this is usual with them all, to confirm their exposition of other places which are ambiguous, by this which they esteem most clear.  
To their reason I answered, by denying their antecedent, and because I would not shake off the opponents with a bare denial as enemies, but satisfy them as brethren, I yielded some reasons of my denial, which I set down in 2. degrees. For whereas they urge the Lay-Elders, as necessarily collected out of this place;  
First, I answer, there is no necessity that the place should be understood of any other but Ministers. And secondly, that this place is so far from concluding Lay-Elders, that it doth exclude them, or conclude against them.  
The former again, I maintain by two reasons: The which I can well be content that my adversary shall reduce into Syllogisms, so he would frame them, as being the reasons of a respondent, that is, such as be propounded, to show that there is no necessity of their inference from this Text. For that as I said, is a sufficient defence for the respondent.  
The first reason is this; If none of the Fathers, nor any other before our age, did ever understand this text of Lay-Elders, but all with one consent, conceived of it, as spoken only of Ministers: Then is it not necessary, nor yet likely, that Lay-Elders are meant in this place.  
For surely if there had been any such Elders in the Apostles times, the ancient Fathers, which were near those times, had been more likely to have noted these two sorts of Elders, than those who came so many hundred years after.  
But none of the ancient Fathers, nor any other before our age, ever understood this Text of Lay-Elders: but all with one consent, conceived of it as spoken of Ministers.  
Therefore it is not necessary, nor yet likely, that Lay-Elders are here meant.  
Of this Syllogism he denieth both the the parts. 
§ Sect. 2 Ad Pag. 1● His first reaso● of his denyal● of the consequence.  And of his denial▪ of the consequence in the proposition, he giveth three reasons.  
The first, because we may not argue negatively, concerning the sense of the Scriptures, from the authority of the Fathers, etc.  
Whereunto I answer, that I argue as affirmatively from the consent of the Fathers, and of all before our age, who always conceived of these words, as if the Apostle had said, Let the Ministers or Priests which rule well, &c: as negatively: Neither do I reason as he would make me to argue, that either because this place is not by the Fathers expounded, of Lay-Elders, therefore that exposition is necessarily to be rejected: or because it is always by them interpreted, as speaking of Ministers only: Therefore this interpretation is necessarily to be received. But thus I reason, that this exposition is more likely, which hath the perpetual and universal consent of the Fathers, and of all writers before our age, then that which not only hath not their allowance, but is clean contrary to their interpretation.  
Whereunto I now add that, which my adversary will never be able to answer.  
That exposition of the word Presbyters. 1. Tim. 5.17. which is agreeable to the perpetual use of the word in Scriptures, councils, and Fathers, is to be admitted, and chose, that exposition thereof, which cannot be warranted by any one example or testimony, either of Scriptures, councils, or Fathers, (it being a word in all of them of frequent use) may not be admitted, and much less urged, as the only true sense of that place.  
But by the word Presbyteri to understand the Ministers of the Word and Sacraments alone, is an exposition thereof, agreeable to the perpetual use of the word, in Scriptures, Counsels, and Fathers; and not one testimony can be alleged, where the word (signifying an Ecclesiastical function) doth import any other but a Minister: and contrariwise, to understand the word Presbyters in that place, as containing in the signification thereof Lay-Elders, is such an exposition of that word as cannot be warranted by any one example or testimony, either of Scriptures, Counsels, or Fathers.  
Therefore the former interpretation, expounding that word of Ministers alone, is to be received; and the other, including Lay-Elders, is not to be admitted, and much less is it to be urged, as the only true sense of that place.  
For my part, until my adversary shall be able to disprove this assumption by some one instance, which I am well assured he shall never be able to do: I will take it for granted, and in my conscience am fully resolved, that the Apostles meaning in this place, is all one, as if he had said; Let the Ministers or Priests which rule well, etc.: which argument, if no more could be added, is sufficient to show, that Lay-Elders cannot be proved out of this Text.  

§ Sect. 3. His 2. reason, because their exposition favouring Lay-Elders, hath the consent of new writers.  His second reason is this: 
That interpretation which hath the consent of the new writers, though contrary to the exposition of the Fathers, is to be preferred before that which hath the consent of the Fathers.  
The Interpretation of the word Presbyters, as implying Lay-Elders, hath the consent of new writers.  
Therefore that is to be preferred. The proposition is propounded. pag. 20. lin. 22. &c: the assumption is set down, pag. 16. lin. 17. etc.   
To the parts of which syllogism before I answer, I must know of the disputer, whether he mean the consent of all the new writers, or not, for if the word all be not added, the proposition is absolutely to be denied. For it is against sense, that the opinions of some new writers should be preferred, not only to other, and perhaps as many, and as learned new writers; but also to the general and perpetual consent of all writers before our time. If it be added, then is the assumption manifestly false. For that exposition hath not the consent of all, nor as I am persuaded, of the most protestant divines. Notwithstanding, he endeavoureth to prove both.  
That the proposition is true, 
His proposition examined, and whether the authority of old writers, or new is to be preferred.  he appealeth to my conscience. Whence he shall receive this resolution. Where the contrary expositions of the old and new writers concern a point of doctrine, I would not incline to the authority of the new, unless they have better reason than the old. For where the question is simply of authority, which is the greater; I say with the Philosopher, that whereas witnesses be of two sorts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, some old, some new: 
Rheti. l. 1. c. 15.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the ancient are of greatest credit. If it concern a matter of story or fact, as whether there were any Lay-Elders in the primitive Church, or not; I would without comparison, give credit to the ancient writers, who lived in, or near those times, then to them who lived 13. or 14. hundred years after them.  
Yea, but the points being in question in these days, and not in the Fathers, the new writers have been the more occasioned to search into them.  
Tell me then, why was not this point called into question in the Father's times? Was it not because there was none to contradict their judgement? And doth not this prove, that the Assertion, which in this cause is opposite to antiquity, is to be condemned of novelty?  
Again, you say the judgement of the new writers is to be preferred, because they have more searched into the matter, as being now in question.  
Whereunto I answer, that in this very respect, the authority of the ancient is to be preferred, for the reason which the Philosopher giveth in the place before alleged. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The old be of most credit, for they are uncorrupt, or unpartial. Whereas contrary wise, the new writers, which oppose themselves to us, who follow the ancient, are parties in the cause; and therefore to be prejudged as partial.  
And whereas he challengeth me to show if I can, what moves 〈◊〉 to think that the spirit of God, who enlightened them, as touching the substance, in which they were so sound, did fail them in this particular: I ask him whether he doth think they were free from all error or mistaking in the expounding of Scriptures? and if he thinketh that they did fail in any particular, I would desire him to show what moveth him to think, that the spirit of God, who enlightened them as touching the substance, in which they were so sound, did fail them in that particular? This therefore was a mere colour: or if there were any weight in it, might not I more justly make the like demand of him concerning the Fathers; what reason he hath to think, that the ancient Fathers who had such profound knowledge in the greatest mysteries of divinity, whereby they confounded the most subtle heretics, should be ignorant of those things which appertain to the outward government of the Church? or what reason he hath to imagine, that the writers of our age do know what was done or not done in the primitive Church, better than the Fathers, that lived in those times?  

§ Sect. ●. His assumption answered 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 writers.  As touching his assumption: if he speaketh of all the new writers, it is manifestly false, if not of all, it is to no purpose, neither doth it need to be proved, because it is not denied. Yea, but the naming of 25. writers, and boasting of more in a case not denied, though to the learned and judicious it seem a very idle and vain flourish, and in this writer, who is copious only in this kind, a manifest sign of a desperate cause, which cannot be fortified by better proofs, which he forbeareth to allege under a poor pretence, that he is the answerer, and yet spendeth above 20. whole pages in his book, in proving what we deny not, that many writers are partly of his mind. Notwithstanding, it is a matter of great content to the unlearned Reader, to be led along, (for so he speaketh more than once) by such a worthy leader, from one to another till he hath seen the whole Troop, and hath heard the commendation of every one.  
For that also is to be noted, how he playeth the egregious Mountae ●banke, in commending and setting forth his authorities in most glorious manner.  
Luther that rose up as a bright morning star, even another Elias of these times. Bullinger, that learned and faithful Pastor of the Church of Zuricke: Peter Martyr, that burning and shining lamp of Oxeforde: Zanchius, a man admirable for judgement and pains: the very Oedipus, (saith the abortive book) of the Schoolmen's riddles: Chemnitius, the worthy examiner of the Tridentine Council, and overthrower of their heresies: Old Father Nowell, in his book published by authority, and commanded to be taught: D. Whttaker, who like another David, fought valiantly against the popish Goliath. D. Fulke, one of the wonders of our days, etc. Just commendations I confess of worthy men, whose memories are blessed.  
Notwithstanding when he hath all done, one good reason alleged, though it were by the meanest of his 25, had been of more worth than the allegation of all their authorities, though they had been as many more. But this was done as I said, to please the unlearned: for otherwise where the new writers gainsay him and his fellows, as they do in the points of their newfound parish discipline, they set not a button by them all.  
But if bragging of all, or almost all the new writers, he name but 25, 
§ Sect. 5. Not all those whom he citeth, do expound this text of Lay-Elders.  and stoop very low for some of them, (especially if you consider that they are to be weighed with the ancient Fathers) and if of the 25. he thought good to cite but 8: now if all these 8. be not clear on his side, what shall we think of the rest? Surely Luther, though he tell him that he rose up as a bright morning star, even another Elias of these times, will not be gotten to speak a word for him. 
Adverse. falso nomi●. Episc. 331.  For in the place by him cited, he doth not so much as speak of this Text, and much less expound it: But he speaketh only of the 19 verse, Receive not an accusation against an Elder: where understanding Elder, according to the use of the word, in the first verse of that chapter, as a word of age, as well as of office, (as chrysostom also doth, though he understand, vers: 17: of Ministers only) he saith, that how soever the popish Bishops, against whom he writeth, did expound this place of Priests, that is themselves, that they might be the more free from accusation or reproof: yet the Apostle speaketh of Presbyteri, that is, Elder and grave men, (for such then, bare rule in the Church) meaning thereby most plainly ancient Ministers, as appeareth by the words following; which the refuter hath Sophistically and shamefully perverted. For the Apostle doth not speak, De iis Episcopis (saith Luther,) & Sacerdotibus, qui iam nostra aetate plerumque sunt aetate florenti & penè adolescentes, sed de senibus & grand●● bus in Scriptura peritis loquitur; Of those Bishops and Priests, which now in our time are, for the most part of a flourishing age, and in a manner young youths, and lusty gallants, (which he meant in the words going a little before, when he calleth them Penelope's sponsos,) but he speaketh of such as be aged, and ancient men, skilful in the Scriptures.  
Observe now our Sophister's dealing.  
First he saith, Luther expoundeth this verse of Lay-Elders; when as Luther doth not so much as speak of this text: 2. that he should say, their Lay-elders ruled in the Church then, when he plainly speaketh of ancient and aged Ministers. 3. that Luther denieth simply, that Paul speaketh of BB. and Priests. For so he citeth his words; Neque enim loquitur de Episcopis & Sacerdotibus, when he saith, that he speaketh not of such Bishops as were in his time, young & lusty men; but of such as were aged & skilful in the scriptures.  
Bullinger in neither place alleged, doth say, that there were elders in the church, which were not ministers, but rather the contrary. For on 1. Tim. 5.17. he understandeth that text, as requiring the stipend of the ministry, & seemeth to confound the words Ministers and Presbyters in that sentence which the refuter citeth by halves. Cum emin varià sint in ecclesia munia non unius quoque generis ministri aut Presbyteri sunt. For where Bullinger saith, Ministers or Presbyters be not all of one kind, by Presbyters, meaning no other but Ministers, he citeth him thus: the Elders are not of one kind, leaving out the word Ministers. And upon the words following in the nineteenth verse, he saith, as to a diligent & good Minister of Christ sustenance is due, so also defence, the reason of which law is this, a Presbyter is the Minister of truth, and truth procureth hatred, 
Dec. 5. Serm. 3.  etc. In his Decades he saith, the Elders in the Church of Christ, are either BB. or otherwise prudent and learned men added to the BB. who albeit they did not teach always as did the BB. yet were they present with them that taught, etc. Where he doth not speak of lay and unlearned Elders, but of wise and learned men of the Clergy.  
The rest, in the places cited, do acknowledge a second sort of Elders, besides those which chiefly laboured in the word and doctrine, but when they were of the laity or Clergy they do not mention.  
As for D. Fulk in his answer to the Rhemists on 1. Tim. 5.17. he giving two interpretations of that place, preferreth that whereby the Apostles words are understood of Ministers or Priests only, that as every one of them laboureth more in preaching and teaching, he is so much the more to be honoured.  
But of his assumption this is more then enough, seeing this is not the question between us, whether any of the new writers do stand for the new Elders, for that is confessed.  
His third reason for the denial of my proposition: 
§ Sect. 6. Ad pag. 21. His third reason: because my exposition is not made by any of the Fathers.  that if that consequence is good, my interpretation of this place is nought, seeing it hath not so much as the naked shade of any father to cover it. Naked to cover! But what fig leaves can he find to cover this naked, and shameless untruth? For whereas my exposition consisteth of two points, the first and principal that by Presbyters I understand, Ministers, as if the Apostle had said let the Ministers that rule well &c: 
Primas. in 1. Tim. 5.17. 〈◊〉 1. Tim. ●. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is to rise well, to spare or forbore nothing for the care of the sheep. § Sect. 7.  the second that by the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which commonly are translated governing well, I understand the commendable performance of their duty in general, for the latter I alleged the authority of Jerome and of the Syricke Paraphrast, to whom others might be added; for the former, I have the general consent of all the Fathers and of all writers before our age, who have expounded this place, and not one of them can be produced to the contrary; and yet he is not ashamed to say, that my interpretation hath not the patronage of any one Father.  
And thus much of the proposition: in confuting whereof, when he hath spent five whole pages with very ill success as you see, he concludeth with as vain and causeless a brag, as his success was bad.  
The assumption (that none of the Fathers nor any before our age did ever expound this text of any but Ministers) though he dares not plainly deny it; yet that it may appear, how he setteth himself to wrangle with every thing, he seeketh all the corners of his wit to find some starting holes: out of which he may easily be driven, if the Reader will but remember these two things. First, that I speak of such as have before our age, (meaning hoc seculum this century or hundred of years) expounded this place, either in their commentaries, or in their other writings, which be extant. For it were foolish presumption to rely upon their judgements, who, either did not write of it, or whose writings are not extant, whereby their judgement might be known. Secondly, that I am in this point the respondent, answering their allegation out of this place; and that the refuter is the opponent; who, if he will say any thing to the purpose, must prove by good instance the affirmative, that some one of the Fathers, or some other before our age hath expounded this place of Lay-Elders; and not absurdly urge me, being the respondent, to prove the negative; which as it cannot be otherwise proved, but by alleging, that no instance can be given to the contrary; so might it be easily disproved by any one instance, if any such could be given. If these two things be remembered, the bare recital of his five exceptions willbe a sufficient evidence of his folly. 
First diverse of the Fathers may so have expounded it, though their writings be not come to our hands: there is one instance, therefore some have so expounded it. 2. Some of them as Augustine, jerom, chrysostom, &c: have so written, that th●y may well be so understood, (which is utterly false for they understand by Presbyters, no other but Ministers) ergo, etc.  
3. Others write so briefly, that they expound not the former words of this text, (because Presbyter to them was as plain as Minister to us) ergo, etc.  
4 The ancientest of them (as Ignatius, Polycarpus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, &c:) whose works are now extant, though they left nothing written upon this place, yet (no doubt) they understood it of Lay-Elders; for they always in their writings (wherein Presbyter is oft mentioned) do understand thereby a Minister of the word, yea but they were most like to bear witness to this truth. No doubt for three of them, Ignatius, Polycarpus, & Cyprian, were Metropolitan Bishops; & by the other two, Tertullian and Origen, who were Presbyters you may easily conceive, what manner of men the Presbyters (who were distinguished from Bishops) were.  
Yea but in many men's judgements (who would feign have it so) they did give witness to this truth, though they left nothing written upon this place.   
But the fifth passeth all, for therein he giveth plain instances I warrant you of some before our age, etc. For Luther, Bucer, Bullinger, and diverse others in their time, understood this place of Lay-Elders, therefore diverse before our age. The antecedent he taketh for granted, as well as he might, because as we heard before how Luther who doth not speak of this text, by Presbyteri understandeth verse. 19 ancient Ministers, and Bullinger expounds it not of Lay-Elders; so, what Bucer saith, we have not yet heard. But the consequence he proveth by such an argument, as showeth he was very near driven, because D. King in a Sermon preached in the year 1606. saith, 
In Cant. 8. 1●.  that the Geneva discipline had not at that time seen the age of a man, though you should reckon the age of a man not at an 100 but 70. years, and well might he say so. For in Geneva it was first conceived in the year 1537. 
 when Calvin having with Farell & Viret, in the year before, attempted, as Beza saith; Ecclesiam compo●e●● and had drawn the first draft of it, got the assent of the Senate and people of Geneva on the 20. of July, 1537. howbeit before the year, 
 1541. it was not established, having in the mean time been banished together with Calvin.  
But why should time which is so precious be spent in confuting such silly shifts, whereof even the refuter himself is by this time (I hope) ashamed.   

CHAP. V. Containing my second reason, why Lay-Elders are not proved out of 1. Tim. 5.17.  
The 2 reason that Lay-Elders 〈…〉. Tim. 5.17.  Serm. Sect. 4. pag. 9 Neither doth the Apostle indeed note two sorts of Elders, as they imagine, but two duties of the Ministers, &c: to pag. 11. med. 
IN these words is set down the second reason of my exception against their allegation of 1. Tim. 5.17. proving that there is no necessity this place should be understood, as they imagine, of Lay-Elders. The reason standeth thus: If the words may very well be understood of two duties of Ministers, the one general, to be good precedents, the other special, to labour in the word & doctrine, in respect whereof the Apostle requireth double honour to be yielded unto them, than is there no necessity that this place should be understood as they imagine of Lay-Elders:  
But the Antecedent is true: Therefore the consequent.  
I might have reasoned thus. If diverse and sundry expositions, all of them understanding this place of Ministers alone, may be given, and each of them more probable or likely then that which is for the Lay-Elders; then is there no necessity, nor yet likelihood, that the place is to be understood of Lay-Elders:  
But diverse and sundry such expositions may be given, as after you shall hear.  
Therefore there is no necessity nor yet likelihood, that this text is to be understood of Lay-Elders.  
But I thought it sufficient to insist in this one exposition, which seemeth to me to have been the very meaning of the Apostle. For seeing the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Presbyter, as it noteth an Ecclesiastical person, doth always in all other places, in the writings both of the Apostles & Fathers, signify a Minister or Priest, and no one testimony can be alleged to the contrary: what sense is there, that it should otherwise be expounded here, unless the other words of the sentence did enforce so much. But that they do not, seeing they note only two duties of Ministers, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is the general duty of the Ministers, that is, to be good precedents; and to labour in the word and doctrine, is the special duty, for which especially honour is due to them. I had once thought, that the especial duties of a Minister had here been mentioned, the one respecting his behaviour only; the other, the ministery of the word, unto which all the duties of a Minister may be referred. But I did consider, it would be objected, that the meaning of the Apostle was not, that double honour should be given to Ministers, that only lived well, unless they did also preach: for in another place where he would have Ministers to be honoured and loved 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, more than abundantly for their work sake, 
1. Thess. ● 12.13.  he joineth these together, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which labour among you, and which govern you in the Lord: and therefore I insisted in this exposition, against which, well may my adversary cavil after his fashion, but he can take no just exception; especially, if the emphasis or force of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, be not neglected.  
As for his trivial gibes, 
Ad pag. 22.  which are frequent with him, of going lame upon both feet, of going upright on one leg and halting of another, of halting on the former leg, and limping of the hinder leg: they are fitter for him to use, then for me to answer. But though he boasteth, that my Syllogisms hitherto have been lame on both feet; yet I trust the judicious Reader will testify with me, that he hath not been able as yet, to disprove any one proposition, or assumption, which hitherto hath been produced. And I am verily persuaded, for all his gibes, he will have no better success in those which remain.  

§ Sect. 2. His answer to the 2. reason, and first to the proposition.  As touching the Syllogism, which now he is about to oppugn, he seemeth to be glad of mine amendment, that whereas hitherto I have gone lame on both feet, now I go upright on one leg, the consequence of the proposition being good. But yet he saith I am never the nearer, for on my assumption as it were on the other leg, I halt down right still.  
But shall the proposition escape so, think we? No, I warrant you: though he can object nothing against the matter, yet he must needs cavil at the words, for he will play small game rather than s●t out: two faults he findeth with the words, charging me that I speak unfitly and unkindly. unfitly, when I say the Apostle doth here note two duties of Ministers, the one general, the other special. What logic or reason is there in this kind of speech, saith he. What opposition betwixt these two duties? so much is he set upon opposition and division, that he thinks there is no reason in that speech, where is no opposition.  
And what is the logic that this logicaster doth teach me? forsooth I should have said, that the Apostle first speaketh of the Ministers duty in general, and afterwards in special. Thus, in disproving the manner of my speech he doth unwittingly approve it: such is his judgement. For if the Apostle first speaketh of the duty in general, and afterwards in special; then doth he speak of two duties, the one general, the other special. For when you speak of a duty in general, do you not mean a general duty? and when you mention a duty in special, do you not mean a special duty? Yes, yourself do speak so pag. 25. where you say, the duties are in the former clause, general; in the latter, special.  
Neither doth that need to offend you, that I call them two, when you speak of them in the same place in the plural number. For if the one be not the other, as you will grant, than there is no question, but they are two. But, if want of opposition was the fault of my speech, what opposition I beseech you is in yours? or what logic was in this, to require opposition betwixt the whole and the part? or if you conceived of Duty as the Genus, and of this speech as a distribution thereof, what logic was it, not to discern an opposition in a distribution of duties into general and special? for general and special I hope be opposite.  
All this notwithstanding, my logic master chideth me for want of logic. If a man saith he should say, there are two duties of a Logician, the one general, to reason well, the other special, to judge well, would he not be thought to speak of logic, without logic? Yes verily, if in so speaking he should intend a perfect distribution of logical duties: Which, notwithstanding your cavils, might thus be performed.  
The duties of a Logician are either general, as that which is comprehended in the definition of Logic, to reason well: or special, as those which be contained in the distribution of Logic, to invent well, and to judge well.  
But, if in imitation of the Apostles speech, you should say, Logicians that reason well, that is all good Logicians, are to be honoured, especially those which are judicious, or which do excel in judgement, I might note out of this speech, not two sorts of Logicians, but two duties or faculties of all Logicians, in respect whereof they are to be honoured; the one general, to reason well, the other special to judge well, disposed not in a distribution, but in a comparative sentence, which some Logicians call axioma relatae qnantitatis, wherein the duties of a Logician are thus compared; that whereas Logicians are to be honoured for the performance of their take liberty, to disgrace, revile, slander, and libel, against our betters, we may not be touched in the least degree▪ neither will we stick obliquè to revile him, 
By appl●●o him. ●●6. 16.  that shall but say, we imagine that, wherein we foully, if not perniciously err. For your misinterpreting of this one place, is the very foundation of your Presbyterian discipline, and the vr●ging of that discipline, the very cause of that pernicious division which is amongst us. And thus much of the proposition.  
The assumption was this; 
§ Sect. 〈…〉 but a 〈◊〉 shift.  that this place may very well (for so much is sufficient for me, being the respondent, to say, but I do also add) and in mine opinion, is to be understood of two duties of Ministers: the one general, the other special. In respect whereof, double ●onour 〈◊〉 due unto them; This difference only being put, that whereas double honour is due to all Ministers, for the performance of their duty in general: yet especially for their pains in the Ministry of the Word, they being chiefly to be counted worthy of double honour, who excel that way.  
This assumption containing the exposition of this place, he oppugneth with all his force, cavilling that it is but a bare shift, and such as will not serve my turn: and this he undertaketh to prove by three reasons, which will prove nothing, but his own want of judgement.  
For, 
Ad pag. 2. & ●4.  as touching the first: Is not this extreme want of judgement, to allege the manifold expositions of this place, as a matter of great disadvantage to us; when as indeed, it notably disaduantageth his cause? especially, to triumph and insult over us for this cause, Saying lo here, how their tongues and pens in the exposition of this place are divided, as in the building of the Tower of Babel: and how they having no sure hold to trust unto, 
2. King. 22.  fly from one to another, as Zidkia●h went from chamber to chamber, to hide him.  
Now whether this multitude of expositions be an advantage to his cause, or disadvantage, the Reader may hereby judge.  
For seeing the learned men of our side do reason thus, as I noted before, (if diverse and sundry expositions of 〈◊〉 text 〈◊〉 be given, not including your Lay-Elders, every one whereof is 〈◊〉 probable th●n yours: then is it not necessary, nor yet likely that your Lay-Elders be here meant.) Who seeth not, but by how which the more expositions can be given in this ki●●e, by so much the less necessity there is to admit your exposition of Lay-Elders.  
But our men do thus reason: D. Bilson, pag: 130. The fourth reason (saith he) that holdeth me from receiving this construction (implying Lay-Elders) is, that I find diverse and sundry interpretations more agreeable to the Text, and more answerable to S. Paul's meaning then this. His reason standeth thus. If diverse and sundry interpretations are found more agreeable, etc. then that for Lay-Elders, then have we no reason to yield that Lay-Elders are meant in this place. But diverse and sundry such interpretations may be given, which he proveth, by producing four of them.  
Likewise D. King, as yourself do cite him, arguing to the same purpose, saith, How many interpretations may be brought to divert and disappoint Lay-governours? and than allegeth diverse.  
Of all which interpretations, (which by Presbyters understand Ministers) it may truly be affirmed, that they are more agreeable to the meaning of the Apostle, then yours. Seeing they expound the word Presbyter according to the perpetual use of it, in the writings both of the Apostles and Fathers: whereas of your use of the word, after all your pains and laying your heads, and helps together, you are not able to produce any one testimony, no not one.  
Wherefore, look how many such probable expositions may be given, understanding this place of Ministers only, they are so many proofs, that there is no necessity of admitting your interpretation.  

§ Sect. 4.  But let us now examine your reasons, whereby you would prove my exposition to be but a bare shift, and such as will not serve my turn.  

His 1. Reason that my exposition is a bare shift.  The first. If others opposing to Lay-Elders have brought 8. or 9 expositions, which are but shifts to avoid them, all of them being diverse among themselves, and from that which M. D. bringeth, than this 10. of his, is but a shift also: but the former is true, therefore the latter.  
If the reader desire to have examples of such lame legs, as the refuter talketh of, here he may have a couple. For as touching the proposition: seeing among different expositions, one only is the true and proper meaning of the place: may not this exception be taken against any exposition be it never so true, being but one amongst many? For suppose the other 9 were but shifts, how will it follow, that therefore the tenth is so: Must all expositions be false or unfit, because the most are such?  
If those 9 expositions be shifts as you say, and if yours be false as I have proved, this is so far from prejudging the truth of mine, which is the eleventh, as that it is a strong presumption to confirm it.  
For, seeing it is to be presumed, that some one true exposition of this Text is known; and seeing all other known expositions of this place, are either supposed by you, or proved by me to be false: it remaineth therefore, that this eleventh is true: The consequence therefore of the proposition is stark lame.  
The assumption also is false. For those divers expositions are not shifts, as this shifting Sophister cavilleth, but being all (I mean so many as by Presbyters understand Ministers) more probable than that which standeth for Lay-Elders: (for that doth not so much as touch the subject whereof the Apostle speaketh) they are so many proofs to avoid the necessity of their Lay-Elders, which by them are as necessary, urged and obtruded upon us. And this was his first reason, which he brought, to make it appear that my exposition is but a bare shift.  
His second, brought to the same purpose, either proveth it thus, 
§ Sect. 5. His 2. Reason.  or not at all. If M. D. utterly reject 8. of the aforesaid expositions, and resteth upon one of those 4. which D. Bilson propounded, than his exposition is a bare shift.  
But M. D. rejecteth 8. of the former expositions, and resteth upon one of those 4 which D. B. propoundeth.  
Therefore his exposition is a bare shift.  
In the proposition, there is not so much as a show of a good consequence, unless it be presupposed (which I have disproved) that D. B. expositions are but bare shifts. His assumption, which in plain terms he setteth down, containeth two untruths.  
For first, if you understand my words, as they may be understood of them that conceive me to be the answerer in this place, and as myself even now propounded them, than doth it not follow that I utterly reject all other expositions: because, in adding this to the former, I seem to prefer it before the rest.  
Again, that I rest in one of those 4. expositions, which he recited out of D. B. is not only false, but if you respect his intent, slanderoous also, as all other his references are, as to any that will compare them, may easily appear: For not any of D. B. 4. expositions understandeth the former branch as containing the general duty of a Minister. Howbeit some of the examples which he produceth, together with his explication of some of them, do well agree with my exposition, as you shall hear in my answer, to his third reason, which being his shoot-ancor, if it fail him, his Lay-Elders are like to suffer shipwreck. Hear his words.  

§ Sect. 6. Ad Pag. 25. His third reason, containing 3. Syllogisms  Thirdly, that it may appear, that M. D. is beside the true meaning of the Apostle, in the sense he resteth on, let us weigh the Apostles words well, and we shall find them clearly and evidently, to speak of persons, and at the most, but indirectly of duties. The Elders that rule well, especially they: can any man be so blind as not to see, that these Elders, and they must needs signify persons, who must be counted worthy of double honour?  
No, saith M.D. but this account riseth from the consideration of their duties. Even so, we deny it not: but may it not be so▪ and yet 2. sorts of Elders here noted? Yes verily. The elders that faithfully discharge their duty in governing the Church, are worthy of double honour: especially those who labour in the Word and Doctrine. Is there any thing in this Scripture thus understood, to shut out 2. kinds of Elders? Are not the duties in the former clause general, in the latter special? Yes saith he, but for all that, they be indeed two duties of the Minister only.  
Of which discourse, the best that I can make, is this: If the comparison betwixt the persons evidently noted in this Text, doth seem to favour the distinction of Elders, into 2. sorts, and the comparison between the duties indirectly noted, doth not hinder the said distinction, that, then is there nothing in this Text, to exclude two sorts of Elders.  
But the antecedent is true in both the parts thereof:  
Therefore the consequent.  
The former part of the antecedent is proved thus:  
The persons here mentioned are in the comparison noted to be of two sorts.  
Elders are the persons here mentioned:  
Therefore Elders are in this comparison, noted to be of 2. sorts. The latter thus: The distinction of duties into general and special: doth not exclude two sorts of Elders:  
For the general agreeth to both sorts.  
The distinction of duties here mentioned, is into general and special:  
Therefore the distinction heree mentioned, doth not exclude two sorts of Elders.  
By the refuters main conclusion, it is evident, that he hath gotten the wrong end of the staff. For whereas this place to Timothy, is the chief; and, as I judge, the only place to speak of in the Scriptures, which all of them without exception object, and most confidently urge, as necessarily including and concluding their Lay-Elders, in answering whereof, this part of my Sermon is spent: my adversary by his Sophysticall shifts, in making me the opponent, and himself the respondent, would make the Reader believe, that he hath acquitted himself well, if this place be not against Lay-Elders.  
But the Reader must remember, that it lieth upon my adversary, and those of his side, out of this place, invincibly, and inevitably to enforce Lay-Elders, or to confess that they cannot be proved out of the Scriptures. Neither will it suffice him to say, they may be here meant, unless he can necessarily prove and demonstrate, that they are, and must necessarily be meant in this place.  
Otherwise I may grant his main conclusion, without any prejudice to our cause: when the chief thing which he proveth is, that the principal, and almost only place objected by themselves for Lay-Elders, doth not make against them. But if the only place, which can to any purpose be alleged for them, do exclude them, which in the last reason I do endeavour to prove; being as yet not proceeded so far, but only to maintain that they be not here included; then is the cause of the Lay-Elders most desperate. The which, that it may appear, I will not refuse, seeing my adversary hath found this starting hole, to examine his proofs.  
And first, I deny the connexion or consequence of his proposition. 
§ Sect. 7. Answer to his first syllogism  For though neither of the things by him named did exclude Lay-Elders; yet there are two words in the Text, which do plainly show they are not included. The one is, the word Presbyters, which always signifieth the Ministers, and never signifieth the supposed Lay-Elders.  
For if this Text include them, then are they included in this word Presbyteri, the Text speaking of none but such. But that word, being a word of order proper to Ministers or Priests, doth not include them, nor can any one example or testimony produced to that purpose: Therefore Lay-Elders are not included in this Text.  

To the 2.  The other is double honour, or maintenance appointed to all the Presbyters, of whom Paul speaketh; from which Lay Elders are excluded, as I shall show in my third reason.  
As touching his second Syllogism, I answer first to the proposition, that the persons here mentioned, are not noted to be of two sorts: but that the comparison is between two duties belonging to one sort or order of men; or if you will, between men of the same order, in respect of their duties; the words being as plain in the language of the Apostles, and of all the Fathers, both Greek and Latin, as if it had been said in our language, Let the Ministers or Priests, &c: And this I hold for a most certain and undeniable truth.  
The comparison between the duties, I explain thus, that as to Presbyters or Ministers double honour is due, for their duty in general: So especially, for that which is the principal: the comaprison being between the general or whole duty, & a particular, or part of the duty, which is preferred, as being the principal. The comparison between the persons, in regard of those duties, and depending upon the former standeth thus: that as all they that perform the general are to be honoured, so especially they, who in special sort perform the principal.  
Thus much then the words import, that as all Presbyters who demean themselves well in their places, are to be accounted worthy of double honour: so especially those that labour painfully in the Word and Doctrine.  
Let us consider the like examples. All counsellors that demean themselves well in their functions are highly to be honoured, especially, those that are good Patriotes, or Comon-wealthsmen. From whence it were absurd to infer, that there is a sort of good counsellors that be not good Patriotes. But in this speech I note, in respect of the duties of counsellors, that this is the principal; and in respect of the persons, that they are chiefly to be honoured, who are in special manner such. Likewise (to use the refuters own example) All Logicians that reason well, that is, all good Logicians are to be honoured, or well esteemed of: especially, those that are judicious, or that have a special faculty of judging well.  
It may not hence be gathered, that there are any good Logicians, that are not judicious, or that cannot judge well. But I note, that as among the faculties of a Logician, good judgement is the principal; so they which be judicious, are most to be esteemed.  
So, all good Servants are worthy to be rewarded, especially, those that are faithful, &c: In like manner, when the Apostle saith, All Presbyters or Ministers, that demean themselves well: (that is, all good Ministers) are to be accounted worthy double honour: especially those which labour in the Word and Doctrine: We may not collect from hence, that there is a sort of Presbyters worthy of double honour, which do not labour in the word. But the meaning of the comparison is, that as among the duties of Presbyters, or Ministers, Preaching is the principal: so they chiefly are to be accounted worthy of double honour, who labour; or if you will, who in special manner do labour therein. And this special manner is noted in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is to labour painfully, and unto weariness. Which pains is to be esteemed, as well by diligence, in the study of the Word: 
1. Tim. 4.3. Attend to reading and doctrine.  as either by the frequent, or laborious delivery of the Doctrine. The comparison therefore is so far from being made of all Elders, as they imagine; that it is not of all Ministers, but only of those which be good. And the greatest distinction of persons, that can hence be gathered is this, that among good Ministers, there are some, who are more especially to be counted worthy of double honour for their pains in Preaching.  

Pag. 7. & 8.  Now because the refuter referreth you to D. bilson's preface, and I promised even now to acquaint you with some of his examples and explication thereof; you shall well perceive, that my exposition, though it be none of the four which he propoundeth, is not unlike to have the approbation of that most learned, reverend man. Doth not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (saith he) that is chiefly (the note of comparison) distinguish as well things as persons, and not so well diverse respects, as diverse subiects● for example, if we should say, Magistrates that govern well are worthy of double honour, specially they that hear the complaints of the poor: Were he not very fansifull that would hence conclude, there are therefore two sorts of Magistrates, one that govern well, another that heareth the complaints of the poor. Nothing is more common, then by this kind of speech to note as well two diverse qualities in one man, as two sundry sorts of men; yea thereby to prefer a part before the general comprising that part. As teachers are to be liked for their learning, specially for their knowledge in the scriptures: Good men are to be loved for their virtues, especially if they be liberal.  
To the assumption affirming that Elders are the persons here mentioned, I answer, that no Elders are here mentioned but Ministers, and that Presbyteri in this place are unfitly translated Elders: for though that be the english of it, as it is a word of age, yet it is not the english of it (according to the use of our language) as it is a word of order, noting (as it doth in this place) an Ecclesiastical function, but Ministers or Priests, whom we do not use in our common speech to call Elders. But hereof I have already spoken.  
There remaineth his third Syllogism, 
§ Sect. 8. His 3. Syllogism answered.  concluding as before, that their two sorts of Elders are not excluded in the distinction of the duties into general and special, because the general duty which is to govern well, agreeth to the Lay-Elders as well as to Ministers. To omit that which hath been said of his conclusion, not concluding as he ought Lay-Elders, if he will urge them, out of this place, but proving only that they are not excluded, which is but a poor proof, proving nothing so well as that the cause of the Lay-Elders is come to a low ebb. And yet for this, all his proof is, that the general duty agreeth to them: which indeed is false, for the general duty meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 besides godly life and such attendance of the flock as might be common to lay Presbyters, implieth the fulfilling of their ministery, their going before the flock in the duties of God's service: their feeding of them with the word and Sacraments. Neither can he be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to the Apostles meaning in this place; that doth not (which a Lay-Elder may not do) attend and superintend his flock in these respects. This prosillogisme of his proposition, which is his only proof, he seeth and acknowledgeth to be before denied by me, holding that as well the general as special duty (as they are here meant) be peculiar to Ministers, and therefore not agreeing to their Elders, making me thus to say, yes saith he but for all that, they be indeed two duties of the Ministers only. His proof therefore was nothing else but a mere begging of the question. And when he should have proved that in the former part of the sentence (Let the Elders that govern well) the Lay-Elders are comprised, or else have ceased to urge them: fair and mannerly he slippeth his neck out of the collar, putting me to disprove it, and telling me, that otherwise I should offend (wherein as respondents do not use to offend, so himself being indeed the opponent, in this place is extremely faulty that is to say) in begging the question.  

§ Sect. 9 The reasons 〈…〉 exposition examined.  Having therefore struggled to no purpose with my exposition of this text, in the next place he setteth himself, having no reasons to prove his own interpretation, to strive (though with the like success) against those reasons wherewith my exposition is fortified. Now in my exposition two things are specially to be noted, as I have said; first, that by Presbyters I understand Ministers only. The second, that by the words which are translated governing or ruling well. I understand the whole duty of the ministery in general; and not only governing in that sense, as it may be common to the supposed Lay-Elder. The first is the principal, and already proved; though the refuter had rather seem not to have seen the reasons, which he did not see how to answer, then go about either to confute them, or to bring any testimony where Presbyter doth signify a Lay-Elder. But as he would not see the former reasons, so either he doth not, or will not see the force of the latter. 
The first reason.  For whereas I prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ doth signify the general performance of the whole duty of the Ministers, being as much in effect as if the Apostle had said thus: Those Ministers which fulfil their office as Jerome and Prim●sius expound those words, that go out and in before their people as becometh them, according to the phrase of the scriptures th●●e that demean themselves well (as the Syriach▪ paraphrast doth interpret the words) as well in respect of their private conversation, as of their public administration; whereas I say, I prove all this to disprove their inferrence for Lay-Elders out of this place: 
A● pag. 26.  he, as though he saw no force of argument in all this, feareth not to confess all: and yet will needs maintain that inference, because forsooth all this may be verified of Lay-Elders, etc.  
But say I, when you urge your Elders as from this place, your inference is not, that what is said of Presbyters governing well, may be understood of Lay-Elders, but must be understood of them, or else you speak to no purpose. Now, although there be some show of an inference, if by governing well were meant only so much as might be common to Lay-Elders; yet if you understand these words in the general sense, you shall see not so much as a show of a good consequence, nor any reason to move a man to make such an inference: which I did verily think, that all men of understanding would readily have conceived: and yet my lot is, to light upon such an adversary, as either doth not, or will not see it, unless it be beaten into him. Go too then: Is not this your inference from this text, that because the Apostle requireth double honour to be given to such Elders as govern well, though especially to those which labour in the word, that therefore besides those which labour in the word, there are certain onely-governing Elders? Understand therefore those former words in the general sense which I give, and your inference will be both senelesse and false. Senelesse thus: the Presbyters that fulfil their office, or that demean themselves well in their place, are worthy of double honour, especially those, that labour in the word; therefore besides those which labour in the word, there are certain only governing Elders: for of this inference there is no sense, unless it be supposed, that none can fulfil their office or demean themselves well, but your Lay-Elders. If therefore you will ground them upon this place according to the general sense which you seem to allow, call them no more the onely-governing Elders, but the only good, or well demeaned Presbyters. False, because the words being generally understood of the whole duty of the ministery can be understood of none but Ministers; the general, which includeth the special, being peculiar to the Minister as well as the special. Thus therefore I reason: 
Those words which import the performance of the whole duty of the ministery, cannot be understood of Lay-Elders but of Ministers only:  
The words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1. Tim. 5.17. translated which govern well, import the performance of the whole duty of the ministery in general:  
Therefore the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1. Tim. 5.17. translated which govern well, cannot be understood of Lay-Elders but of Ministers only.   
The proposition you cannot be so absurd as to deny, unless you will attribute the performance of the whole office of the ministery in general to your onely-governing-elders. The assumption you freely confess, and all the proofs 〈◊〉 and yet with great ●●oath of idle and addle words, you 〈◊〉 maintain the contradictory to the conclusion, 〈…〉 nor ●e●●●ng any force at all in my proof, which yo● valiantly overthrow by denying the conclusion. So that I must conclude▪ that you extremely want, 
 either a sound judgement, or a good conscience.  
Besides the former proof, I produce for the confirmation of my exposition, the speech of the same Apostle, to the same Presbyters of Ephesus, Act. 20.28. to parallel this. And whereas of my exposition there are two parts, the one concerning the subject or parties here mentioned, whom I expound to be ministers only, the other concerning their duties, in regard whereof double honour is due to them, the one general, the other special: in both respects, the one text doth answer the other, as face answereth to face in the water. For first that Presbyters here are Ministers only, I prove thus: 
The Presbyters to whom Paul speaketh Act. 20. were Ministers only:  
The Presbyters of whom he speaketh 1. Tim. 5.17. were the same to whom he spoke, Act. 20.  
Therefore the Presbyters of whom he speaketh, 1. Tim. 5.17. were Ministers only.   
Secondly that the duties both general and special are peculiar to Ministers, I prove by this argument: 
The duties which Paul requireth, Act. 20.28. are duties required peculiarly of Ministers.  
The duties for which double honour is due, 1. Tim. 5.17. both general and special are the same with those which Paul requireth, Act. 20.28. therefore the duties for which double honour is due, 1. Tim. 5 17. are duties peculiarly required of Ministers.   
This latter Syllogism my expert adversary observed not: the former he flingeth after his manner into a connexive Syllogism. For though his forge do scarcely afford any other, yet he hath gotten a pretty smack of Syllogizing that way, were it not that his Syllogisms for the most part, are too long by the half. But here he surpasseth himself, for he hath cast my whole Syllogism into his connexive proposition, and in his minor repeateth at large both the proposition and assumption.  
But let us see what he saith to these Syllogisms. In the first he only denieth my proposition, viz. that the Presbyters, Act. 20. were none but Ministers: which I must confess in that brevity I took for granted, because I thought it needed not to be proved. For seeing that verse is not only generally understood, (even of them which stand for Lay Elders, writing not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Calvin, in Act. etc. D. Whi●ak de pon●. Rom. pag. 1  but commenting upon, or otherwise expounding that place) of Ministers, but also is alleged both by protestants and papists to justify the calling of BB. I did presume, that it was to be understood of such only as are Ministers at the least. But that which before was for brevity omitted, shall now be supplied. First therefore I argue thus: All those that are called BB. in the acts and writings of the Apostles are Ministers of the word. 
All the Presbyters to whom Paul speaketh, Act. 20.28. are called BB.  
Therefore all the Presbyters to whom Paul spoke, Act. 20.28. were Ministers of the word.  Or thus: Lay-Elders are no where called BB.  
All the Presbyters, Act. 20.28. are called Bishops:  
Therefore none of those Presbyters were Lay-Elders.  
Shall I need to prove any of the premises. Are our Presbyterians of late grown so absurd as to deny them? What? are not all BB. Ministers, and are your Lay-Elders grown of late to be Bishops? did not our refuter pag ● affirm that these Presbyters, Act. 20. are Angels and Bishops, and that Angels are pastors? and are Lay-Elders, Angels and pastors too? ●ie for shame! and yet so absurd is our refuter, as to say that some of these Elders whom Paul calleth Bishops, were not Ministers, but their lay or onely-governing Elders.  

§ Sect. 11.  But if either reason or authority will prevail with him, he may easily be confuted: my reason I frame thus: All Episcopi or Bishops, must by the Apostles rule (which is general) be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 able to teach, 1. Tim. 3.2. that is as he expoundeth himself, Tit. 1.9. holding fast the faithful word, according to doctrine that they may be able to exhort with wholesome doctrine, and convince the gainsayers.  
But not Lay-Elders, nor any but Ministers, do need by the Apostles rule to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, able to preach in that sense that he expoundeth it, Tit. 1.9. For on those words Calvin observeth, that it is required in them, that they should be learned, and endued with sound knowledge, and that their doctrine should tend to edification, etc.  
Therefore not Lay-Elders, nor any but Ministers, are Bishops. As for authority; let him show me any testimony of scripture, or of any sound writer, old or new, that is not a party, using the word Bishop for Lay-Elder, or any one that is not a Minister, 
Inst. li 4. c. 3. § 8.  and I will yield to him the bucklers. Calvin, though a party, plainly saith, that the scripture useth promiscuously these words, Bishops, Presbyters, Pastors & Ministers; to signify those who do exercise the ministery of the word. And having entreated of them, in conclusion he saith, that as yet he had not spoken of any other functions but such as consist in the ministery of the word. And in another place, although he coll●teth out of 1. Tim. 5.17. two sorts of Presbyters, 
Calvin. in Tit. 1.5.  yet he saith, that the Presbyters mentioned, Tit. 1.5. are by the context manifested to be no other, but Doctors or Teachers, because Paul presently after calleth them Bishops.  

Pag. 101.  The author of the book de Ecclesiastica disciplina, and of the defence thereof, ingenuously confesseth, that only pastors and teachers are Bishops, and that ruling Elders are not comprehended under the name Bishop, and so far is he from comprehending them under the title of Bishop, that although he were resolved to find a room for them, 1. Tim. 3. yet he durst not comprise them under the title and description of a Bishop (though the Bishop be all one with Presbyter, Tit. 1.5.7.) but shrowdeth them under the title and description of Deacons, as hereafter we shall show. Again, all pastors of Christ's flock are Ministers only: All the Presbyters of Ephesus, were pastors of Christ's flock: therefore they were Ministers only. Or thus: Lay-Elders are not Pastors of Christ's flock (of other flocks perhaps they may.)  
All the Presbyters of Ephesus were Pastors of Christ's flock:  
Therefore they were not Lay-Elders.  
That they were pastors I prove thus: Bishops set over the flock of Christ by the holy Ghost to feed the Church of God, are pastors:  
The Presbyters of Ephesus were such, Act. 20.28.  
Therefore they were pastors. 
In Act. 2  And that Calvin confesseth more than once. And our refuter also in the place before alleged; from whose confession I argue thus:  
The Angels were pastors saith our refuter, The Presbyters of Ephesus were Angels, therefore the Presbyters of Ephesus were pastors.  
But why should so plain a thing seem to be made doubtful with longer proof? for if such Presbyters as were also Bishops and pastors, were any but Ministers: then Presbyters, Bishops and pastors were Lay-Elders also; and Lay-Elders were all in all.  
And whereas he objecteth, that Lay-Elders may be comprehended under the name Presbyter and Episcopus, because D. B. saith, that these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop, Presbyter, Deacon or Minister, are oft so largely taken, as that they comprise all Ecclesiastical functions: I answer in a word, by Ecclesiastical functions, he meaneth only the functions of the ministery, including neither your Lay-Elders, nor your Lay-Deacons, no more than our Churchwardens and Collectors for the poor.  
As touching the latter Syllogism which the refuter saw not: 
§ Sect. 12.  The proof of the proposition dependeth upon the former Syllogism. For if the Presbyters to whom Paul spoke, were Ministers only as hath been proved, than the duties which he requireth of them only in that place; he requireth peculiarly of Ministers. The assumption affirming that the duties both general and special, 1. Tim. 5.17. are the same with those, Act. 20.28. I explain in the Sermon, showing that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which are the words translated to govern well, and contain the general duty, is the same with attending to themselves and their flock, 
Pag. 14.15.  which I did more fully deliver in the Sermon of the dignity and duty of the ministery (which the refuter himself doth seem to approve) showing that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is carefully to attend to themselves & their flock. To themselves, that they may be precedents, and as the holy Ghost speaketh, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 patterns and samplers of a godly life. For this in the Apostles phrase is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be precedents of good works. 
Tit. 3.8.14.  To the flock also they must attend. First, by overseeing and watching over them. Secondly, by feeding them in the ministery of the word & sacraments; Thirdly, by praying for them both publicly & privately. The special duty which is to labour in the word and doctrine, is the same with feeding the flock of Christ, which is also noted as the special duty, Act. 20.28.  
The refuter though he saw not the reason, yet he would be sure to contradict my assertion, and therefore stumbling upon the proposition, 
Ad pag. 28.  he saith, that neither of the duties mentioned in the Acts are restrained to Ministers only. For to attend to the flock is all one saith he with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is more general, and the special duty of feeding which he confineth to the word and doctrine, is often used for governing also, as Mat. 2.6. Apoc. 2.27. & 7.17. & 12.5. & 19 15. Grec. schol. in Act. 14.23.  
The truth of my proposition, as I said, dependeth on the former Syllogism, as upon a sure hold, and the duty signified, 1. Tim. 5. by ruling well: and Act. 20. by attending to themselves and their flock, being applied (as in both places it is) to Ministers, and importing, as he hath confessed, the whole duty of the ministery in general, must be confessed to be restrained to Ministers. As for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in this pla●● is truly translated to feed, besides the proper sense wherein sometimes it is used, as Luk. 17.7.1. Cor. 9.7. jud. 12: it hath indeed 2. metaphorical significations in the Scriptures: translated from shepherds, to civil or spiritual pastors; the one, as it is applied to Princes, & civil Pastors, and so it signifieth chiefly to rule; 
john, 21.1.▪ Act. 20.28 1. Pet. 5. ●.  the other, as it is attributed to Spiritual Pastors, and so it signifieth chiefly to feed with spiritual food. For our Saviour commanding Peter, if he loved him to feed his sheep: (which text the Papists, understanding the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
john. 21. 1● 16.17.  as the refuter doth, of ruling abuse to prove the Pope's supremacy) expoundeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth not to rule, but to feed. 
To feed 〈◊〉 flock, saith Raynolds, to performs the duty of Pastor unto Conf. with ● 461.  It is true, that authority of guiding and governing his flock is implied also in the signification of the word, but it is a pastoral authority, given to none but pastors, and to them, unto this end, that they may feed the flock. Which end is noted by Paul. Act. 20.28. to feed the flock: as also, by our Saviour himself, Luke 12: 42: where the Lords servant is said to be set over his household, to this end, to give them their food in due season. 
Cal. in 1. Pe● 5.2  For therefore are they called pastors, that is, such as do feed.  
Calvin speaking of this word, in 1. Pet. 5.2. saith, the name of Presbyter, containeth in it the duty of feeding: And the definition of the word is to be known. Because the flock of Christ, Pasci non potest nisi pura doctrina quae sola spirituale est pabulum, cannot be fed but with pure Doctrine, which is the only spiritual food. Hence it is, that Pastors & Doctors, (which some would distinguish) are in the scriptures confounded. As Eph: 4.11. For whereas the Apostle when he would note diverse functions, useth notes of distinction, saying: Christ gave some to be Apostles, some to be Evangelists, etc. when he cometh to Pastors and Doctors, he useth a note of copulation. For he doth not say, some Pastors, & some Doctors; but some pastors and Doctors, using the latter word, as the explication of the former, 
Epist. 59 ad Paulinum.  and nothing that by Pastors, he meaneth such as be teachers. Upon which words Augustine saith thus: Pastors and Doctors, whom you would have me to distinguish, I think are one, and the same. For Paul doth not say, some pastors, some Doctors; but to pastors joineth doctors, that pastors might understand it belongeth to their office to teach: of the same judgement is Sedulius & Muscul: & some others  
In the places, which the refuter quoteth, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is not applied at all to Ecclesiastical persons: but either to Christ; and to him, either as our King, & then it signifieth to rule (as Mat. 2.6. cited out of Mi. 5.1. & Apoc. 12 5. as it is usually paralleled with Psal. 2.9. Apoc. 19.15. compared with v. 16.) or as our pastor & doctor, and then it signifieth to feed, and so ought to be translated, as Apoc: 7.17. (where, to our hunger & thirst, v. 16. his feeding & leading us to the waters of life is opposed:) or else it is applied to all the faithful, who in Christ are made Kings, as Apo. 2.27. 
Apoca. 1.6. In Act. 14.23.  The Greek scholiast, in the place quoted, hath no such thing: But is alleged by T. C. to another purpose, for the proof of Lay-Elders (as we shall hear) which perhaps was the cause of this allegation, But on the place in hand, 
In Act. 20.28.  upon those words, Attend to yourselves, and the flock: he saith that Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, enjoineth the teachers two things to be done: and noteth also, whom Luke called ver. 17. Presbyters, to be called in this verse Bishops: either saith he, because presbyters or ministers also, must superintend the flock: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or else he calleth Bishops here, such as indeed be Bishops: & in like manner, on 1. Pet. 5.1.2 with some parallel with Act, 20.28. He noteth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, fellow-Elder: in that place, if it be not used as a word of age, doth import 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the honour of a Bishop, as if he had called himself their fellow Bishop. For in the book of the Acts also, Bishops are called Presbyters. and by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he understandeth the Clergy. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He calleth Clerun, (which is translated inheritance) the sacred company. Even as we now also do call it, that is to say the Clergy. Which exposition if we follow, than those presbyters to whom Peter writeth, prescribing unto them how they should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That is (saith Calvin,) Episcopatu fungi, exercise the office of a Bishop, and noting their authority over the Clergy, were such as we call bishops: But of that, by the way.  
Now if the presbyters, Act: 20. were ministers and teachers as I have proved, and as all writers, almost, even those that are parties in the cause do teach: then by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we are to understand the duty of feeding, 
Cons. w● Ha●●. p●  which belongeth to pastors and teachers, and will never be proved to belong to Lay-Elders.  
The refuter having with such success as you see, endeavoured to maintain, 
§ Sec●  that the presbyters, Act. 20. were as well Lay-Elders as ministers, and that the duties both general, of attending to themselves, & the whole flock, and also special of feeding the Church, were required, as common to Ministers with Lay-elders (which assertions I have confuted, with evidence of truth) in this exposition, or opposition rather, he doth so please himself, as that he doubteth not to retort my Syllogism upon me after this manner,  
If the presbyters spoken of Acts 20, 28, be not only ministers, but governing Elders also, and the same with those. 1. Tim, 5.17. than the presbyters spoken of 1. Tim. 5.17. are not only Ministers, but governing Elders also:  
But the presbyters spoken of Acts 20, 28, are not only ministers, but governing elders also, & the same with those 1. Tim 5, 17  
Therefore, the presbyters spoken of 1. Tim. 5.17. are not only Ministers, but governing Elders also.  
here this great Logick-maister, that taketh upon him to teach, and to control me in matters of Logic, bewrayeth himself to be a Logicaster, or smatterer in Logic: For an entire and a better Syllogism, concluding the same question as I noted before in his Analyzing of mine, is here tumbled into the proposition; & the proposition and assumption thereof, not only idly, but with disadvantage to himself, if he had meant to have proved it, repeated. But because he hath been at some pains with me this way to show his own ignorance, I will teach him to make his sillogiss: thus: 
The Presbyters to whom Paul did speak, Acts 20.28. were not ministers only, but Lay or governing Elders also:  
The Presbyters of whom he speaketh, I. Tim. 5.17. were the Presbyters to whom he spoke, Acts. 20▪ 28.   
Therefore the presbyters of whom he speaketh, Tim. 5.17. were not only ministers, but Lay, or only governing Elders also.  
This proposition which is but part of his own assumption, when he shallbe able to make good by any sound proof, I will subscribe to his Lay-Elders. For whereas he for want of better proof saith, that he hath already justified it by the overthrow of mine, it is a most vain brag, as I hope it doth sufficiently appear to the reader. For what one reason, or show of reason hath he brought, or can bring, to prove that the Presbyters mentioned, Acts. 20. were Lay, or only governing Elders?   

CHAP. VI Maintaining the third reason, that Lay-Elders are not mentioned nor meant 1. Tim. 5.17.  
Serm. Sect. 5. pag. 11. And that he speaketh not there of Lay, or only governing-elders, it may further be proved, by plain evidence out of the text. For seeing by honour in that place, the Apostle understandeth honourable maintenance, which by their own confession, is not due to Lay-Elders: it is therefore certain, that this place acknowledgeth none such. Thus therefore I argue:  
To all those Elders, who are mentioned or meant in this place, the honour of maintenance is due for their work sake.  
To the Lay-Elders, the honour of maintenance is not due for their work sake.  
Therefore the Lay-Elders, are not mentioned nor meant in this place, &c: to pag. 13.  

Ad. pag. 29.  THe refuter having neither learning enough to bear the weight of this argument, nor wit enough to forbear it, in answering thereto, he uttereth more gall than would well become an honest man. The virus and poison of his libeling speeches I leave to himself: The vir●s and force of his arguments and answers, I will take upon me plainly to confute, and both here and every where else, by the help of God, to put him to silence.  
First (as his manner is) though he dares not deny the proposition of my syllogism to be most true and undoubted, 
His cau●● the prop  yet he must needs cavil with it: And because he hath nothing to say against it, he hopeth with it to wound some of our side, who among other interpretations of this place, have thought the former part of this Text might more probably be understood of not preaching Ministers, or Deacons, &c: then of Lay-Elders. And although I would be loath to become a Proctor for unlearned Ministers, especially, when learned may be had: yet thus much I will say, that if the Disciplinarians do rightly ground upon this place a distinction of Presbyters, into two sorts, that there be some preaching Presbyters, some not: then this text doth without comparison, favour the not preaching ministers more than the Lay-elders. Because it is a most certain truth, which I have manifestly proved, and which the refuter will never be able to disprove, that by Presbyters, ministers only are meant. As for Deacons, (I mean not your Lay Deacons) D. B. hath better reasons to comprise them under Presbyters, than your W. T. had under the name of Deacons, to understand your Lay-Elders, though T.C. himself did subscribe to his opinion. And whereas you challenge those reverend men, for seeking by warrant of this place, to surcharge the Church with maintenance of unpreaching Ministers and Deacons: I answer, they do not hold, that in every parish such aught to be maintained (as you would have your Presbytery erected in every parish) but where better, & more sufficient Ministers cannot be had; which was the case of many parishes in England, at the beginning of Q. Elizabeth's reign, etc.  
But all his spite is against the assumption: 
His spite against the assumption.  though he spend his spite, neither in disproouing it with force of argument, nor in answering my proofs with any substance of reason, but in sophistical cavilling & odious wrangling. For when he hath said what he was able, I cannot tell whether he doth deny the assumption, or grant it, only he cavilleth with my proofs of it.  
My assumption was this: To Lay-Elders, the honour of maintenance is not due for their work sake. Hereunto I require a direct answer.  
If he say that the honour of maintenance, yea, double honour, 
 that is, (as not only Theodore●, but T. C. also expound 〈◊〉 plentiful maintenance, is due unto them: he should have brought sufficient proofs, both to confute the judgement of those learned Divines, who reform (as directors) other Churches, and condemn the practice of all reformed Churches, which having those Presbyters, do not allow, neither do think themselves bound to allow any maintenance at all to their Lay-Elders: and also to persuade all those reformed Churches which have them not, and which in many parishes are either not able, or not willing to yield sufficient maintenance to one learned minister, to erect in every parish, besides the Pastor, and the Doctor, a Senate of Lay-Elders, with purpose to undergo an unsupportable charge, and to think themselves bound by the word of God to allow them all, and every of them sufficient maintenance. But what one reason doth he, or can he allege to persuade this, or where doth he go about to persuade it? If he say, according to the judgement and practice of all Churches whatsoever, which either have them, or have them not, that this honour of maintenance is not due unto them; why doth he not ingenuously confess, that which is inevitably proved out of the words, that Lay-Elders are neither mentioned nor meant in this place. If he say (as indeed that is all he doth say) that my proofs are not sufficient: what better proof would he require in such brevity, than the confession of the parties? yea, but they do not confess it.  
First therefore I will prove their confession. And secondly, I will demonstrate, that the double honour of maintenance, though they did not confess so much, is not by the word of God, due to their imagined Lay-Elders for their works sake.  
Their confession I prove thus: 
Their 〈◊〉 th● tenancy due to 〈…〉  What the learned reformers prescribed to be done according to God's word as they pretended, that was their Doctrine.  
That there should be only governing Elders, elected out of the people or Laity, without maintenance to be yielded to them, was prescribed by the learned reformers according to the word of God as they pretended.  
Therefore, that there sho'uld be Elders, elected out of the Laity, without maintenance to be yielded to them, was the Doctrine of the learned reformers.  
The proposition needs no proof:  
The assumption I confirm thus;  
That which is practised according to the laws of Discipline, in all those reformed churches: where the Presbyteries be erected, was prescribed by the learned reformers, according to the word of God, as they pretended.  
The election of only-governing Elders, out of the Laity, without maintenance to be yielded to them, is practised in all those reformed churches, according to the laws of discipline  
Therefore the election of only governing-elders, out of the Laity, without maintenance to be yielded to them, was prescribed by the learned reformers, according to the word of God, as they pretended. And consequently, that Lay-Elders are not to have maintenance, is both the Doctrine of the learned reformers, and the practice of all those Churches reform by them.  
The proposition is manifest, because the laws of Discipline in those Churches, were either prescribed by the learned reformers, or framed according to their prescript. The assumption may also be evidently proved by induction: For the Lay-Elders, neither in the Churches of Geneva, France, Low-countrieses, have, nor of Scotland, had any maintenance allowed them, & that according to the laws of their discipline; neither can the refuter give any one instance to the contrary. It shall suffice me to make instance in Geneva, which was a pattern in this behalf to the rest. 
Bez. in vit. An. 1536. 〈◊〉 1541.  In Geneva is this order taken by their laws, whereof Calvin was the chief author, that of the 12. only governing Elders, joined to the 6. ministers, 6. should be chosen out of the Council of 200.4. out of the Council of 60.2. out of the Council of 25. all statesmen; 
See the laws of Geneva, & sum. capit. di●c●ph. Eccl. Gen●a inter e●ist. Calui●j Bez. de grad. M●●●●. c. 11. pag. ●●. 〈◊〉 ibid. 〈◊〉 before the Hel●et confess. Lib. 1. 179.  to this end, both that they should be of great countenance, and also that the Church should not be charged with allowing them any maintenance: Beza professeth that every where in other Churches the like choice, according to the state of the place, is made; viz: Not of the meaner or poorer sort, but men of great, both ability & authority, are chosen to be of the Presbytery: And elsewhere he saith, that consideration must be had, that Princes & Noblemen, and such as be of authority, be chosen into the signory. And T.C. himself confesseth it to be the practice of the Churches in these days, to make choice of such Elders, as are able to live, without charging the church any whit. Their confession I have showed.  

§ Sect, 4. His objection denying their confession refuted.  Now let us see what the refuter objecteth. 1. That I might have read the contrary in Calui●, Bullinger, Beza, Cartwright, D. Bilson, and D. Sutcliffe, but that it seems I did not read on that side of the leaf. And it seems to me, that you would not have me read on that side as yet, or rather, that there is no such thing to be read: Else you would have pointed, if not to the leaf, yet at least, to the book. For my part, I profess that I do not remember, that I have read any such thing, either in Calvin, Beza, or Bullinger, but the contrary, as I have showed in Calvin and Beza. As for Bullinger, you had less reason to allege him, 
D. Bil●on. pag. 130.  seeing that you found him cited together, with the other two, expounding this word honour, as signifying the maintenance due to ministers.  
As touching D. Bills: it is strange that you should both accuse me for taking this reason from him, and also charge him with teaching the contrary. In his preface, he saith thus: 
pag. 7.  By no precept nor example will it ever be proved, that Lay-presbyters had in the Apostles times, or should have by the word of God at any time, double honour and maintenance from the Church of Christ. Wherefore they must either give all Lay-Elders double maintenance, as S. Paul willeth, which they do not, or shut them clean from these words, which yield double maintenance, by God's Law to Presbyters that rule well. 
pag. 129.130. Ad pag: 30.  And to the like purpose he speaketh, in the place by you quoted.  
The speech of that worthy learned man, 
D. 〈◊〉  who is highly to be commended for his great learning, good pains, and zealous affection for the maintenance of the truth, whom you vilely and ungraciously abuse, as you do all others that come in your way, be they never so worthy champions of our Church against the Papists, his reproof I say of T. C. for requiring maintenance as due to the Lay-Elders, 
Pag. 90.  I have not seen to my remembrance. But this I remember well, that I have read in his treatise of Ecclesiastical discipline, 
1. Tim. 5. 1. Pet 5.  that the Elders whereof the Apostles speak received wages of the Church. But (saith he) the new Aldermen in all Churches where they reign, live upon interest of their own money or goods, and receive no salary of the Churches.  
Neither had he indeed any great reason (in my judgement) to blame T. C. (that I may also come to him) as opposing his judgement to the practice of the reformed Churches. 
Lib. 1.17▪ 179.  For although he seem to say, that by the Apostles rule such Elders, as be poor, aught to be relieved at the Church's charge; yet it doth not seem to be his judgement, that he would have Lay-Elders maintained at the Church's charge. But this is one of his colours, whereby he would persuade, that the Eldership should rather now be admitted, then in the Apostles times. Because if the Apostle would charge the Churches being in persecution, and therefore poor with maintaining Elders, which being poor, were not sometimes able to live without some relief from the Church, &c: how much more ought there now to be Seniors, when the Churches be in peace, and therefore not so poor, and when there may be chosen such for the most part throughout the realm, as are able to live without charging the Church any whit, as the practice of these days doth manifestly declare. For if it had been his judgement, that Lay-Elders are to be maintained otherwise then for need, he would have argued thus.  If by the Apostles rule, the Elders were to be maintained for their works sake, by the Churches being poor and in persecution, then much more are they to be maintained when the Churches be in peace and profp●ritie, and so would have assumed the antecedent, to conclude the consequent. 
But seeing he doth tollere consequens, contradict the consequent, saying, that when the Churches are in peace and prosperity, such a course may and aught to be taken (for that may seem to be his meaning) according to the example of all the reformed Churches, that the Church shall not be charged at all with the maintenance of the Seniors, that is to say, by choosing men of ability who need no relief; it is easy to conclude tollendo antecedens, that his judgement was, that (this rule of the Apostle notwithstanding,) Lay-Elders were not to have maintenance for their works sake, but relief only if they did need.  

Chap. 14. Pag. 74.  Of the same judgement is the demonstratour of discipline: for it being objected that the parishes would be overburdened in providing for so many: he answereth, it is not necessary that they should provide for any more of them, saving those that are exercised in the ministery of the word, unless any of the rest may need the liberality of the Church.  
But suppose that this were T. C. judgement, or the opinion of any other among us, who hath conceived a platonical Idea of discipline which he never saw practised: were this sufficient to disprove my assertion, who have the confession of the learned reformers in respect of their doctrine, and of the reformed Churches in respect of their practice? Or if this were a sufficient exception against the consent of those which stand for discipline, that some one doth hold a singular opinion by himself; then can their consent be scarcely alleged for any one affirmative point of discipline, every man almost pleasing himself in the novelty of his invention, and in the singularity of his opinion. For plentiful proof whereof, 
Chap. 4.5.6.7.9.11.12.14.16.17.18.19.31.34.  I refer you to the survey of the pretended discipline.  
§ 5. His second objection is, that although in practice reformed Churches do not give their Lay-Elders any maintenance, yet this doth not hinder, but that in their judgement they may according to the Apostles rule, 
His 2, Objection.  esteem them worthy of it. Can we doubt saith he, but our Clergy masters think M. D. worthy of a Bishopric for his pains in pleading their cause: yet we see they bestow not so much as a suffraganeship on him. Shall we therefore say they do not think him to deserve it?  
What a profane mockery is this, to expound the Apostles words, as though he would have the people think they had discharged their duty in esteeming only their Ministers worthy of double honour, when in fact they do not yield them sufficient maintenance. If he were in the ministery (as I know not whether he be or not) and the people should answer him thus: Sir, though we allow you no maintenance as you desire, yet let this content you, that according to the Apostles rule, we count you worthy of double honour: would he not think S. Paul abused, himself deluded, yea and Christ his Lord and master in him to be mocked? 
Gal. 6.7.  Be not deceived saith the Apostle, speaking in this cause, God is not mocked. That which I say of Ministers, is in like manner to be understood of Lay-Elders, if they be included in this text. The words of the Apostle are general, the Presbyters that rule well, let them be counted worthy of double honour. Wherefore let them either acknowledge that the Lay-Elders are not meant in this place, or else teach the people before they admit Lay-Elders, to think themselves bound by the Apostles rule, to yield them double honour, 
Lib. 1.178.  (that is saith T. C. a plentiful reward, such as may be fully sufficient for them and their households) and to yield it willingly & gratefully. For that is the Apostles meaning, when he requireth the Presbyters to be accounted worthy of double honour, not only that this honour of maintenance should be given them, as appear by the reasons which he hath annexed; but that the people should give it, not grudgingly, and as it were by constraint of law, as thinking the Ministers not worthy of maintenance: but willingly and gratefully, as esteeming them most worthy of double honour, and thinking it a small matter to give temporal things to them, 
1. Cor. 9.11 object 3.  of whom they receive spiritual. Neither is it to any purpose which he objecteth concerning either Paul's refusing of maintenance from the Corinthians and Thessalonains, or of wealthy Ministers refusing to burden the Churches by taking maintenance from them: unless he can prove, that order being taken in those Churches for the maintenance of their Elders, which they may readily receive if they will, themselves do voluntarily, and freely refuse it. For if those Elders be comprised under Presbyters in this text, there must the like order be taken for maintenance of all by the Apostles rule, though the painful Preachers are chiefly to be respected.  
But the contrary course is taken. Neither is there not having of maintenance to be ascribed to their own refusing, as in the example of Paul, and the wealthy Ministers; but to the Churches not allowing them maintenance.  

object 4.  To the like purpose is that which he saith, that I need not insult over those reformed Churches, which with consent of the Elders themselves, think it best to ease the people of that charge, seeing the pains to be taken in the office of the Eldership is not such, but that they may attend their civil callings and means of living, as well as our Churchwardens, and civil officers. In which words, first, he wrongfully chargeth me with insulting over those Churches. Secondly, he confuteth himself, who having before denied them to be Lay-Elders, here confesseth they have civil callings, which they may attend upon, as well as our Churchwardens. Thirdly, where he speaketh of the Elders consent in not taking maintenance, it is the consent of obedience to the laws and orders of the Church, such as is in our Churchwardens, who by the like consent have no maintenance. But to leave his words, and to come to the substance of his speech; seeing their pains are not such, but that they may follow their civil callings and worldly business, and seeing they have civil callings to attend upon, and other sufficient means of livelihood, being in all these respects like, if not superior to our Churchwardens, it may not be thought that the Apostle who was desirous the Churches should be eased as much as might be, would require them to give double honour to such, as neither deserved nor needed such maintenance.  
And therefore he did not comprise them under the name of Presbyters (which indeed signifieth Priests or Ministers) or if he did, no Church must think itself to have authority to dispense with the Apostle, but must acknowledge itself bound, if it understand Lay-Elders to be comprised in this text, willingly and gratefully to give double (that is sufficient and plentiful) maintenance to them, esteeming them worthy of it for their work sake.  
The only thing which is objected by the learned of that side, 
§ Sect. The execution, that Elders if need, are have allowance, answered.  is that, which I mention in the Sermon: that their Lay-Elders, if they stand in need, are to be maintained. Whereunto I now add, that some of them so understand the Apostle: and I answer, that if he be so understood in respect of Lay-Elders, he must in like manner be understood of Ministers, his speech being general, and favouring the Ministers no more than thus, 
T.C.  that as all Elders are to be maintained if they need, so especially Preachers; whom notwithstanding the Apostle would have, according to equity and justice, maintained with an honourable stipend for their work sake, and not only by way of alms to be relieved for their need.  
But here the refuter behaveth himself as one that is at a nonplus for reason, and at an overplus for rancour: his words added to the last I cited, be these. But to prove it, he propoundeth (out of the surveyor of discipline, cap. 10.) an objection, and then answereth it. The sum whereof is this, that the maintenance allowed them, is rather a beggarly alms given in charity for need, than that honourable stipend, which injustice is due to them for their work sake. But to prove it, saith he, what would I prove? the refuter is confounded, he knoweth not well what he saith. He propoundeth saith he an objection out of the surveyor. Sure his eyes dazzled, and his wits were to seek. In the survey is not so much as a show of any such objection: neither is it alleged to any other end, but to prove that, whereunto the letter in the margin directed him, that is, that they make choice of such as have no need. But what is it? the sum whereof is this, that the maintenance allowed them is rather a beggarly alms, etc. Is this the sum of the objection? that is senseless, and yet he seems to say so: What then? is it the sum of the answer, or of both? no man that were not at a loss would say it. I profess I have not often read a speech more senseless. To help him out of the maze, and to make him confess that he was at a nonplus, I will explain my words. For whereas some object said I, &c: My meaning was this, the only thing which is objected to disprove my assumption, that to the Lay-Elders the honour of maintenance is not due for their work sake, is this: that Lay-Elders if they stand in need are to be maintained. Which objection hath been made personally to me, I will not say by the refuter, though some think so, for I take that obiector to be an honester man: and that which is objected, is that conceit not only of T. C. the master, and the demonstrator his scholar, but of Danaeus also writing on that place: 
In 1. Tim. 5.17.  To this objection of their need, I answered first, that it is needless, (as the refuter also in the words following doth censure it) as being prevented by all those reformed Churches where the Presbyters be erected, in which order is taken, that none shall be chosen into the signiory, but such as be of good ability. To which purpose I cited the tenth chapter of the Survey: the argument whereof is this. Their Aldermen must be (according to their own positions) men of good calling: and among other things in that chapter, are cited the laws of Geneva, requiring, that all their twelve Lay-Elders should be men of state &c: as I said before.  
Secondly, I answered, if they chance to have need (which is a case that happeneth as seldom at the least to them, as to our Churchwardens) and if they be relieved (as our Churchwardens also should in the like case) that then the maintenance which is allowed, is for their need, and not for their work sake. But the Apostle saith, the Presbyters are worthy of double honour, and the workman is worthy of his stipend, etc. As if I had said: the relief which is given to Lay-Elders for their need (if ever that do happen) doth not disprove my assumption, nor prove that they are included in this text. For, 
The maintenance which the Apostle requireth to be given to Presbyters is not a beggarly alms (that is a poor man's relief given by way of alms,) bestowed only in charity to supply their need, but an honourable stipend, (Paul calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our Saviour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) in justice due to the Presbyters for their work sake.  
But the relief, which they require to be given to their Lay-Elders, is a beggarly alms (that is a poor man's relief given by way of alms) and bestowed only in charity to supply, their need, and not an honourable stipend (called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 &c:) in justice due for their work sake.  
Therefore the relief which they require to be given to their Lay-Elders is not that maintenance which the Apostle requireth to be given to Presbyters. 
§ Sect. 7 His excepti●● that allowā● occasioned by the Elde● need, is yielded for the● work, answered.    
Now let us hear what the refuter addeth to his former words. But saith he as the objection is needless, so his answer is insufficient, here now he speaketh with reason, though without truth. The objection is made by the chief of his side, and is the best (though needless) if not the only objection, they have. My answer is such as you have heard, that is to say, such an answer, as whensoever he meddleth with it, will bring him to a nonplus again: but because I said he speaketh with reason, let us hear his reason. For saith he albeit their necessity occasioneth their maintenance by common allowance, 
Ad pag. 3●  yet is it for their work sake that they are maintained: to which I reply: if it were a maintenance in justice due for their work sake, and not a relief given only in charity by way of alms for their need; that then it ought in justice to be given to them, whether they be in need or not. For the workman is worthy of his stipend for his work sake; and willingly it must be given him as deserving it, whether he need or not. For although it be a crying sin, and do offend more against charity to hold it from him if he need: yet it offendeth as much against justice, to withhold the stipend from the workman, that is not in need. The stipend, which Paul appointeth to Presbyters, in respect of their pains in edifying the Church, which is the house of God, is as due in justice to them for their work sake, as the stipend is due to a Carpenter, that buildeth an house. And as it were injustice joined with folly, for a man not to think himself bound to give the Carpenter his stipend, unless he be poor: the like is to be conceived of the stipend denied to Presbyters for their wealth, which is due for their work.  
The rest of his speech is uttered in rancour and gall: but the points be these. First, that it doth not become me, &c: to call it a beggarly maintenance. Secondly, that it is more than is given to our Churchwardens that are crept into their rooms. The third, which is more plainly uttered in the abortive book, that the like perhaps will not make D. D. rich. In what sense I called it beggarly alms, given only in charity, opposing it to honourable stipend, due in justice, I have already explained. To the second I answer, our Churchwardens, having less trouble, have notwithstanding no less allowance, than your Elders, for they have none at all. And where you say, our Churchwardens are crept into their rooms: you must first prove that ever they had a room in the Church. For we will never grant that our Churchwardens be your Elders successors, till you have proved your Elders to have been their predecessors. And whereas you make yourselves merry with my want of riches, as you did before with my want of preferment; I tell you plainly, I had rather be poorer than M.D. is with a good conscience, then to be as rich as some of you by maintaining a faction, to be maintained by it.  

§ Sect. 8. No honour of maintenance appointed to Lay-Elders in God's book. See the survey of discipli. Pag. 440.441.  Thus have I maintained my assumption, and the prosyllogisme thereof concerning their confession. Now I will prove by another argument, that the honour of maintenance is not by the word of God due to Lay-Elders, and that the Lay-Eldership is not the ordinance of God, nor hath any warrant in the scriptures. We have often heard great words, that your Presbyterian discipline is an essential note of a true Church, if not an article of your faith; that it is to little purpose to receive the doctrine, unless we also embrace the discipline of Christ, meaning the pretended discipline: that your discipline is the kingdom of Christ, wherein your Presbyters hold, as it were Christ's sceptre; that to deny this discipline, 
Demonst  & yet to profess Christ to be our King, is with the soldiers that crucified him, to put a Reed in his hand, 
Prefac. demons●  and a crown of thorns on his head: that in the second petition of the Lords prayer, Let thy Kingdom come, we are to pray, that your Discipline may be advanced; that the question between the BB. and you, is about no less matter than this, 
Ibid.  whether jesus Christ shall be King or no: that in denying your discipline, we are the men that say, Luke 19 
Luk. 19 & 27. Table o● cipl.  We will not have this man to reign over us: and to us is applied that terrible doom, Those mine enemies that would not have me to reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me: and many such like speeches, concerning the kingdom of Christ, which being applied to your own devices, are not far from blasphemy. These confident speeches considered, a man would think that you have most evident, certain, and undeniable grounds for your Presbyteries. But when I come to examine your proofs, & to search the Scriptures, and records of antiquity; I profess unfeignedly, & in the fear of God, that I cannot sufficiently wonder, that men of reading should approve, & men of sincerity should urge so confidently, and maintain so resolutely, even unto silencing and deprivation, such not only human devices, but mere novelties, as the sacred ordinances of Christ our Saviour; for which, after all the search which hath been made, there cannot be produced any sound testimony. But to come to the point: you say, (if you deny my aforesaid assumption,) that to Lay-Elders governing well double honour is due by the word of God, for their work sake. I say, the holy Ghost is so far from assigning this double honour to them, that neither their work, or office itself, for which that honour should be due to them, nor their qualities whereby they should be qualified for that office, nor themselves, 
§ Sect. 9 The office Lay-Elders n●t prescribe in the scriptures.  or their names, whereby they should be known are once mentioned, or intimated in the holy scriptures.  
For first, as touching their office: it is by them assigned, either to their Elders severally, or to the Elder-ship jointly Their duty severally, is to be watchmen in the Church, having their several Wards or precincts appointed to them, wherein they are to observe the manners of men for avoiding offences, and other occurrents for perverting disorders.  
The manners of men they are to inquire into, and to pry into their faults, that if they be secret or small, they may admonish the offenders priu●ly: if open or great, they may inform the Consistory thereof. And for other occurrents, they are to look that good orders be kept, especially respecting the sacraments. As they are to inform their pastor if there be any child in their Ward to be baptised, if there be any in their precinct, lately come into the parish, to acquaint the Minister before the Communion, and at the Communion to keep back those whose religion and honesty is not known, and whom the Ministers have not dealt withal before. Wherefore, as in respect of manners, they are by them compared to the Censors of the Romans, so in respect of good orders, they are as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the Athenians.  
The joint-office of the Elders, is the office of the whole Presbytery, or Eldership, Consistory, or sacred Senate, which in the Assembly of the Elders of the Church, who by common counsel and authority, do rule and govern the same.  
For as Lacedaemon had her signory, Athens her high court of the Areopagi●●s, Rome, her Senate, and every kingdom their counsel, so every Church, (that is, every parish according, to the new disciplinarians) must have her Presbytery, or sacred Senate, unto which Christ hath given the keys of the kingdom of heaven, whereby is meant all Ecclesiastical power and authority.  
This authority respecteth either the Officers of the Church, or the offenders. Officers, as Pastors, Doctors, Elders, Deacons. Concerning whom the Eldership hath authority to elect, ordain, deprive, or depose them.  
As touching offenders, the Eldership hath authority to censure them, either by reproof, suspension, or excommunication.  
Believe me, if the word of God hath committed these things to the hands of the Elders, then have they an office of great consequence indeed. 
Eccl. dis. fo. 5  But if you remember their own positions, 
T.C. l. pag: 16 Demons● pag: 1: ●  that the Word of God doth perfectly describe all the lawful offices of the Church; and that no office or calling in the Church is lawful, but that which is directly warranted out of the Word: yet it was the sin for which Coreh, Dathan, and Abiram were punished, in that they presumed, though they were Levites, to take in hand that for which they had no warrant: then can you not but expect most manifest & pregnant proofs out of the Scripture, directly warranting this whole office, and all the branches thereof. Or if you fail of your expectation, you cannot but wonder at the extreme boldness of them, who holding these positions, impose upon the Church, an office of such authority, not as an human policy, but as the holy ordinance of Christ, having no warrant in the Scriptures.  
But what one pregnant testimony of Scripture can they produce, 
The parts the Elders ●ice, not p●●scribed in Scripture.  pursuing any one part of their Lay-Elders office? Upon my credit not one. For first a peculiar office, either of spiritual watchmen, the scriptures acknowledge none.  
Besides, Prophets, and Priests, or Ministers, or of Censors of men's manners, besides ministers and Magistrates: and much less do the scriptures appoint a peculiar officer to be the accuser of the brethren.  
Indeed it is the duty of all good Christians, mutually to exercise the duties of the Communion of Saints, by instructing, exhorting, admonishing, rebuking, comforting one another. And as the Apostle s●ith, to consider or observe on● another, to provoke unto love, and to good works.  
We may not be of cain's mind, 
Heb: 1.  who said, Am I my brother's keeper? We are so far to be keepers and observers of our brethren, as by all good means to further and advance the salvation one of another.  
The Lord hath charged thee in the Law, 
Leu. 19  freely to rebuke thy brother, and not suffer sin to rest upon him. And likewise in the Gospel, 
Matt: 18 15, 16, 17.  If thy brother sin against thee (either committing an injury against thee, or giving thee offence, by some sin committed in thy knowledge, laying by his evil example, a scandal or stumbling block in thy way,) go and reprous him, privately between thee & him alone, If he hear thee thou hast won thy brother. But if he hear thee not, take yet with thee one or two; if he will not hear them, tell the assembly, etc. But a special Church-officer to pry into other men's faults, such as S. Peter calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the scriptures do not appoint, and much less to inform against, or to accuse private offenders, such as we call Promoters, and the Grecians, Sycophants.  
As for their dividing of Parishes into Wards, and awarding them to several Elders, as also all the rest of the offices and duties assigned to their Elders, of acquainting the ministers who is to be Baptized, what new parishioners are come, of helping at the Communion, and repelling some there from, they must and do confess they have no scripture for them: and yet all these duties must be thought to be prescribed in God's word.  

Eccl. discipl. 122  To which purpose, the arguments which some of their chief writers do use, are these. First, that although all these things be not specially expressed in scripture, 
T.C. Beza Arguments proving the office of Elders out of the Scripture, answered.  yet forasmuch as offences must be avoided, and those duties of Charity, and Communion of saints must be performed, as also those things which appertain to good order provided for: and forasmuch as there are no other officers or Elders to whom the charge of these things should belong; therefore satis ut opinor apparet, haec ad Presbyterorum officium ex verbo Dei referenda esse; I think it sufficiently appeareth, that these things by the word of God, are to be referred to the office of Elders. Their argument standeth thus.  
All necessary duties which the Scripture hath not assigned to other officers or Elders, it hath appointed to these Elders.  
But the duties before spoken of, are necessary duties, which the scripture hath not assigned to any other officers or Elders.  
Therefore the duties before spoken of, the scripture hath assigned to these Elders.  
It seemeth by the proposition, that the Lay-Elders have begged a book of concealments, that they may be authorized to deal in all these causes, for which other men have not express commission. But first I deny that the Scripture hath granted them any such concealments. Nay, I most confidently avow, that they themselves are concealed in the Scriptures, which do not once mention them in any place. And therefore, if there be cases omitted, that the Scripture hath not assigned to other Elders or officers; We may think it hath referred them to the wisdom of the Church, and authority of the Sovereign, r●●●er then to them, whom it never mentioneth. Secondly I answer, that there are many necessary duties, the performance whereof the holy Ghost hath not assigned to any public Officers at all, as though there should be special offices appointed for them; but are to be performed by every Christian; as the aforesaid duties which concern the avoiding of scandals, the duties of Charity and Communion of Saints. Likewise, there are duties respecting outward order and decency, which the Scripture doth not prescribe in particular, and much less assign to any peculiar office.  
But the determination of these particulars, and the nomination of the functions or persons whereunto they shallbe assigned, is left to the discretion of the Church, and authority of the Sovereign.  
And to such purposes, other Churches may appoint Lay-Elders, as well as ours doth Churchwardens, so they do not urge them as the ordinance of Christ, nor give them commission to intermeddle with things above their reach, as being peculiar either to the Ministers of the Word, or the Civil Magistrate.  
Their second Argument.  As for that part of their office of taking heed to offences, 
§ Sect. ●● Their 2. argument. 1. Thess. 5.12. Act. 20.28. Heb. 13.17. 1. Pet. 5.1.2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  who can doubt, but that charge properly appertaineth unto the Elders, seeing they are said in the Scriptures to oversee, and to govern. For this oversight can have but two parts only, whereof the first pertaineth to doctrine & religion; the other, to life and manners. Seeing then, that two sorts of Elders are expressly named by Saint Paul, whereof the first sort are occupied in Preaching, and Doctrine: It is necessary that the other should have charge of manners and conversation, for that only remaineth. 
This discourse containeth 2. Syllogisms: the 
First, All Presbyters who in the Scriptures are said to oversee and govern, having not that oversight, which respecteth doctrine and religion, have the oversight of manners, and care of avoiding offences: for these are the two parts of oversight:  
The Lay-Elders, are such Presbyters, as in the Scriptures are said to oversee & govern, having not that oversight, which respecteth doctrine and religion.  
Therefore the Lay-Elders have the oversight of manners, and care of avoiding offences.  
The 2. If the Apostle expressly name 2. sorts of Elders, distinguished, according to the 2. parts of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or oversight, viz: Ministers and Lay-Elders, than it doth necessarily follow, that as the Ministers, have the care and oversight of doctrine and religion; so the Lay-Elders have the oversight of manners and care of avoiding offences.   
But the Antecedent is true. 1. Tim. 5.17.  
Therefore the consequent.  
To the assumption of the former Syllogism, I answer, that Lay-Elders are no where's said in the Scriptures to be Presbyters, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: to govern or oversee, but all those places, which be alleged to this purpose, are to be understood of Ministers only.  
Besides, the same Author hath confessed; that Lay Elders are not Bishops, neither will he say, that they be Pastors.  
But the places which he quoteth, are to be understood of Bishops & Pastors. Of Act. 20.28. & 1. Pet. 5. I have already spoken, as also of 1. Thess. 5.12. Why Heb. 13.17. should be applpyed to Lay-Elders, there is no reason; unless whatsoever is spoken of Spiritual governors, is to be understood of them. The Writers, both old and new, expound it of Bishops and Pastors.  
The assumption also of the second syllogism is untrue, neither hath it any thing to support it, but their own exposition of 1. Tim. 5.17. which I have proved to be false. Neither is that true, which is presupposed in both syllogisms: that there must be two sorts of Elders answerable to the two parts of oversight. For both the parts of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or oversight, belong to those which be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, overseers, that is Bishops and Pastors, whose duty is, both to teach and to govern.  
Their third Argument is taken from the practice of the primitive Church next succeeding the Apostles. Which of all their Arguments is most frivolous, there being not any testimony of any writer, or example of any Church to be alleged, that ever there was such an office in the Church.  
But howsoever these duties to be performed by the Elders severally, might be borne with, so they were not obtruded as the ordinances of Christ: yet the joint office of their Lay- presbyteryes is intolerable. For what reason can they allege for their intruding into the sacred office of Bishops and Pastors, & usurping the keys of the kingdom of heaven, which our Saviour Christ committed to none, but to the Apostles, and their successors? That Laymen should have authority, and that by the ordinance of Christ, to ordain Ministers by imposition of hands, to remit or retain sins, to excommunicate the obstinate, or to reconcile the penitent, is an opinion too absurd to be confuted.  
Thus therefore I reason, according to their own principles. No office in the Church is lawful, as themselves say, which hath not express warrant in the scriptures, which is all one, as if they had said, All lawful offices in the church, have express warrant in God's word.  
The office of the Lay-Elders severally, and of their Elderships' yearly, hath not express warrant in God's word: Therefore it is unlawful.  
To their office we will join the consideration of their qualities: 
§ Sect. 12. The quality of Elders, not described in God's word.  for surely, if the holy Ghost had prescribed in the scriptures, an office of such importance, it is to be thought, that he would also have described what manner of men were to be chosen to it, and how qualified for the performance of an office of so high a nature. And although he omitted their qualities in other places, yet me thinks if it be a function that is in dignity under the Minister, but above the Deacon, the Apostle could not have forgotten them, in 1. Tim. 3: where he describeth the qualities, not only of Bishops and Ministers which be above them, but of the Deacons also, which are beneath them; directing Timon 〈◊〉, and in him all Bishops, what manner of persons to or●a●● Ministers, or Deacons. Forgotten? say they, why, are they not plainly expressed in that place? Yes no doubt, for that is agreed upon among us: For some will needs comprise them under the Bishop or Minister, and fear not to ●ay, 
.  that they also must be su● modo, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, able 〈◊〉 preach after their fashion. Others acknowledge, that they are never comprehended under the name Bishop, and that it is necessarily required of Ministers alone, to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, able to preach, especially, in that sense that the Apostle meaneth, as appeareth by comparing that place with Tit: 1.9: yet resolved to find a room for them in that place, and not to suffer them to be excluded, are feign to s●row●e them under the name of Deacons: 
〈…〉 Pag 44  though the name of Deacon, neither in scriptures, nor Fathers, was ever attributed to them. How they will compound these contrarieties I know not. For if they be comprised under the name Bishop, then are they not to be shrouded under Deacons and if they be contained under Deacons, then are they not comprised under Bishops.  
It shall 〈◊〉 me to allege, that forsomuch as the Eldership is in their conceit a different office, both from the Minister and Deacon, that it is comprehended in neither. For who cannot conceive this reason?  
None but Bishops, Ministers, and Deacons, are described in that place: (Bishops and Ministers in the former description, and Deacons in the latter:)  
But Lay-elders are neither Bishops or Ministers, nor Deacons, but an imagined office distinct from both:  
Therefore they are not described in that place.  

 The refu●●● hath solemnly proclaimed before, and required all men to take notice of it, that their Elders ought to be men religious, of great gravity and piety, and of good years also, if it may be, as the name importeth, called with due examination, chosen with consent of the congregation over which they are set, with prayer and imposition of hands put a part to that Ecclesiastical office. All which I will not deny to have been politickely devised, so it may be acknowledged an human devise, and not a divine ordinance. But why are not the margins filled with scriptures for the proof of these things? The truth is, there is not one testimony of scripture to be alleged, prescribing the office, or describing the qualities of Lay-Elders.  
But perhaps there may be mention sufficient of them in the scriptures to warrant their calling, though neither their office nor their qualities be described in the word of God. Nor that neither: as shall appear, when I come to answer the refuters allegations for them. In the mean time I will not doubt to renew my former challenge, if they can produce any one pregnant testimony out of the scriptures, whereby it may necessarily be concluded, that either there were at any time, or aught to be at all times in the Church of Christ such Elders and Elderships as they speak of, that then I will yield to them in the whole controversy betwixt us. But until such proof be produced for them, which will never be: they shall give me leave to esteem their doctrine of Lay-Elders, to be, as it is, a mere fiction, how vehemently soever it be urged and obtruded upon us, as the holy discipline of Christ.  
And now had we done with this place of the Epistle to Timothy, 
§ Sect. 13. His 3. cau●●les against pag. 10. answered.  saving that the refuter looking back to the ●enth page of my Sermon, as being loath thus to leave wrangling with my exposition of that text, noted three things to be cavilled at, in this one speech, where I say, that Ministers are especially to be honoured for their pains in preaching of the word, that being, in Paul's estimation, the chief work of the ministery. For first, he would feign know of me why ●adde in Paul's estimation. I answer, because it was necessary to be added: for in such comparative sentences, where one part seemeh to be preferred before all the rest, we are not always to understand that part simply to be the chief, but in the estimation of the speaker, who in some respect preferreth it to the rest. As for example, if that you should say, all good Ministers or Preachers are greatly to be honoured, especially they, who go before their people in the example of a godly life: I would expound your meaning (as I did the Apostles) to be this, that whereas double honour is due to all Ministers or Preachers, for the performance of their duty in general, 〈◊〉 they are especially to be honoured for their godly life, that being in your estimation the chief commendation of a Minister. Or to use the refuters own example, which before I explained: all logicians that reason well, are to be well accounted of, especially they that judge well, or are judicious. In this speech are to be noted, not two sorts, but two duties of logicians; the one general, to reason well, the other, special to judge well, disposed in a comparative sentence, wherein the duties of a logician are thus compared, that whereas logicians are to be esteemed for the performance of their duty in general; yet especially they are to be honoured for judging well, that being in the estimation of him that shall so speak, the chief work of a Logician: I say in the estim●i●● of him that shall so speak; for another perhaps would say thus; All logicians that reason well are to be well esteemed, especially those that analise well: another perhaps thus. All good Logicians are to be honoured, especially those that are methodical; another thus, especially those that invent well. In like manner I explain the Apostles speech, as hath been showed before. I but saith he, if this be true that those Ministers are especially worthy of double honour, that labour in the word and doctrine; then some poor Ministers that continually preach or would do, if they might be suffered, are more especially to be honoured then some great prelate's, that seldom or never preach: and it was the envy of this illation, which by saying in Paul's estimation, you would derive from yourself to the ●●●stle. Answ. The Apostles comparison is to be understood of them which be of the same degree, being Presbyters and no more. Neither was it Paul's meaning, writing to Timothy the Bishop, that any of the Presbyters should have more maintenance than he, (for that is the honour whereof he speaketh) though perhaps they were more painful in preaching, as having better opportunity. It is well known that in the primitive Church, when the revenues of ●ach Church were divided into 
a Vid ● confess. ● s. 30. Syn● Rom. sub syluest. c. 12. q. 2. ●. 27.28.2.30.  four parts, the Bishop alone had one fourth part, and that was as much as all the Presbyters and all the rest of the clergy (though perhaps there were an hundred of them) had amongst them: For all of them had but another fourth part, a third fourth part went to the buildings and reparations, and the fourth to the poor.  
His second cavil, 
§ Sect. 1● Ad pag. 3● His 2. ca●●●  that in other places, viz. pag. 42.45.53. I have through flattery contradicted this assertion, making governing a labour of greater honour than preaching. Answ. In none of those places do I compare preaching with governing, but Bishops with Presbyters, saying and proving that Bishops are superior to Presbyters in the power of ordination and jurisdiction, and that the Bishops are the Apostles successors in the government of the Church. But doth it follow because Bishops are superior to Presbyters, that therefore preaching is a work inferior to government? I trust Bishops are equal at the least with Presbyters in the power of order, as it respecteth the ministery of the word and sacraments, so that what can be said in commendation of the order of Presbyters in respect of the ministery, belongeth also to Bishops. If therefore BB. being at the least equal with Presbyters in the power of order, respecting the ministery of the word and sacraments, be above them not only in the exercise of that power, but also in the power of ordination and jurisdiction; they may, without disparagement to the ministery of the word, be said to be superior to other Ministers.  
To your third cavil I might answer as to the first, 
His 3. cavil  that the Apostle speaketh to the Bishop of Presbyters, not to a Presbyter; as you do, of Bishops. But indeed our Bishops, as they ought all, so the most of them (as I trust) do think themselves bound to preach, when they have opportunity and leisure in respect of their other weighty employments; in regard whereof I have always thought, that one good Bishop, though he have not opportunity to preach very oft, may do more good in the Church of God, than a dozen good Preachers. So that in these three cavilles the refuter hath gained nothing, but the manifestation of his own malice, which I pray God to forgive him.   

CHAP. VII. 〈◊〉 Ambros● in 1. Tim. 5. ●. doth not give testimony to the Lay- 〈…〉 that their exposition of Ambrose is untrue.  
The testimony of Ambrose discussed  S●rm. Sect. 6. pag. 13. I come now to Ambrose writing on the first verse of the same chapter, 1. Tim. 5. where the Apostle exhorting Timothy not to rebuke an Elder or aged man, Ambrose giveth this reason. For among all nations old age is honourable, and then addeth: unde & synagoga & postea ecclesia seniores habuit, quorum sine consilio nihil agebatur in ecclesia. Quod qua negligentia obsoleverit nescio, nisi forte doctorum desidia aut magis superbia, dum soli volunt aliquid videri. Whence it is that both the Synagogue and afterwards the Church had Seniors, Without whose counsel nothing was done in the Church. Which by what negligence it is grown out of use, I know not, unless perhaps by the slothfulness of the learned or Teachers, or rather pride, whiles they alone will seem to be something. Which words whosoever understand, as giving testimony to Lay-Elders, they wrong Ambrose, etc. 10. lines further. 
IN this allegation the disciplinarians have great confidence: For this testimony of Ambrose saith T.C. is so clear and open, 
Li. 2. part. ● Pag. 44.  that he which doth not give place unto it, must needs be thought as a Bat, or an Owl, or some other night-bird to delight in darkness. And it is a world to see how the refuter thinking that his cause willbe advantaged by this testimony of Ambrose, taketh on like a beggar on horseback, or a coward when he hath gotten his adversary at a supposed advantage. See you not how he braggeth and vaunteth, how he cracks and crows, and all for want as of a good spirit, so of a sound judgement, presuming of advantage, where he hath none, as the event will prove.  
Concerning this testimony of Ambrose, he findeth fault as well with my manner of alleging, as of discussing it. At the allegation he hath three cavils. First he repeateth his frivolous cavillation concerning the consequence of an argument which he bestoweth upon me: that, if in this place of Ambrose there be no mention of Lay-Elders, then there is none to be found in the father's writings. 
Chap. 3. § 9 & 10.  Which cavil I have so clearly refuted before, that I think I shall never hear of it more.  
The second, 
Ad pag. 33.  that I allege this place not out of Ambrose himself (which is a base slander, for I had Ambrose lying before me) but out of D. Bills. because forsooth I cited the first words (which are not so pertinent, showing the slender occasion whereupon Ambrose uttered this sentence) in english, as D. B. doth: And yet his blind malice would not let him see that I cited the latter sentence in latin, out of the Author, which D. B. allegeth in English. Quod qua negligentia obsoloverit, etc. Which words if I had cited as a chief man of your side doth, you would have charged me, either to have alleged a place which I had never seen, or else notoriously deprived it. 
T▪ 〈◊〉. 1. pag. 183.  Ambrose speaking of this office of the elders (although, saith he, not upon so good occasion,) thus 〈◊〉 saith, whereupon the Synagogue, and after the Church had Elders without whose counsel nothing was done in the Church. Which Elders I know not by what negligence they are worn out, &c: and again, 
joh. 2. 〈◊〉. 2. pag. 44.  his saying is that the Elders fell away by the ambition of the doctors. Which allegation the rest, which were but gleaners after him, taking upon his word, have urged, as if the Seniors themselves, of whom Ambrose speaketh, were ceased before his time, inferring thereupon that he meaneth Lay-Elders, because the learned Presbyters still remained in the Church. When Ambrose doth not say, that the Seniors themselves were grown out of use, (for he doth not say, qui qua negligentia ob●oleuerint) but that (themselves remaining) their counsel was neglected. If it be demanded; why then doth he say habuit ecclesia, the Church had; I answer because the verb was to have reference both to the Church which had been before his time, and also to the Synagouge, not because the Church had not Seniors still. For Jerome, Augustine, and Gregory are alleged by the disciplinarians themselves, that there were Seniors in the Church long after Ambrose his time.  

§ Sect. 2. Concerning the mactation of the 〈◊〉 Do●●●rum.  Thirdly, he cavilleth at the translation of the word docterum, which I rendered learned or Teachers. For which reading, if he had a sound judgement, he would rather have given me thanks. In that translation, as also in the exposition, I intended to give them satisfaction, who (as I thought) were not satisfied with the judgement of our learned men, who by the word doctorum understand Bishops only. For indeed if it be read Doctors or teachers (a title in these times appropriated to Bishops) the allegation out of Ambrose is as easily answered, as alleged, Ambrose his meaning being plainly this; that whereas the Bishops in former times were wont to do nothing of importance without the counsel and advise of certain ancient Ministers, who were his assistants; this was now grown out of use, either through the negligence, or pride of the Bishops. But because I thought it might be objected, that the word may signify the learned as well as Teachers; and so an opposition might be conceived as well of the learned to the unlearned Seniors, as of the Doctors that is Bishops to the Presbyters (who though they were learned were not called Doctors, neither did usually preach) I therefore endeavoured so to expound it, as that they, who should so understand this place, might be satisfied, showing that although the word doctorum should signify learned, and although they would gather from thence, that the Seniors which were excluded from consultation were unlearned. And consequently lay men: yet notwithstanding that the speech of Ambrose needeth not to be understood of Lay-Elders. But seeing my adversary, in the profundnesse of his judgement, rejecteth that reading as unlearned and without example, (of which notwithstanding doctorum esto judicium let the learned judge) I will cleave to that interpretation, which by Doctorum understandeth Doctors or Teachers, as the best, and keep the other in store as a secondary exposition to satisfy them, who by doctorum shall understand the Learned, and thereof infer seeing the learned are blamed for excluding the Seniors, that therefore the Seniors who were excluded, were unlearned. And although my antagonist fight Andabatarum more and as cowards use to do, winking, smote he saw not what, nor cared what, so as he might deal his blows apace, condemning me in that for which he had cause to thank me: notwithstanding I will acknowledge my thankfulness to him, for handling this matter so well, that in this point he hath left our cause better than he found it. For whereas there being two expositions of this place according to the two significations of the word doctorum, the sentence hath almost no show of probability for Lay-Elders, if doctorum be translated Doctors, but seemeth very favourable to them if doctorum signify the Learned: my adversary, I thank him, hath freed me from the difficulty of the latter, (if his exceptions against it be good) and hath permitted me to rest securely in the former. The reader therefore is not to expect from me an ample defence of that latter sense against his exceptions, which make for us. For if his exceptions be good, and that sense untrue (as he saith, it is certain and plain that it is) then will there be no difficulty at all in answering this testimony of Ambrose, that translation which seemed most to favour Lay-Elders, being rejected.  

§ Sect. 3. 〈◊〉 discussing 〈◊〉 testimony ●. Amb●●se 17. pages 〈◊〉.  In discussing this testimony of Ambrose, because it seemeth to make for him, he is content to spend 17. pages: who if it were against him would scarce vouchsafe one line by way of answer.  
I have known, when above a dozen testimonies of ancient writers directly testifying that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus (in which number Ambrose was one) the chief patron of the pretended discipline among us, hath refused so much as to examine the allegations, 
T. C. h. 2. part. 1. pag. ● 14. 〈◊〉. 528. Luk. 1. pag. 41.  as a thing unworthy the turning of a leaf, and in another place he shaketh off Ambrose thus: As for Ambrose, a child may see how violently he forceth the text, etc. And again, the errors and corrupt expounding of scriptures, which are found in his works, declare, that it had been more safe for the Church, if by study of the scriptures, he had first been a scholar of divinity, or ever he had been made Doctor. And of this authority is Ambrose when he is alleged against the pretended discipline. But if he let fall a speech, which seemeth, and but seemeth to favour their cause, though so impertinent as if it had been foisted in by others, though in a book, wherein besides some suspected, there is apparent corruption, 
〈◊〉 1. Tim. 3.16.  though the testimony itself is mistaken by them, and though their exposition thereof, hath neither scripture to warrant, nor consent of other writers to second, nor good reason to prove it, notwithstanding because they want better evidence, they make so much of it, that eight whole leaves are not sufficient to bestow upon it. Which I mention not that I would have any thing detracted from the authority of this testimony, as though it made, against us; but to show, partly the partial dealing of the disciplinarians, and partly the poverty of their cause.  
In my handling this testimony, 
§ Sect. Three ●● noted in handling this tes●●●●nie of Ambrose.  the refuter observeth three things. 
i) My re●● their caption, as ●●ging Ambrose, ●●●●red as ●●●dest.  First, my denial of their exposition with the reasons of my denial. Secondly, a refutation of their proofs. Thirdly, an allegation of reasons (omitted by Ambrose) why the counsel and assistance of the Seniors in Ambrose his time was grown out of use. In the denial itself, he layeth upon me such an imputation of immodesty, as he did before of unkindness. For although he cannot be against it, but that I may (salva modestia) confute the new writers for their false or wrong expounding Ambrose of Lay-Elders (whom he never so much as dreamt of) yet he cannot abide I should say they wrong Ambrose, though I prove that they wrong him by misconstruing his words, and giving them a wrong sense. 
Ad pag. 3 & 35.  And in this nice and idle cavil, for want of better matter, he spendeth almost a leaf, aggravating the accusation by numbering 12. Divines of our time, who understand Ambrose as speaking of Lay-Elders, and alleging that it is more likely that I should mistake him, 
In prefat.  than they. Indeed if I were alone in this cause, and did oppose my credit alone to their authority, or expected as my adversary falsely accuseth me, like another Pythagoras to be believed upon my bare word: such arrogancy (I confess) would not become me. But he seeth, and (I hope) feeleth, that I say not any thing in this controversy, which I do not prove by such reasons, as he doth not know, without sophistical shifts and mere cavils how to answer. If these new writers prove their exposition of Ambrose by any sound reason, why be not their arguments produced? if they speak without reason, why is their bare authority objected against, both so many reasons as have been used to show there never were such Elders, and also against the general consent of antiquity, which never acknowledged any Presbyters or Ecclesiastical Elders, but Ministers only.  
Of my denial he acknowledgeth two reasons: 
§ Sect▪ 5. The reason why their exposition was to be rejected.  which though they were lighter than they be, are of more weight then bare testimonies, especially of parties, who are not to depose in their own cause. Howbeit I acknowledge but one reason, though my speech may be resolved into two Syllogisms, whereof the one is a prosyllogisme to the other: and because he saith, in steed of proving, I do nothing but beg the question, I will resolve the reason of my answer into this Syllogism.  
They which make Ambrose against his meaning to testify that which hath no warrant, either in the scriptures, or elder writings of antiquity, do wrongfully expound him: But those which expound Ambrose, as giving testimony to Lay-Elders, do make him against his meaning, to testify that which hath no warrant either in Scriptures, or elder writings of antiquity:  
Therefore those who expound Ambrose as giving testimony to Lay-Elders, do wrongfully expound him.  
The proposition is manifest. The assumption hath 2. parts, the one that Lay-Elders have no warrant either in scriptures, or in the elder writings of antiquity. The other, that the sense which they give to his words, is against his meaning. The former was proved in my former challenge, that not any one testimony can be produced out of the writings of the Apostles and Fathers, mentioning or meaning any Lay-Elders. The which is a sufficient allegation in a respondent holding the negative, until the opponent by sufficient instance can prove the affirmative. And therefore his cavil in saying, either that I do but beg the question, which himself should prove, is false and foolish: or that if it were granted: it would not prove their exposition to be against his meaning, (for he might testify that which hath no warrant either in scriptures, or elder monuments of antiquity) is both an ignorant mistaking (for those words as you see, were not inserted to that end,) and a needless extenuating of Ambrose his testimony, as being such a one, of whom it may be said, that he testifieth that which hath no warrant either in scriptures or other monuments of antiquity. 
Ad Pag. 36.  The rest of his words are mere babbling. The latter I prove, by this Reason: 
To whom Ambrose giveth testimony, he complaineth that their council and assistance in causes Ecclesiastical was grown out of use, & seemeth to charge the bishops with slothfulness, or pride therefore.  
But it was not Ambrose his meaning to complain that the council or assistance of Lay-Elders was grown out of use, nor to charge the BB: with slothfulness or pride for it:  
Therefore it was not his meaning to give testimony to Lay-Elders.  
The truth of the proposition is evident, by the words of of Ambrose himelfe.   
The assumption is thus proved: A Diocesan Bishop, who not only approved, but laboured to magnify his own calling, and was as far as any from subjecting either Bishops or Ministers, to the Presbyteries of Laymen (as the Presbyterians do) would not complain that the council or assistance of Lay-Elders, (such as the Disciplinarians mean) was not used, or charge the Bishops with slothfulness or pride for it:  
But such a one was Ambrose:  
Therefore he would not complain for want of Lay-Elders, etc.  
The proposition if it be explained, will need no further proof. The Elderships of Laymen, such as the Disciplinarians stand for, 1. were never in use together with Bishops, but either were devised to supply the government of Bishops, when they were depressed, as in Geneva, Scotland, and the Low-countrieses, or where orthodoxal Bishops were wanting, as in France, or are urged to extrude Bishops, as among us: 2. in their Presbyteries consisting for the greatest part of Lay-Elders, all having equal right of Suffrage, and all things being carried by plurality of voices, it is evident that the Ministers, which in parish presbyteries are but one or two at the most, and in others the far less number, are subjecteth to the Lay-Elders, as being the greater number.  
It is manifest therefore, that a Diocesan Bishop, who not only approved but sought to magnify his calling, and was as far as any from subjecting Bishops or Ministers to the Presbyteries of Laymen, would not complain of the want of such Elderships.  
Now that Ambrose was such a one as I affirm in the assumption, I will manifestly prove in answering the refuters cavils. For he (as being led with a spirit of contradiction) after his usual manner, granteth neither proposition nor assumption, nor any one branch of them to be true. Which course (me thinks) should discredit him with all indifferent Readers, who may discern him to write, not out of conscience, but out of a resolution to cavil and contradict: especallie, if they consider that hitherto (though he would scarcely grant any thing to be true that I had said: yea, in his preface avowed, that I have scarce uttered one true word) yet he hath not been able to prove any one thing which I delivered to be false. And such will his success be in the rest.  

§ Sect. 9 His answer to the Reason.  That he might fit this Argument to his own strength, he hath cast it (as his manner is) into a connexive syllogism: For it is an easy thing to frame a connexion, & when he hath done to deny the consequence. But yet belike this consequence was too strong for him to deal with, whiles the Medium consisting of 3. branches, was bound together: therefore he dissolveth it, taking every branch by itself, endeavouring like a gross headed Sophister, to persuade the Reader, that because he can bow every twig severally: therefore the whole bundle or faggot is weak. For the 3. branches being joined together, as they are in the proposition, the conscience of the Reader will I (doubt not) give testimony to the manifest truth of the proposition, understood as I explained it. But though it be to no purpose, if he can bend & break the branches severally, yet we will try his dealing that way: and what he weakeneth by dissolving, I will strengthen by uniting. And first, 
The ● Con●●●●●●ce.  he saith, this consequence is nought: If Ambrose were a Diocesan Bishop (understand who magnified his own calling, and could not abide that Bishops or Ministers should be subjecteth to the censures of Laymen) then would he not give testimony to Lay-Elders, (he should have said, then would he not have complained of the want of Lay-Elders, who were never thought to be wanting, where Bishops were thought to be lawful.  
And why? because D. Whitgift was a Bishop, yea an Archbishop; and D. K. would be a Bishop, and yet both give testimony to Lay-Elders. Because D. whitgift's grant is oft laid in our dish, 
Pag: 62●  the Reader is to know, First, that he denieth Lay-Elders could be proved out of the scriptures. Secondly, he granteth they had been in use as Calvin & others had testified, taking it upon their credit, being loath either to contradict those famous learned men, or to impeach the credit of those Churches where the Presbyteries were erected. Which course of not contradicting them had still been held, if the Elders had not been obtruded as Christ's ordinance, to extrude those, who (in respect of their first institution), were ordained of God. Thirdly, B. Whitgift was so far from complaining of the want of Lay-elders, that he was a chief instrument of God under the Prince to keep them out.  
The testimony, which D. K. giveth to your Lay-Elders, appeareth by his Sermon: where, for confuting your Presbyteries, you say he spiteth out much poison against these Elders, and spendeth much gall upon them. God grant the poison of Asps be not under your lips, and that yourself be not in the gall of bitterness, who so virulently & bitterly use to rail on men of so good note in God's Church. But his testimony concerning your Elders, is so far from complaining of the want of them, as that he doth not only say, but also prove at large, that there never were, nor yet do need to be such. Only you catch hold of his exposition of Ambrose his speech, which as he saith, may well be understood of Elders in years, experience, and gravity, having some temporary commission to assist in ordering the Church, but not such as your Lay-Elders. It is very true, that although Seniores or Presbyteri, be a name of order, signifying Ministers and Priests; yet according to the original signification thereof, it is used by Tertullian, and here by Ambrose, (as appeareth by the occasion of his words) as opposed to the juniores of the Clergy. 
Apolog: c. 3.  And so not only Luther understandeth the word as you heard before, 
De office li. c. 20.  but Ambrose so speaketh elsewhere: showing that it was not needful that the juniores, the younger men of the Clergy should go to the houses of Widows, and Virgins but only to visit them, & hoc cum senioribus and that with the Seniors or elder sort of the Clergy, that is with the Bishop or with the Presbyters, 
§ Sect. 7.  if there be great cause.  

The second consequence.  Secondly, he rejecteth this consequence: if Ambrose did labour to magnify the calling of Bishops, than was it not his meaning, &c: for saith he Su●tonius or Tacitus might magnify the excellency of the Monarchy, and yet confess that the state of Rome had been democratical, or might they not complain that the advise of the Senators was not now regarded, without whose counsel Tiberius in his five first years would do little or nothing? 
Ad pag. 37.  Yea did not Samuel magnify the monarchical government under Saul, and ●et testify that they had been otherwise governed, yea and complain that the form was altered▪ These examples, unless they had been better fitted, are to little purpose. If he could have said, A Monarch labouring not only to justify but to magnify the royal calling, and not enduring that monarchs and Princes should be subjecteth, either to the Senate or people, would notwithstanding complain that the state is not either Aristocratical or popular, he had fitted the example, though he had spoken untruly; For if Suetonius and Tacitus had been Emperors and such as did magnify the Monarchical government and could not abide either that the commonwealth should be ruled by the multitude, or themselves overruled of the greater part of the senate, then would they not complain that the government was not Democratical, or Aristocratical. But thus he might have said both fitly and truly. As a good king misliking that some of his predecessors had managed all things without the advise of their senators, might complain, that through their pride or temerity the advise of the senators was neglected: so Ambrose a good Bishop, seeing the Bishops not to regard the advise of their ancient Presbyters, that is Ministers, as it were their senators, without whose advise nothing of importance was wont to be done in the Church, might also complain that their counsel and assistance was grown out of use through the slothfulness or pride of the Bishops. As for Samuel, if either the state before was Monarchical, or if he had magnified the Monarchical government of the jews when Saul was set over them, he had had little reason to complain for the altering of that government into a Monarchy. But the state before had been Monarchical, neither did Samuel magnify the Monarchical government when Saul was set over them. For until Saul, God himself was the Monarch of the jews, 
1. Sam. 12.12.  retaining iura Maiestatis the right of sovereignty in his own hands, chiefly in prescribing them laws, and in appointing their chief magistrates and governors, 
Deut. 33.5 jud. 17.6. & 19.1. & 21.21. 1. Sam. 8.7.  especially the judges whom he set over them to be as kings for a time. But when the people would needs have a king, after the manner of other nations; the Lord saith to Samuel, they have not rejected thee, but me have they rejected, that I should not reigns over them. And so far is Samuel from commending the government of the earthly King, in comparison of the Celestial; that describing unto them the fashion of their future king, 
1. Sam. 8 11.12.13.14.15.16.17.18. The .3. consequence.  he telleth them, that whereas before, God did rule them by his will and by his own laws only, they should now be ruled after the kings will and pleasure, which would not prove very pleasant to them, as he showeth by many particulars.  
§ Sect. 8. As touching the third branch, he saith the consequence thereof is of the same feather with the former. If Ambrose could not endure that Bishops or Ministers should be subjecteth to Lay-people, than would he not complain that Lay-Presbyters were out of use. It followeth not saith he, there may be Presbyters wherein are Lay-Elders and yet the Bishops and Ministers not be subjecteth to them. But say I, where the far greater part of the Presbyteries consisteth of Laymen, as always it hath done according to the practice of Geneva, and always would do according to the new Parish-discipline, it cannot be avoided, but that the fewer number of Ministers would be subjecteth to the far greater number of Lay-Elders; especially, if they (according to the wise conceit of our new disciplinarians) may be perpetual. But whether these three branches severally do infer a necessary consequence or no, it is not material, seeing they were jointly propounded, and seeing from them united a necessary consequence dependeth. Wherefore the severing of them to weaken the consequence, and to breed matter of cavil, was a sophistical, if not a lewd trick. The lewdness whereof will the better appear, if we consider his dealing with the assumption: for he, that having severed the branches of the proposition, exacted from every one severally a necessary consequence: in the assumption, he will have them all taken together. For before he taketh the assumption in pieces, meaning to cavil with every part severally, he useth this Caution: Provided always, and be it remembered of the Reader, that if any one of the three parts thereof prove false, though the other two be never so true, the whole assumption is in law of true reason, utterly void and of none effect: But if in the proposition I be urged to make good the consequence from each part severally, the assuming of any one part will conclude the question. As thus: If I must be forced to maintain this consequence, If Ambrose were a Diocesan Bishop, then would he no● complain of the want of Lay-Elders: it will be sufficient to assume thus, but he was a Diocesan Bishop, to conclude, that therefore he would not complain of the want of Lay-Elders. It is true, that it is required in my assumption, as I propound it, that every branch must be true: but the reason hereof is, because they were joined in the proposition to make good the consequence. For if they be severally propounded in the proposition, they may also severally be assumed in the assumption. Whiles therefore he chargeth me with a bad consequence, himself is to be charged with a bad conscience.  

§ Sect. 9 The ● branch of the assumption 〈◊〉 Ambrose 〈◊〉 a Diocesan B.  But come we to the assumption, with the first branch whereof the refuter playeth thus. Ambrose saith M. D. was a Diocesan Bishop. Was he so indeed? Had he not only supreme, but 〈◊〉 authority (as our BB: have) over (I know not how) many hundreds of Ministers, in causes Ecclesiastical? Was he an absolute Pop lin● indeed? What a shame is this? that he who even now charged so m●ny learned men to have done Ambrose wrong, should now be found the man ●uilty of that trespass? Ambrose was no more like a Diocesan Bishop, than he that is tied by virtue of his calling, to preach the word, & administer the sacraments in his own Church, etc.  
Can a man of a sincere conscience professing (as themselves term it) the cause of sincerity, be so malapertly confident in denying that whereof he is utterly ignorant? or rather can a man that taketh upon him the defence of this controversy, as a chief champion of the pretended discipline, and one (I doubt not) of the chief challengers of the Bishops, to dispute with them in these causes, be ignorant, that Ambrose was a Diocesan Bishop? doth he know that he was a Diocesan at the least, and can he thus deny it, and keep his conscience sincere? well, though the task be all one, as if I should be required to prove that the Bishop of London, or rather the Archbishop of York, is a Diocesan Bishop: yet seeing my learned adversary denieth it, and pretendeth some reason of his denial: I will first prove, that Ambrose was at the least a Diocesan B: and for the greatness of his authority, and largeness of his jurisdiction, comparable with ours; and in the second place, I will answer his reasons.  
First therefore you are to be advertised, that Mediolanum Milan, whereof Ambrose was Bishop, not only is a Metropolis, or seat of a Metropolitan, but was both in and before Ambrose his time. Strabo 
(a) Geograph. lib. 5. Insubres hac aetate sunt qui Mediolanum Metropolin habuere.  saith it was a Metropolis, wherein the governor of the province of Liguria and Aemilia kept his residence. Athanasius speaking of Dionysius the Bishop of Milan saith 
(b) Epist. ad solita.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it also is a mother city of Italy. It is also evident and a thing confessed by Beza 
(c) De grad. Min. c. 24.  that the distribution of the Church into Dioceses & provinces, was framed according to the division of the Dioceses and Provinces under the Roman Empire.  
Ambrose himself 
(d) Centur. 4 c. 10. 11●7. Ruffin. hist. li. 2 c. 11. Paulin. in vit. Ambr.  was a man of consular dignity in Rome, and being appointed governor of Liguria and Aemilia came to Milan. Where keeping his residence, it fell out 
(e) Theod. lib. 4. c. 5.  that Auxentius the Bishop being dead, and the Emperor Valentinian having assembled (as the manner) 
(f) Balsam. in Conc. cost. in. c. 2. olim omnes pro. ●īciarum metropolitanis, a proprijs synodis eligebantur. Conc C. haelc. act. 11. ostendat Bassianus si per synodum ReMetropolis  was for the choice of a Metropolitan) the Bishops of that verendorum Episcoporum & consueta lege Episcopus Ephesiorum est constitutus.  
The honour and sublimity Episcopal cannot be matched with any comparison: if you compare it with the excellency of Princes and civil Magistrates, you shall compare gold with lead. As for the people, the Episcopal function hath not only obtained to be preferred before them, but also is enjoined by evangelical precepts with fatherly authority to govern them: for they, as the sheep of Christ, are committed to BB. as to rulers, who together with Peter received that authority to govern them, etc. Again, 
(n) Cap. 3.  these things I have spoken saith he, to show that nothing in this world is more excellent than Bishops.  
For his deeds, consider his repelling of Theodosius 
(o) Theodor. li 5. c. 18.  the Emperor from entering into the Church, until he had testified his repentance: his not permitting him to remain within the Chancel, alleging 
(p) Ibid.  that it was a place peculiar to the Clergy, (which favour when Nectarius the Bishop of Constantinople would have granted to him, Theodosius professed that he had with much a do learned the difference between an Emperor and a Bishop, adding, that he had scarce found a Teacher of the truth. Ambrose is the only man whom I know worthy the name of a Bishop) his refusing to be tried in a cause of faith, in the emperors Consistory, when Valentinian the younger had sent for him, contrary to a law made by his Father Valentinian, protesting that he would rather lose his life, then by his yielding, the honour of Bishops should be diminished. Non 
(q) Epist. 32. ad valentin. imp.  tanti est Ambrosius ut propter se deijciat sacerdotium, non tanti est unius vita, quanti est dignit as omnium sacerdotum: his refusal 
(r) Orat. in Auxent. l. 5. Epist. inter Epist. 32. & 33. Epist. 33.  to deliver up the Churches to be possessed of Arians at the Emperor Valentinians commandment, professing that the palaces pertained to the Emperor, but the Churches to the Bishop. His other doubt is, whether I compare Ambrose with them of his own time, or with them that lived before or after, &c: here was a knot sought in a bulrush: seeing my meaning is evident, that Ambrose laboured as much as any of the ancient approved Fathers. And that he did so, it is already sufficiently manifested. If that be so saith he, then either all men thought it needful for the Bishop to be advised and directed as D. Bilson saith by the counsel and consent of Elders: 
Cap. 11.157.  or else that Ambrose who thought it needful, as appeareth by this testimony, laboured not to magnify such a calling of Bishops, as M.D. maintaineth. Ambrose & others thought it needful, that a presbytery of grave & ancient ministers, should with their counsel & advise assist the Bishops in cases of doubt (as D. Bilson saith) of danger and importance, when as yet neither Synods could assemble, nor Christian Magistrates could be found to help and assist the Church. But this, as it doth nothing further the cause of Lay-Elders: so doth it no more detract from the dignity of Bishops, to use the counsel of wise and learned men; than it doth derogate from the Majesty of Kings, to use the advise of their wise & faithful Counsellors.  
There remaineth the third branch. 
§ Sect. 13. The 3. branch of the assumption.  Whereunto, besides his railing against our Bishops for subjecting Ministers to their Chancellors, Commissaries, and officials, which are but laymen, he answereth only That if adjoining Presbyters to the Bishop be a subjecting him to them, I doubt not but this testimony will prove, that Ambrose was not willing, that Ministers should be subjecteth to the Consistories of Laymen.  
There are two differences between that which Ambrose holdeth and our new Disciplinarians. Ambrose speaketh of an assistance of ancient ministers; they, of Lay-Elders.  
Ambrose, of an assistance to advise and direct, such as is the advise of Counsellors to a Prince; they of an assistance to overrule, as in the Roman Senate, by plurality of voices, giving their Bishop not so much as one negative voice, Ambrose therefore requireth an assistance of ministers subjected to the Bishop: they an assistance of Lay-Elders, subjecting the Bishops to them. Neither should they of all men rail against the BB. for submitting ministers to Chancellors, etc. seeing it is not so untolerable, that ministers should be subjected to the censure of men wise and learned in the laws, and that so far only as the B. shall think fit, as that they should not only be overruled by such as the Lay-Elders must needs be in most countrey-parishes, but also stand to the courtesy of them and their neighbours, to be deposed and deprived at their pleasure.  
Now, how far Ambrose was from subjecting BB: or Ministers in causes Ecclesiastical, to the Consistories of Laymen, may appear, first, by his sentence given against Palladius, the Arfian. Bishop, in the Council of Aquileia For when Palladius refused to answer, 
Cons. Aquil.  but before some honourable persons of the laity, who were at hand. Ambrose answered, Priests or BB. ought to judge of Laymen, and not Laymen of Priests.  
And again, though he be found guilty of many impieties, notwithstanding we are abashed, that he which challengeth Priesthood to himself, should seem to be condemned of Laymen. And therefore forasmuch as herein he is to be condemned, who expecteth the sentence of Laymen (seeing rather priests ought to judge of Laymen) according to those things which to day we have heard Palladius professing, and according to those things which he refused to condemn. I pronounce him (saith Ambrose) unworthy of Priesthood. 
Epist. 32.  But chiefly by his Epistle to Valentinian the young Emperor, wherein he refuseth to be tried, as his adversary Auxentius desired, in the Emperor's Consistory: alleging, that his Father Valentinian had by Law provided, that in the cause of faith, or of any Ecclesiastical order, he ought to judge qui nec munere impar sit, nec iure dissimilis: who is neiher in function unequal, nor in right unlike; that is, Sacerdotes de Sacerdotibus voluit judicare: He would have BB: (for them ordinarily he meaneth by Sacerdotes) to judge of BB: or Priests. Yea, moreover (saith he) if a Bishop were otherwise called into question, and the cause of manners were to be examined, even this also would he (that is, Valentinian the Father) have to belong to Episcopal judgement. When did you ever hear most gracious Emperor, that Laymen in a cause of faith judged of BB: Are we therefore so bowed with flattery, that we forget the right of BB? And that I should think what God hath given me, is to be committed to others? If a Bishop must be taught of a Layman what to follow, let the Layman dispute, and let the Bishop hear, let the B: learn of the Layman. But surely if we call to mind either the tenor of holy Scriptures, or ancient times, who can deny, but that in a cause of Faith, In causa inquam fidei Episcopos solere de Imperatoribus Christianis, non Imperatores de Episcopis judicare: You shall one day (if it please God) come to ripe years, and then you will be able to judge. Qualis ille Episcopus sit, qui Laicis Sacerdotale substernut! What a Bishop he is, that subiecteth the right of Bishops to Laymen. Your Father being through God's goodness of ripe years, said, Meum non est: I am not able: (For so Ambrose expoundeth him in the next Sentence, Inhabilem se ponderi tanti putabat esse judicij) to judge among BB. & doth your Grace now say, I ought to judge; would Ambrose condemn such a Bishop as should subject the right of BB. to Laymen, and would he allow of such prerbyteries of Laymen as intrude upon the right of BB: yea which are urged to extrude BB? could he not endure that a B. or minister should be judged in causes Ecclesiastical by the consistory of the Emperor, because it consisted of Laymen; and would he allow a B. or minister should be judged, yea deposed and deprived by a parishional consistory or whole parish consisting of Laymen? doth he commend the good Emperor that said he was unable to judge among Bishops; and would he allow of private men, unlearned, and unacquainted with government, as competent judges in causes Ecclesiastical?  
And thus much of my denial of their exposition of Ambrose, made good by sufficient proof.   

CHAP. VIII. The proof of their Exposition of Ambrose, disproved, and the reas●os which I alleged, why the Counsel of the Seniors, was neglected, defended.  
Serm. Sect. 7. Pag. 14. But let us examine the force of their Argument. 
Ad Pag. 39   
Ambrose saith, there were Elders in the Church, as well as in the Synagogue: Therefore, say they, there were Elders. It followeth not, &c: to learned Presbyters, in the middle of pag. 16.  
THeir Argument is here such, as in this question of Lay-Elders, perpetually they use in all their proofs, of Scriptures, and Fathers, that is, from the genus to the species: yea, to a fancied, or feigned species, affirmatively. As if they should say, he is a Magistrate, therefore a Constable, an ancient Citizen, therefore an Alderman, or rather thus: It is a man, therefore the man in the moon. I see a ship, therefore it is Argo. Like the wise man of Athens, who standing in Pyraeo on the key there, said every ship he saw was his. Saving that he was somewhat wiser, because he had a ship at the Sea: These men's ship, doth swim in their own brains.  
So strong is their fancy, as we shall hear, that when either Christ saith, 
(a) Matt. 18.  Tell the Church, that is, as themselves expound it, the rulers of the Church, they strongly conclude, therefore tell Lay-Elders: or Luke 
(b) Act: 14.23.  that Paul and Barnabas, ordained Presbyters, ergo, Lay-Elders, or james, 
(c) Iam: 5.  is any sick, let him send for the Presbyters, ergo, for Lay-Elders: or Paul 
(d) Rom. 12.8  he that ruleth, Mark how he speaketh of a ruler, therefore of a Lay-Elder: God hath appointed governments, therefore of Lay-Elders: or Ignatius 
(f) Ad Trallian.  be subject to the Presbyters, as to the Apostles of Christ, ergò, to Lay-Elders: or Tertullianus, 
(g) Apolo. 39  Certain approved Seniors be precedents, &c: ergo, Lay Elders: or Jerome 
(h) In Esa. 3  we have a Senate of Presbyters, Ergo, of Lay-Elders. And that no man should live in fear of the great strokes, which this great champion hath threatened, let him understand, that these be all the strokes that he will strike, when his turn of striking cometh.  
To this argument, and all the rest, I answer by denying the consequence, which is so bad, as the refuter is loath to Father it; and yet neither in this, nor in any other of their testimonies, they have or can make no better. Well, saith he, Whatsoever the argument is, the answer is well worse. meaning, as it seemeth, the reason of the answer, which was this: for even the Synagogue had Seniors of the Priests, as well as of the people. My reason may thus be explained: If not only the Church had Seniors, that were ministers, whose advise was neglected in Ambrose his time, but even also the Synagogue (meaning Israel, or the state of the jews) had Seniors of the Priests; than it followeth not, that the Seniors of whom Ambrose speaketh, were Lay-Elders. But the antecedent is true in both the parts of it:  
Therefore the consequent:  
The consequent of the proposition is necessary: for an argument from the genus to the species, doth not hold affirmatively. Genus saith Fabius, 
(i) Quintil. li: 5. c: 10.  ad probandum speciem minimun valet, plurimum ad refellendum, the general is of no force, to prove the special affirmatively, though it be of great force to disprove it, if you argue from it negatively. As for example, it followeth no●, because it is a tree, that therefore it is a plane tree. It is not necessary, saith the Philosopher 
(k) Topic 2.2  that what is affirmed of the genus, should also be affirmed of the species.  
As touching the assumption: the former part, viz: that the Church had seniors, which were ministers, I took for granted, because either all those places of Scriptures and Fathers as I say, or at least some, as my adversary will confess, where Presbyters be named, Ministers are understood.  
The second part I prove out of 
(l) jer. 19.1. Ps. 37.2.  jerem: 19.1. where the Prophet is commanded to take with him some, not only of the Seniors of the people, but also of the Seniors of the Priests, that is, men of authority as well of the Ecclesiastical state as of civil.  
Which words, though the refuter understand as I do, as proving, not that the jews had an Eccclesiasticall Senate, consisting partly of the Priests, and partly of the Elders of the people (for of such a presbytery, though there be much talk, yet there is no proof) but that in the jewish state there were as well Seniors of the priests, as Seniors of the people: notwithstanding the silly Philosopher, would feign make the Reader believe, that I confess (which most confidently I do deny) that in the Church of the jews, there was an Ecclesiastical Eldership, consisting both of the priests and Seniors of the people: and thereupon would infer, that this testimony maketh me: Because (forsooth) Ambrose acknowledgeth that there was such an Eldership in the Church, as had been among the jews. But among the jews there was as he saith, I confess, an Ecclesiastical Senate consisting of the Priests, and Elders of the people, therefore Ambrose acknowledgeth such a Presbytery to have been in the Church, consisting of Ministers, and Lay-Elders.  
First for Ambrose: he doth not speak of Eldership, either among jews or Christians; but showeth, that because both the jews and Christians had Seniors, this is an Argument, that age is honourable, seeing that ancient men were of authority, both among the jews, who had Seniors as well in the Ecclesiastical as civil state, and also among Christians.  
Now, to infer from hence, that either the jews or Christians had an Ecclesiastical senate consisting in part of Lay-Elders, is a vain collection. For if by Synagogue is meant the state of the jews (they might have) as indeed they had) a Senate consisting of Priests and Levites, and chief of the people; but that was not an Ecclesiastical Senate, as hereafter shall be showed, but their chief Counsel of state▪ ●f by Synagogue, you understand only the ecclesiastical state of the jews; in that, there were no other seniors, but of the Clergy of Israel.  
And as for my confession, I protest, that I meant nothing less, then that the Church of the jews had an Ecclesiastical Senate consisting of the Seniors of the Priests and Elders of the people. For I know it to be an idle conceit, having no other warrant, but the probabile est, of a new writer, a chief party in this cause. But hereof more in my answer to his allegation, out of Matth: 18.  
Besides, can any man that doth not wilfully pervert my meaning, understand me to speak of any, but the Seniors of the priests, saying, & of such Ambrose speaketh, when he saith, in the Church, 
§ Sect. 2. Their argument urged, & refuted. Ad pag. 40.  or Church-causes, nothing was done without their consent.  
But it may be, that your former consequence may be confirmed, if the testimony of Ambrose be better pressed upon us, to which purpose I say in the Sermon: If it be said that Ambrose speaketh, etc. If it be said? saith the refuter, he knoweth it well enough, that it is said, and shallbe maintained, that Ambrose speaketh of such Seniors, whose advise was neglected, through the default of the teachers, (not learned or teachers, as M. D. setteth it down) and therefore of such Seniors as were not teachers. Cunningly therefore and to weaken the force of our argument, doth he here so produce and allege it, as if it were rather conceived for our help by himself then propounded and expressed by us.  
Let him therefore, for his honesty and credit's sake, show the Reader where this testimony of Ambrose is thus urged. In the mean time, the Reader shall understand these 2. things  
First, that the disciplinarians, knowing that their proofs out of Scriptures and Fathers, will not necessarily conclude for them, if they should seem to enforce them by discourse: Therefore they use this poor policy, to hold them out, (as it were Minerva's shield, as if they were so pregnant, that they need not to be urged, but the very naming of them were sufficient to put us to silence.—  
They think it therefore, their best course, in all their writings almost to take it for granted, that their discipline is the very discipline and kingdom of Christ, their presbytery, the very ordinance of Christ: and when they should prove it, as they would seem most sufficiently to do, they hold out a few places of the Scriptures and Fathers, barely quoted, being so far from urging them, as that for the most part, they do not so much as cite the words: (thus in the book of H. I. dedicated to the King. 
Pag: 67. Pag: 26.29.31.  1604. urging a reformation after the newe-cut. Thus in the protestation that came out of the North, made in the year 1606. and printed Anno 1608. Thus in this worthy work of the refuter, as after you shall hear, when he cometh to deal his blows) thinking belike that the very naming of such witnesses will sufficiently, if not daunt us, yet satisfy their simple followers, who are too easily led with shows.  
The other thing is, that I have urged this testimony for them, and (to speak the truth) have enforced it better, and made it stronger for them, than ever they made it, or have yet the wit to conceive.  
But to answer their argument, for now it is theirs, neither must my words be retained, learned, or teachers, etc.: The Reader therefore is to remember what before was said, that the word Doctorum, being ambiguous, signifying either learned, or teachers, this place of Ambrose doth accordingly admit two interpretations.  
The one, as it signifieth Learned, and is a common title to the Bishops and Presbyters: the other, as it signifieth Doctors or Teachers, and was a title in those times peculiar to the BB. as shallbe proved. The former of these, which seemeth more to favour the Lay-Elders, my adversary doth reject, & insisteth in the latter. But he doth not show (as me thinks he should) how this testimony than will conclude for Lay-Elders. It was sufficient for him, to contradict me, though he left his cause in w●rse case than he found it. For my part, I am so far from this spirit of contradiction, that I do agree with him in preferring the latter exposition, which by Doctorum, understandeth Doctors, before the other.  
Let us see then, how that sense being retained, this place doth conclude for Lay-Elders.  
All Seniors that were not called Doctors, in those times, were Lay-Elders.  
The Seniors, whose counsel was neglected by the Doctors, were such Seniors, as in those times were not called Doctors:  
Therefore the Seniors, whose counsel was neglected by the Doctors, were Lay-Elders.  
I deny the proposition: because in those times the title of Doctor or Teacher was peculiar to BB: we therefore may with more truth affirm that all Seniors or Presbyters that were not called Doctors in that time, were Ministers; and thereupon conclude, that therefore the Seniors, whose Counsel was neglected by the Doctors, were Ministers.  
For the clearing of this matter, 
§ Sect. 3. Four things declared.  I will briefly show these four things.  

1. That not Presbyters, but Bishops, were in those times called Doctors.  
2. That the Presbyters, though they were not called Teachers, were notwithstanding Ministers.  
3. That certain ancient or principal Ministers called Seniores, in the primitive Church, did so assist the Bishop, that nothing almost of importance was done without their counsel and advise.  
4. That their counsel and assistance was much neglected, and themselves much debased in Ambrose his time.   
For the first: 
First that BB. were called Doctores.  After that Arrius, being a Presbyter, had poisoned the Church with his heresy; the Presbyters or Ministers, were in many Churches restrained from preaching. So that the Bishops, who before were the principal, in Ambrose his time, they were almost the only Teachers; and for this cause the name of Doctors was appropriated unto them. And this is so clear a case, that the Bishops in those times were in a manner the only Doctors; that 
(a) li. 2. part. 2. pag. 42. & 43.  therefore thought the Presbyters, which are mentioned in the Fathers, to have been no Ministers, because he perceived they were no Teachers, and for this cause commendeth the decree of the Church of Alexandria, that the Presbyters should no more teach, and preferreth the African Churches before others, for that the same order was observed therein. As touching Alexandria, Socrates 
(b) Socr. lib. 5. c. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  reporteth that Presbyters do not preach there, & Sozomen 
(c) Sozom. li 7. c. 19  that the Bishop alone of the city doth preach. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Both of them assigning the heresy of Arrius to have been the original occasion of that custom.  
Concerning the use of the African Churches saith T. C. until Augustine's time, that one testimony 
(d) Possidon. in vita. Augustini.  is more than sufficient, whereby is affirmed that Valerius B. of Hippo did contrary to the custom of the African Church, in that he committed the office of teaching unto Augustine who was an Elder of that Church, and that he was checked therefore of the Bishops, checked I say, notwithstanding that Valerius is there declared to have done it for support of his infirmity, because himself was not so apt to preach. To conclude, his conceit is, that not the Presbyters mentioned in the Fathers and by him translated Elders, but the Bishop only had right to preach, the other but by indulgence or by commandment. In those times therefore the Bishops alone were called Doctores 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at the least: for further proof whereof, if you expect some other testimony either of Ambrose, or of others in that time, you may have recourse to his book of offices, and to the Council of Carthage. Ambrose 
(e) De office li. 2. c. 24.  therefore saith, that the Bishop must not be offended, if either a Presbyter or Deacon, or any other of the Clergy do by mercy, fasting, integrity, learning or reading obtain great estimation. Gratia enim ecclesiae laus Doctoris est, for the grace of the Church is the Doctors that is the Bishop's praise. But if any do not obey the Bishop and desiring to advance himself, seeketh a● counterfeit affectation of learning, humility, or mercy, he is lifted up with pride going astray from the truth. In the Council of Carthage it was decreed, that the people which never had a Bishop of their own, should not have 
(f) Conc. Carth. graec. c. 54. Carthag. 3. c. 42. Mat. 23.8.10.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Doctor or Teacher of their own, that is a Bishop: for so is the title of that chapter, that the parts of the Diocese without the consent of the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should not receive another Bishop.  

§ Sect. 4. The 2. that Presbyters though not called doctores yet were Ministers.  But hereupon we may not infer with T. C. that therefore the Presbyteri mentioned in the councils Fathers and histories of the Church, were no Ministers; or that by the word of God they had nothing to do with the word and Sacraments. far be it from us so to think, for nothing is more evident, then that they were Ministers.  
The Fathers knew no Lay-Presbyters, nor Lay-Deacons no more than Lay-Bishops; but reckoned these three, 
(g) Conc. Aneyr. c. 1. &. 2. Can. Apost. 8.14.16.17.50. Conc. Nic. c. 3. Con. Carth. graec. c. 3. & 4. Carth. 2. c. 2. Antioch. c. 3. Chalced. c. 2. Sard. c. 10. etc.  for sacred or consecrated persons, calling them three degrees of the Clergy; the Bishop, answering to the high Priest; the Presbyters, to the Priests; and the Deacons, to the Levites. For proof whereof, there are almost as many evidences in the Canons of the councils, as there be leaves.  
But that it may most clearly appear, that the Presbyters were Ministers, I will prove it first by their name, Secondly by their office, thirdly, by some laws that peculiarly concerned them. For their name: as they are most usually called Presbyters, so oftentimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Sacerdotes and these names confounded with Presbyteri, that is, Priests. In the Council of Carthage 
(h) Con. Carth. 2. c. 2. grae c. 3.  continency is committed to Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, as it becometh holy Bishops, Priests and levites. Tertullian 
(i) De prescript. adverse. herstico.  reproving the disorder of Heretics saith, among them, hody Presbyter qui cras laicus, nam & laicis Sacerdotalia munera iniungunt, he is to day a Presbyter who to morrow is a layman: for even to laymen do they enjoin priestly functions.  
Cyprian 
(k) Lib. 4. Epist. 10.  speaking of Numidiuns to be chosen a Presbyter saith he was reserved that God might add him to our Clergy, and that he might adorn the decayed store of certain Presbyters with glorious 
(l) Sacerdotibus.  Priests. And more plainly in another place he saith 
(m) Cum. Episcopo Presbyteri Sacerdotali honore coniuncti. lib. 3. epist. 1.  that the Presbyters are joined with the Bishops in priestly honour. Dionysius termed the Areopagite, instead of Bishop, Presbyter and Deacon, into which three he distinguisheth the Clergy, useth 
(n) Ecclesiast. hierarch. c. 5.  the names 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Bishop, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Presbyters, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Deacons. Sozomen 
(o) Soz. li. 7. c. 19  also calleth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Priests, Isidorus, 
(p) Isid. de eccles. office lib. 2. c. 7.  those who in the old Testament were called Sacerdotes, are they who who are called Presbyteri. And then he setteth down their office. That to them is committed the dispensation of divine mysteries, they rule the Church, and in the consecration of the body and blood of Christ are partners with the Bishops, as also in teaching the people and office of preaching. The Ancient Council of Ancyra 
q) Conc. Ancyr. c. 1.  permitting the Presbyters (who having once sacrificed, did after refuse) to retain their place; notwithstanding suspendeth them from the exercise of their function in these respects, forbidding them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: to offer the communion, to preach, or to minister in any part divine service.  
The learned Author of the unfinished work which goeth under the name of chrysostom 
r) In Mat. 25. homil. 53.  by the servant which received five talents and gained other five, understandeth a Presbyter sent of God, whom he calleth sometimes Teacher and sometimes Priest: and showeth how by his five talents he gaineth other five: that is, by the knowledge of Christ as a talon committed to him, a godly life; by the office of a Presbyter the careful government of the Church: by the word, the sincere preaching of the word of truth: by baptism, the begetting of worthy children to the Church: by the sacrifice; the offering of an holy and immaculate sacrifice for the people, and making intercession for their sins.  
More particularly for the ministery of the Sacraments, the Council 
(s) Conc. Laod. c. 8.  of Laodic●a determined that those which returned from the heresy of the Cataphrygians, though of the Clergy among them, though supposed great men, must with all diligence be instructed and baptised either of the Bishops or Presbyters of the Church. Tertullian saith, 
(t) Tertull. de baptism. Hier. adu. Lucifer.  the chief Priest which is the Bishop hath right to give baptism, than Presbyters & Deacons, etc. In the Canons 
(u) Can. Apost. 3. & 31. Conc. Neocaesar. 13. C. Carth. graec. 4. Con●. Elib. c. 32. C. Const. in Trullo. c. 26.  called the Apostles & in diverse councils it is presupposed that to Presbyters it belongeth to administer the communion In the Council of Nice 
(x) Conc. Nic. c. 18.  the Deacons who are there said to have no power to celebrate the Communion, are forbidden to deliver it to the Presbyter who hath power, but must receive it either at the Bishops or Presbyters hands. To omit other of the Fathers, 
(y) Cypr. li. 3. epist. 14. & 15.  doth not Jerome 
(z) Hier. ad evagr.  expressly testify, that the Presbyters prayers, the body and blood of Christ are consecrated. For the Liturgy or saying of divine service, it is reckoned 
(a) Conc. Ancyr. c. 1. & 2.  among the functions both of Presbyters and Deacons, and such Presbyters or Deacons as without the consent of their Bishop do remove to other Churches and refuse to return when they are called by their B. are 
(b) Can. Apost. 15. Conc. Antioch c. 3 & 4.  forbidden 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to minister or serve any more.  
As for the ministry of the word; though Presbyters were for a time by reason of Arrius his fall restrained from preaching, yet both before and after they were allowed to preach. Among their functions, as you heard, the Council of Ancyra 
(c) Con. Ancyr. c. 1.  reckoneth preaching. The 58. Canon 
(d) Can. Apost. 58.  of the Apostles so called, requireth them to instruct not only the laity, but the Clergy also. Ignatius 
(e) Ad Antioch.  requireth them to feed the flock. Origen 
(f) In Ps. 37. hom. 1.  testifieth, that all BB. and all Presbyters or Ministers erudiunt nos, do instruct us, etc. Basil 
(g) Ethic. 〈◊〉. 70.  saith, that to them and to Deacons, in committed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the preaching of the Gospel. Calvin 
(h) Instit. li. 4. c. 4. § 3.  speaking of the primitive Church, saith, it was the duty in those times of the Bishop, as well as of the Presbyters, to apply themselves to the ministery of the word and Sacraments, Chrysost. 
(i) Chry. in 1. Tim. 3.  having affirmed that there is no great difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter rendereth this reason, for they also have received 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 authority to teach, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & government of the Church, and what things the Apostle hath said concerning Bishops, do agreed also to Presbyters. In them therefore it is required that they should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 able to preach as most plainly appeareth by comparing that place with Tit. 1.5 7.9. Socrates 
(k) Lib. 5. c. 22.  reporteth that in Caesarea of Cappadocia, and in Cyprus on the Saterdaies and Lord's days in the evening 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Presbyters and B B. expound the scriptures.  
§ Sect. 5. As touching the custom of Alexandria, in restraining the Presbyters from preaching, he 
(l) Socrat. ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  saith, that it began after Arrius troubled the Church: and Sozomen 
(m) Sozom lib. 7. c. 19  likewise, that it was not the custom before Arrius being a Presbyter by his preaching broached his new opinions. And this is most plainly testified by Epiphanius, 
(n) Haeres. 68  who saith that Arrius was a Presbyter in Alexandria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who was Rector of the Church called Baucalis, for all the Catholic Churches, saith he in Alexandria are under one Archbishop, and to them severally are assigned Presbyters: whereof when he had named some, he saith in one of these was Colluthus, in another Carpones, in another Sarmatas, & Arrius in another. Now it is manifest, that every one of these at their accustomed meetings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teaching the people committed to their charge in their Sermons, made division in the people, whereof some inclined to Arrius, othersto Colluthus, some to Carpones, others to Sarmatas. And as they taught diversly in their several Churches, some one thing, some another: so the people called themselves, some Arrians, some Colluthians, etc.  
Neither was it the custom of the Churches of Africa, as T.C. gathereth, that Presbyters should not preach at all; but that they might not preach, nor administer the communion in the presence of the Bishop.  
And that was it which both Valerius granted to Augustine being a Presbyter 
(o) Possidon. in vita. Angust. c. 5.  potestatem coram se in Ecclesia evangelium predicandi power to preach the Gospel in the Church himself being present, contrary to the use and custom of the African Churches, and also nonnulli Episcopi not all, but some Bishops found fault with. Whose reprehension Valerius regarded not, because he knew it was the custom in the East Churches (as appeareth by Chrysostom's homilies at Antioch.) And some other Bishops, (even Aurelius 
(p) August. Epist. 77.  himself the Bishop of Carthage,) were so far from finding fault with Valerius, that they followed his example. Insomuch that some other Presbyters having received the like power, began to preach the word to the people Coram Episcopis in the presence of the Bishops. But that so learned a man as T. C. should be so transported with prejudice as to think that Augustine was a Lay-presbyter I cannot sufficiently wonder, especially, considering that Valerius, when he had ordained him Presbyter, rejoiced and gave thanks 
(q) Possid. in v●t. August. c. 5.  to God, who had heard his prayers in sending such a one, as might, verbo Dei & doctrina salubri Ecclesiam Dei aedeficare edify the Church of God, with the word of God and wholesome doctrine. Jerome 
(r) De 7. ordin. Eccle.  such another Lay-Presbyter no doubt) though he grant that the Presbyters may not celebrate the Communion in the presence of the Bishop standing at the Altar (for so his words are Nec ego dico presentibus Episcopis, &c: though in Gratian 
(s) Dist. 95. c. 6.  it be corruptly written. Ecce ego dico) yet he saith, 
(t) Ad Nepotian. pessimae consuetudinis est in quibusdam ecclesijs tacere Presbyteros & presentib. episcopis non loqui.  it was a very bad custom in some Churches that Presbyters might not preach in the presence of Bishops. And such was the custom of the Church of Rome as appeareth by Leo 
(u) Leo. epist. 88 in fine.  who denieth it to be lawful for Presbyters in the presence of the Bishop unless he command them either to administer the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ or to teach the people, etc.  
The Council of Vaux, 
(w) Conc. vasens. 2. c. 2. tempore. Theodosij. 2.  held not long after Ambrose his time, decreed for the edification of all Churches, and for the profit of the whole people, that not only in cities, but also in parishes the Presbyters should have power given them to preach. And if by any infirmity the Presbyter were hindered, so that he could not preach by himself, that then the Deacon should read some homily of the Fathers.  
To conclude, it seemeth strange to me, that they, who out of the 
(x) Ex Chrysost. in 1. Tim. 3. & Hieron. ad evag.  Fathers would prove the Presbyters to be equal to the BB. in power of order, as indeed they are, excepting the power of ordination, (for as Jerome 
(y) Adevagr.  saith, excepting ordination, what doth a Bishop that a Presbyter may not do,) equal I say in the ministery of the word and Sacraments, should deny they were Ministers; or that to preach or to administer the Sacraments did not belong to them by reason of their office. Ambrose 
(z) in 1. Tim. 3.  saith of a Presbyter and Bishop there is one order, uterque enim sacerdos est, for either of them is a Priest.  
There remain the laws and discipline peculiar to Presbyters as being of the sacred ministery: As for example, that Presbyters and Deacons should not be chosen ex plebe out of the people or laity but 
(a) Epist. Concil. Illyrici. apud Theodor. li. 4. c. 9  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the sacred order or Clergy. That as in the Counsel of Nice it was attempted, 
(b) Socrati. li. c. 11.  so in some others concluded, 
(c) Con. Const. in Trullo. c. 3.  that Presbyters and Deacons should lead a single life; that he which had married a widow, or was the husband of a second wife, might not be a Presbyter. That they might not take upon them worldly business, not so much as 
(d) Cyprian. li. 1. Epist. 9  Gardianship; that they might not 
(e) Conc. Antioch. c. 3. Nicen. c. 15. Arelat. 2. c. 15. Laodic. c. 24.  remove from city to city, or from one Church to another, without the leave of the Bishop; that they might not go into a Tavern, and such like.  
It is therefore most evident, that howsoever the Bishops were called the Doctors, yet the Presbyteri also were Ministers. Neither can any one instance be given of a Presbyter either in, or before or after Ambrose his time, who was not a Minister. For howsoever T. C. affirmeth, that this Eldership of theirs continued in the Church diverse hundred years after Ambrose his time (which doth not well agree with his exposition or reading of Ambrose) yet being challenged by D. Whitgift 
(f) D. Whit. 653.  to show any one testimony, and avouching that he could not produce any one, he 
(g) T.C. l. 2. part. 2. pag. 68 in med. § Sect. 6. The 3. thatancient Ministers called Seniores were wont to assist the B.  answereth thus: The next I leave to the Readers judgement.  
For the third: there was great necessity that the Bishops in the primitive Church, when they had neither the assistance of the Magistrate, nor direction of Ecclesiastical laws, should use the Council and assistance of wise and learned men. For which cause, Cyprian, 
(h) Lib. 2. Epist. 5. &. l. 3. Epist. 10. &. 19 & 22  to avoid both oversights in himself and offence in others, resolved to do nothing of moment without the common council, and advise of his Clergy, and for the same cause was chrysostom 
(i) Synod. contr. Chrysost. iur. gra●corom. 556.  accused 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that without the Presbytery and without the consent of his Clergy he made ordinations.  
And that Presbyters were wont to hear causes, and to assist the B. it appeareth by the testimonies, first of Ignatius 
(k) ad Trall.  who calleth the Presbytery the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or consistory of God, a band of Apostles, and the Presbyters the counsellors, and Coassessors of the Bishops. 2. of Tertullian, 
(l) Apolog. c. 39  precedent probati quique seniores the approved Seniors be president. 
(k) Apolog. c. 39  Thirdly of Clement 
(m) Clem: epist. 1: ad jacob.  in his epistle to james, translated by Rufinus, & cited by Gratian, if any of the brethren have Saints let them not be judged by secular judges, sed apud Presbyteros Ecclesiae quicquid illud est dirimatur, 
(n) de 7. ord: eccls dist. 95 c. 8.  but before the Presbyters of the church let the cause be decided, & to their determination let the parties stand. Fourthly of Jerome, Presbyters, saith he (meaning ministers whom he also calleth Priests, and attributeth to them the ministry of the word and Sacraments) from the beginning were appointed judges of causes, etc.  
And to the same purpose the Authors of the centuries 
(o) Centur. 4 7. pa. 490. § Sect. 7. The 4. that the Seniors advise was grown out of use in Ambrose his time.  testify, that the Presbyters beside that they taught the people, did also compound suits and controversies.  
Now that their advise was much neglected, and themselves but too much dejected by the Bishops in Ambrose his time, appeareth not only by his, but also by Ieromes 
(p) Hier. the 7. ordin. eccls c. 7, & ad Nepotianum  complaint.  
Likewise, by divers Canons in the fourth council of Carthage, 
(q) Conc. Carthag. 4.  held about the year 401 wherein it was decreed, 
(r) Can: 22.  that the Bishop without the assembly of his clergy, should not ordain clerks: & that in the 
(s) Can: 3.  ordination of a presbyter, the Presbyters also, which be present, should with the Bishop impose their hands: that the B: 
(t) Can. 23.  should not determine any man's cause, but in the presence of his Clergy: that he 
(u) C: 32.  might not alienate or sell the goods or possessions of the Church, without the consent of his clergy: that the Bishop 
(w) C: 34. & 35.  though in the Church, and in the assembly of the presbyters, aught to sit in an higher place, yet privately he should use the presbyters as his Colleagues, and sitting himself, should not suffer a presbyter to stand: that 
(x) C: 37 & 39  the Deacons should acknowledge themselves to be Ministers to the presbyters, as well as to the Bishops; & that if the presbyters bad them, they might sit in their presence, which otherwise they might not 
(y) Con: Nic. c. 18.  do.  
All these things considered, together with that which before hath been alleged, to prove that there were never any Lay-Elders, do necessarily evince, that there is no reason to imagine, if Doctorum signify Doctors or Teachers, Lay-Elders to be meant by Seniors in this place.  
And so much of the exposition of this place, according to the former sense of the word Doctorum, signifying Doctors: which, with my adversaries consent, I do much prefer before the other, and therefore can be very well content to give in the latter.  

§ Sect. 8. Though doctorum should signify learned, yet this place maketh not for Lay-Elders.  Notwithstanding, because some perhaps will understand the word Doctorum, as being a common title both to Bishops and Presbyters, signifying learned, and will therefore imagine that the Elders whose counsel was neglected by them, were Idiotae or Laymen: for their sakes therefore, I will briefly show, that though this interpretation be admitted, yet there is no necessity that Seniors should signify Lay-Elders: 
Ad pag. 41.  for Doctorum, being according to this interpretation, a common title both to Bishops and Presbyters, Ambrose his meaning may be conceived to be this, that the assistance and council of ancient Ministers, meant by Seniors, who were wont to assist the Bishop, was grown out of use, either by their own negligence, or the Bishop's pride. Whereunto, after much froth of idle words, he replieth, First, 
Ad pag. 42.  that the Council of Ministers was not grown out of use in Ambrose his time: and this he endeavoureth to prove by five testimonies, First of Jerome 
(a) Gen. in Tit. 1.  saying that the Churches at the first were governed communi presbyterorum consilio, by the common Council of Presbyters: Which testimony maketh against him: for Jerome speaketh of such Presbyters as Paul speaketh of, who were Ministers, and are there called Bishops. If therefore the Church was at the first governed by common council of Ministers, and if Ambrose complain that their council in his time was neglected, which at the first had been used, and whereby the Church had been governed: who seeth not, that it was the neglect of the Ministers advise whereof Ambrose complaineth: 2. yea but Jerome 
(b) jerom. in Esa. 3.  saith, we also in the Church have senatum nostrum ●●tum Presbyterorum, our senate a company of Presbyters: which testimony is wont to be alleged, to prove that in Ieromes time there was a Presbytery of Lay-Elders. But here my adversary presupposing that Lay-Elders were grown out of use, in Ambrose his time, (whom T: C: supposeth to have continued divers hundred years after Ambrose bringeth it to prove, that in Ieromes time, who was almost as ancient as Ambrose, there was a Senate of Ministers, which no man doubteth of. For elsewhere he saith 
(c) Ad Rusticum 16. q. 1. c. 7. Ecclesia.  the Church hath a Senate, a company of Presbyters, without whose Counsel, the Monks may do nothing. And not only in Ieromes time the Church had, but in all Ages since, even to this day, it hath such a Senate, which in latter times hath called Capitulum, the chapter. Howbeit, both in Ambrose his time, and since, the advise, and assistance thereof, notwithstanding the Decree of the fourth counsel of Carthage, hath been, though in some things even to this day used, yet in the most things, and for the most part neglected.  
His third testimony, (which he saith is plain enough) of the said Jerome, 
(d) Dist 95. c. 6. ex. lib. de 7. gradib. Eccl.  cited in the canon Law, is also plain against him. For having said as even now I alleged him, that the presbyters from the beginning had been appointed to hear and judge causes, as the Bishop's assistants, he proveth it, because they also in the scriptures are called Bishops, howsoever now the Bishops envied them that dignity, etc. 
(e) Conc. Carth. 4. c. 23.   
His 4. testimony is, the 23. canon of the council of Carthage (which even now I cited) which maketh against him, rather than for him. For seeing good laws arise from bad manners, it is to be imagined, that according to the complaint of Ambrose and Jerome, who were somewhat before this council, the presence of the Clergy, and 
(f) Though the Clergy were to be present, yet none but Presbyters were the Bishop's coassessors: for Deacons might not sit among Presbyters, C. Nic. c. 18 Hier. ad evagr. presbyteri sedeni, Diaconi stant.  assistance of the presbyters was neglected: and that this neglect gave occasion to the making of that canon.  
His. 5. testimony is of D. Bilson, (though he name also another learned man, only to abuse him.) Howbeit 
(g) Chap. 11.160.  D. Bilson understandeth Ambrose, as complaining of the Bishops of his time, who whiles they would seem to rule alone, had excluded, or neglected the aid & counsel of their brethren of the Clergy, who were wont to advise and assist them, as well in Doctrine as in Discipline.  
And whereas in the second place he replieth, that slothfulness and pride must needs be referred to the same persons, and not slothfulness to presbyters, 
§ Sect. 9 Ad pag: 43. Whether slothfulness & pride must necessarily be referred to the same subject Doctorum: signifying Learned: and being a common title both to BB. and Presbyters.  and pride to BB: I answer, that if Doctorum be a common title to both (as it is, if it signify learned) and if the slothfulness of the presbyters, rather than of the BB. be as like almost to be the cause why their assistance grew out of use, as the pride of the BB: then is there no necessity that slothfulness and pride should both be attributed to the Bishops: but rather it is very likely, that slothfulness is imputed to presbyters, and pride to the Bishops.  
But both the parts of the Antecedent is true, therefore the consequent.  
But let us hear his Reasons.  
The first, If Ambrose had meant to ascribe slothfulness, to the Seniors, he would have said, that their assistance grew out of use, either by their own slothfulness, or rather by the pride of the BB.  
The second: he would have said not Doctorum, but Ipforum desidiâm, which reason is the latin of the first, and the first the english of this: Such judgement here is showed in distinguishing of arguments. But who knoweth not, that the same sentence may very many ways be varied, in respect of the words, the same sense remaining? so that this exception might be made against any exposition almost. If I should say:  
As in Christ's College, so in some others, Elections were wont to be carried by the voices of the juniors, as well as the Seniors, which thing is now grown out of use, by what means I know not, unless perhaps, by the remissness of the fellows, or rather arrogancy whiles they would rule alone, I might not unfitly so speak, ascribing remissness to the junior fellows, and arrogancy to the Seniors.  
His third and fourth reasons are impertinent, understanding the word Doctorum of Doctors, a title in those times, peculiar to Bishops, & not of learned, which is common to both. For though the special title of Doctors according to the former interpretation, which is ● better, be opposed to of the Seniors or presbyters, who were not called Doctors; yet to a common title, neither of the specials, to which it is common, are to be opposed, but both to be subjecteth.  
The 5. that Ambrose chargeth both slothfulness and pride upon the same persons, called Doctors, etc. But this should have been proved and not begged: especially, seeing I disprove it in the reason following.  
For that which he pratteleth of amplifying the fault, by rising from the less to the greater, hath not so much as a show of a good reason, to dsprove my exposition; seeing of the 2. causes, Ambrose seemeth to make the slothfulness of the learned, that is, the Presbyters, not so principal as the pride of the learned, that is to say, the BB. unless perhaps saith he, by the slothfulness of the presbyters, or rather pride of the BB.  
Lastly, saith he, If we make divers sorts of teachers (he should have said learned) Ambrose his speech were defective, and somewhat must be added, as either by the slothfulness of the teachers, or rather pride of the Bishops, or some of them.  
I answer, if the word Learned be used, being a title common, both to the Seniors and the Doctors, there needs no addition to make the sentence perfect; but a distinct application of the common title to the special sorts, according to their several faults, by which they are to be distinguished; Slothfulness being the fault of the one, and pride of the other, as before you heard, in the example of fellows.  
But why should I spend time in answering such sleight Objections? 
§ Sect. 10. The reasons why I reject their inference, first dissembled by the refuter, and then depraved.  the which notwithstanding, seem of such weight with him, that he wondereth, that all these worthy reasons considered, I would understand Doctorum, signifying learned, as a common title, both to the Bishops and Seniors, and that saith he, as if he were another Pythagoras, upon his bareword, I say his bare word; for as yet he hath not vouchsafed us one piece of a Reason.  
This is one of the refuters poor shifts, to make himself wrangling work: To take an Assertion of mine, and having severed it from the Reasons wherewith it was guarded, to cavil with me, as if without alleging a Reason, I would (like an other Pythagoras) be believed upon my bare word. Whereas in truth, both here and in other places, where I am the Answerer, I render more reasons than were needful, were it not, that I sought to satisfy, in hope that men will at the length be satisfied with reason.  
As for example, this place of Ambrose is objected, as giving testimony to Lay-Elders.  
I answer there is no necessity, this place should so be understood. Here might I have rested, and put the opponents to enforce this testimony, which by them is barely propounded. But being desirous to give satisfaction, I urge it for them thus:  
Ambrose saith, there were Seniors in the primitive Church, whose council was now neglected, therefore he giveth testimony to Lay-Elders. I deny the consequence, giving a reason, because those Seniors were of the Clergy and not of the Laity.  
Against this answer I make them reply thus; The Seniors advise was neglected by the learned: Therefore themselves were such as were not learned, or of the Clergy.  
To this I answer, that if the word Doctorum signify learned, Notwithstanding this place may be understood of the Seniors of the clergy only: If we conceive Doctorun signifying learned, as a common title, both to the BB: & Seniors, and of this answer I give a reason by explaining this testimony of Ambrose.  
And whereas I did foresee that it would be objected that Doctorum was to be understood either of pastors of parishes alone, according to the conceit of the new Disciplinarians, or of BB. a lone according to the rest: I therefore sought to prevent this objection in those words, for if you expound Doctorum for pastors, etc. Wherein a sufficient reason is concluded, holding strongly against the parish B. & his Elders. And not contented with all this, in desire to give satisfaction, I rendered the true causes besides arrogancy of BB. which I knew was presupposed, why the assistance of the ancient ministers, called Seniors, was grown out of use: and yet forsooth, like another Pythagoras▪ I look that my bare word should be credited without reason.  
Yea, but saith he, that which is added in steed of a Reason, hath no more reason in it, but his own blindness, saying, that I cannot see how, etc.  
But is it not strange, that he, who is so sharp sighted to find out Syllogisms where none were intended, could see no reason here?  
Or shall we not think, that he chose rather like a shifting sophister, to take advantage of that modest phrase, them to encounter with the reason itself, which may thus be concluded.  
That which is a matter of great labour and pains, to the undertaker, and ease to the relinquisher, is not to be ascribed to slothfulness in him that taketh it upon him, but rather in them who are eased.  
But the taking of the whole burden, and cumbersome employment of hearing suits, and managing all causes Ecclesiastical, upon the BB: is a matter of great labour and pains to them, and ease to the Seniors.  
Therefore the Bishops, underaking the whole burden, and cumbersome employment of hearing suits, and managing all causes Ecclesiastical, is not to be ascribed to slothfulness in them, but rather to the Seniors.  
One of these premises should have been denied, 
§ Sect. 11. His encountering with the conclusion.  and the denial made good, if he had been able: but in steed hereof he encountereth with the conclusion, labouring, as we say, clawm, clavo pellere, and undertaking to make me see, (if I will not shut mine eyes,) the contradictory of that conclusion to be true, which notwithstanding cannot be false the premises being true.  
And first, he denieth that Ambrose spoke by guess, as I say, but certaienly and upon knowledge; when Ambrose his express words be these, Quod qua negligentia obsoleverit nescio, nisi forte, &c: which by what negligence it is grown out of use I know not, 
Ad pag. 44.  unless perhaps by the slothfulness, etc. 2. He saith, it might be a matter of slothfulness, in the BB: to suffer the seniors to neglect their duties. But not to their own so great trouble, will M, D. say, we might believe him, if we saw not pride drive men to undertake, more than they either need to be charged with, or are able to wield.  
Then is it not their slothfulness belike, that caused them to take the whole burden upon themselves, but their pride, which made them wink at the seniors slothfulness, as giving way to their own ambition.  
Thirdly, he saith, the Bishops might provide for their own ease, by putting off the burden to their Chancellors, Commissaries, officials, 
Whether the BB. did put off the burden to their Chancellors, etc.  &c: & therefore it might be imputed to them as a matter of sloth or idleness, & pride to: and so the word Doctorum, rightly expounded, for Pastors of Parishes alone, and not to Diocesan Bishops. As though their Parish-Bishops were more likely to have had Chancellors, &c: then Diocesan BB: But I answer, 1. the question is not what they might have done, but what they did.  
Now it is evident, that in Ambrose his time, and a good while after, till the Presbyteries were in a manner wholly neglected, the Bishops had not ordinary vicar's, or chancellor's, or ordinary Commissaries, which were not of the Clergy; But what they did without the advise of their Seniors, they performed ordinarily in their own persons, or else extraordinarily delegated the same to some of special trust. In some cases, it is evident, that both then, and long after, they used the assistance of their Presbytery, as in the judgement of Heresy, or for deposing of a clergy man, etc.  
Siricius the B. of Rome, in an Epistle 
(a) Ambros: epist: 80.  to Ambrose, denouncing jovinian, Auxentius, etc. for heretics, showeth, that for their trial, his whole presbytery had been assembled; and saith, that by the common consent of his whole clergy, they were condemned for heretics.  
The 4. council of Carthage, 
(b) Cap. 23.  as you heard, ordained that the Bishop should hear men's causes in the presence of his clergy. The 2. council of Towers decreed 
(c) Turon. 2. c. 7.  that a Bishop might not depose an Archpresbyter, without the counsel of all his compresbyters: But whom negligence casteth out, let him with the counsel of the presbyters be removed. The council of Carthage 
(d) Cō. Cart. graec: c. 20. sive Carth: 3. c. 8.  appointed, that in the cause of a Presbyter, six, and of a Deacon, three Bishops should be joined with their own Bishop, because as the council of Civil 
(e) con: hispal: 2. c. 6.  determined, one Bishop may to Priests, and ministers, that is, Presbyters & Deacons. give their honour, but one alone may not take it from them: but in the cause of inferior Clergy men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bishop alone of the place shall hear and determine it, viz. in the presence of his Clergy, according to the aforesaid 
(f) Conc. Carth. 4 c. 23.  Canon of the fourth Council of Carthage.  
But as in some cases they used the counsel of the Presbyteri; so in others they did for the most part undergo the whole burden themselves. For the proof whereof, the examples of Ambrose and Augustine may suffice. For Ambrose was so occupied in hearing and determining men's causes, that he had so little time left him for his corporal repast, or spiritual studies; that Augustine 
(g) August. Confess. lib. 6. c. 3.  could never find him at leisure to break his mind unto him. And Augustine 
(h) August. Epist. 110. Non permittor ad quod volo vacare ante meridiem▪ post meridiem occupationibus hominum teneor.  was so encumbered with hearing of causes, that scarcely he could have the forenoon for his studies, the afternoon being wholly taken up with other men's business: neither could he, when the Counsels of Numidia and Carthage had imposed a task upon him, and when his people had promised to forbear him for five days, obtain so much breathing time from their affairs. But when he was old, and was desirous to spend the rest of his time in writing, and in the study of the scriptures, he nominated Eradius to be his successor; in most earnest manner requiring, and charging the people, that they would suffer him to put off the burden of those employments to him. Possidonius 
(i) Possid. in vita August. c. 19  giveth him this testimony, that he heard men's causes diligently, sometimes to the hour of repast, sometimes fasting the whole day: but always himself had the cognisance of them, and determined them.  
The Emperor justinian 
(k) Constit. Novel 123. c. 21.  provided by law, that in Ecclesiastical causes civil judges should have nothing to do: sed sanctissimus Episcopus secundum sacras regulas causae finem imponat, but let the holy Bishop according to the Sacred Canons determine the cause.  
As for ordinary Vicars, Chancellors or Commissaries which were Laymen, in those times the Bishops had none: for not so much as the steward of the Church might be a Layman: whereupon Gregory 
(l) Lib. 7. Epist. 66.  writing to januarius a Bishop, chargeth him to take heed, that Ecclesiastical matters be not committed to secular men, but to some approved of the Clergy. And the second Council of Civil, penned as it seemeth by Isidor who was precedent thereof, pronounceth 
(m) Conc. hispal. 2. c. 9  it an unseemly thing Laicum esse vicarium Episcopi, & seculares in ecclesia judicare, that a Layman should be the Bishop's Vicar, & that secular men should judge in the Church: for in one and the same officer there must not be different profession. Which having confirmed out of Deuteronomie, it inferreth: wherefore it behoveth us to obey God's book and the precepts of the holy Fathers, ordaining that they who shallbe associated to Bishops in Church-governement, may not differ neither in profession nor habit.  
Notwithstanding that they extraordinarily committed to others or delegated causes to be heard appeareth by the aforesaid example of Augustine. But more clearly by the practice of Silvanus a godly Bishop of Troas, not long after Ambrose his time: who 
(n) Socrat. lib. 7. c. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  perceiving that they of the Clergy made gain of the contentions of them who came to be judged, he would not at any time appoint a judge of the Clergy, but himself receiving the petitions of Suitors would make choice of some faithful man or other of the laity, whom he knew to be a lover of justice, and to him he would commit the hearing of the cause: and for this cause Socrates saith he was greatly renowned. Out of which examples we may note that causes were wont to be brought to the Bishop, that he heard them himself if he had leisure: otherwise, that he committed the hearing of the cause to some of his Clergy: but yet so, as if he saw cause, he might make choice of some other, whom he durst better trust.  
Secondly, I answer, that the reason which I used, concludeth most strongly, against the refuters exposition, who by Doctorum will needs understand parish Bishops. Who if they should take the whole burden upon them of Church-governement, and deciding causes Ecclesiastical, without the aid or assistance of the Elders, could not therefore be accused of idleness: for I hope the refuter will not say, that they also had Chancellers or Comissaries under them to whom they might put off those cumbersome employments. 

§ Sect. 12. Of Deans and Chapters and Cathedral Churches.  
That there were Cathedral Churches in Ambrose his time.    
It remaineth now, that I should proceed to the causes, which I rendered why the Council of the Seniors in Ambrose his time was so much neglected by Bishops. But that my adversary, after his accustomed manner, will needs take occasion to show his own ignorance, by taking up a speech which as he saith, I let drop by the way, concerning Deans and Chapters of our Cathedral Churches, as being a resemblance or remainder of the Presbyteries which were in the Primitive Church. For such is his reading, that he doubteth not to deny, that in Ambrose his times there were any Cathedral Churches, or that our Deans and Chapters are so much as resemblances of the Presbyteries of those times.  
For Cathedral Churches, you are to understand, that although in every Diocese there were many parish churches, both in country and city, yet there was one chief church in the city, which was the Bishops Cathedra or seat, wherein the Bishop most usually performed the duties of the Episcopal and pastoral function, whereunto a peculiar Clergy belonged, consisting of Presbyters, Deacons, and other inferior orders, and whereto Episcopium the Bishop's house was near adjoining. This church in those times was called sometimes Cathedra sc. Episcopi, as Concil. Carthag. 
(o) Conc. Carth. 5. c. 5.  where it was decreed that no Bishop, relicta cathedra, leaving his Cathedral Church, should remove his seat or See, to any church in his Diocese, the Greek 
(p) Carthag. graec. c. 72.  hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And likewise BB: are forbidden 
(q) Carthag. c. 122. sive Africa. c. 88 Item. Carthag. graec. c. 54. sive Africa. c. 20. Conc. Milevit. c. 24. & 25.  to neglect any of those places which belong 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Matrix, & Matrix Cathedra 
(r) Conc. Carth. 3. c. 46. Carth. gr. c. 124. Africa. c. 90.  as Conc. Carth. 3. c. 46. Episcopus qui matricom tenet. Conc. Carth. graec. c. 24 sive Africa. c. 90. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. If in the mother Churches, that is to say the Cathedral the Bishop shallbe negligent, &c: sometimes 
(s) Conc. Aurelian. 3. c. 18. Conc. Neocaesar. c. 13.  Civitatensis ecclesia, sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in the Council of Neocaessaria.  
Such a Church was that in Milan, whereunto Ambrose his house adjoined: for that 
(t) Theodoret. l. 5 c. 18.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that house of salutation where Ambrose sat, when Theodosius came to him to be absolved, was not, as T. C. imagined, Ambrose his own house before he was Bishop: for it was intra septa Ecclesiae within the bounds of the Church, & Paulinus 
(u) Paulin. in vita Ambr. nihil sibi quod hic suum diceret, derelinquens.  testifieth, that Ambrose gave away all when he was made Bishop, and left himself nothing which here he might call his own. In that Church Ambrose usually preached, to that Church the Emperor himself resorted, In the chancel whereof, when Theodosius the Emperor would have remained to receive the communion, Ambrose 
(x) Theod. lib. 5 c 18.  sent him word by his Archdeacon, that that place was peculiar to the clergy, which belonged to this Church, consisting of the Arch-Presbyter and the other Presbyters, of the Archdeacon and other Deacons, and other inferior orders of the Clergy. For albeit the name Decanus was not perhaps as yet in use, yet the office was, and the Deane signified by other names. For sometimes he was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the chief or ruler of the Presbyters, even as Ambrose his Archdeacon, in the place even now cited, is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Such a one was chrysostom, 
(y) Theodor. l. 3. c. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  in Antioch a long time. 
(z) Lib. 4. c. 18.  Eulogius at Edessa: sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Peter 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  was the Protopresbyter in the Church at Alexandria. And Arsacius, 
(b) Socrat. lib. 6. c. 9 jure gaecorum. in synod. Contr. Chrysost. pag. 557.  who succeeded chrysostom in the Bishopric of Constantinople, the Protopresbyter there. In latin most usually Archipresbyter; as 
(c) Hist. tripart. li. 10. c. 10.  histor. tripat. lib. 10. c. 10. and in the fourth Council of Carthage: 
(d) Conc. Carth. 4. c. 17  where it was decreed that the Bishop should take care of widows, Orphans & strangers, not by himself but by his Archpresbyter, or by his Archdeacon. Jerome 
(e) Ad Rustic. Monach. tom. 1. pag. 46.  showing that in each society there is some one ruler, saith, singuli Ecclesiarum Episcopi, singuli Archipresbyteri, singuli Archdiaconi the Churches have each of them one Bishop, one Archpresbyter, on Archdeacon. In process of time they were called decani. Archipresbyteri 
(f) Decret. Gregor. li. 1. tit. 23. deoffic Arch. c. 7.  a pluribus decani nuncupantur, Archpresbyters of the most are called Deans. Neither were there only Archpresbyters and Deans of Cathedral Churches which were called 
(g) Duaren. de sacr. Eccles. minist. & benef. lib. 1 c. 8.  Archipresbyteri urbani, & civitatenses, of whom all these former testimonies are to be understood; but also rural Deans, called sometimes Archipresbyteri decani, as in the Council 
(h) Con●. Turonens. 2. c. 20.  of Towers, and sometimes decani firsti. Archipresbyteri parochiarum in the Council of 
(i) Concil. Agath. c. 15.12. q 2. c. 32. ●ist. 50. c. 64.  Agatha.  
The chapter was wont to be called Presbyterium. Placuit Presbyterium contrahi we thought good the Presbytery should be gathered together saith Cornelius 
(k) Cypr. lib. 3. Epist. 11.  to Cyprian. And Syricius 
(l) Ambros. Epist 80.  the Bishop of R●me in an Epistle to Ambrose, facto Presbyterio, the Presbytery being assembled, sometimes 
(m) Hier. in Esai. 3.  se●atus, caetus Presbyterorum, the senate, or assembly of Presbyters.  
The Presbyters or Seniors themselves were called sometimes 
(n) Conc. Neocaesar. c. 13.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
(o) Conc. Agath. c. 22.  civitatenses Presbyteri the Presbyters of the city, seniores 
(p) Tertull. Apol. c. 39  by Tertullian and Ambrose, 
(q) Ambr. in 1. Tim. 5.1.  in the place alleged. The ancient Council of Ancyra having pronounced it unlawful for the Chorepiscopi or country Bishops to ordain Presbyters or Deacons, addeth 
(r) Conc. Ancyr. c. 13.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, neither yet is it lawful for the Presbyters of the city: whereby it may in part appear, what was the estimation of the Presbyters of the city in comparison of the country Bishops.  
But as the Archipresbyteri in latter times were called decani, so these Presbyters of the city were in process of time called Canonici & prebendarij and the company of them which had been called Presbyterium, was termed capitulum in english Chapter. Calvin 
(s) Instit. li. 4. c. 5.  saith Presbyteri urbani versi sunt in canonicos the Presbyters of the city are turned into Canons or prebendaries. And it is to be noted saith Duarenus, that in every city there was a certain College 
(t) De sacr. Eccle. minist. ac. benef. li. 1. c. 7.  of these Presbyters which the Bishop governed, 
§ 16.  such as is at this day canonicorum collegium the college of Canons who seem to have succeeded into their place: and this company of Presbyters Jerome calleth the senate of the church.  
By all which it is more than evident, that as in the ancient times they had Cathedral churches as well as we, and those endowed with great revenues, as it is easy to prove: so the Deans and chapters of our Cathedral Churches are the remainder of their Presbyteries, our Deans being those who were called Archpresbyters, our Prebendaries, those which were called Presbyteri urbani, our chapters those which they called Presbyteries.  
Neither doth that hinder which our refuter objecteth, that our BB: have not the like assistance of the Dean and chapter that the ancient BB: had of their Presbyteries. For Ambrose complaineth, that even in his time their counsel was neglected. And yet in these times, as the Bishop may use their advise if he please, so in some cases their assistance is necessarily required, the acts of the Bishop being void without their consent. Besides sede vacant, in the vacancy of the See, the custody of the Bishopric & Episcopal rights, as also the election of the new Bishop, is after a sort referred to them. 
Ad pag. 46.  And as in times past, so now, the placing and displacing of the Presbyters of the city, whom we call Prebendaries, appertaineth to the BB: a few Churches only among us excepted. And to conclude, as Deans and Chapters with us are in a manner peculiar to Cathedral Churches, the seats of Bishops (some collegiate Churches excepted:) so were the Presbyteries in the primitive Church. Insomuch that our new sect of disciplinarians might as well say, there was in old time, & now should be, a Dean & chapter, as a Presbytery in every parish. If therefore they will sue for reformation according to the precedent of the primitive Churches, let them seek and sue, that the Bishops may use the counsel and assistance of the Presbytery of the city, which we call the Dean and Chapter, and they may hope to prevail, if none of the reasons why their assistance is forborn be sufficient, which now come to be examined.  
§ Sect. 14. The reasons why the Council of Seniors was neglected.  Serm. Sect. 8. pag. 16. But howsoever Ambrose knew not what to say of this matter, otherwise then by conjecture, &c: to the end of the first point, pag. 17. 
These reasons I added by way of surplusage or advantage, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  to give satisfaction if it might be. But nothing will satisfy them, who set themselves to cavil: for whereas I said, I doubt not but the true causes &c: the refuter depraveth my speech, as if the word I, had been uttered with an immodest Emphasis: when as I meant no more by that speech, then when we say, proculdubio, or dubium non est: which kind of speech my adversary (me thinks) should not so greatly mislike, sithence their Lay-Elders, which have been urged with such heat, have no better warrant than dubium non est, satis opinor, constat, probabile est, as you shall hear, when we come to their proofs. They may say confidently, there were Lay-Elders in the time of the Apostles, yea from the time of Moses until Christ, and that after the example of the jews (who indeed never had such Presbyteries) they are to be erected in every parish: and yet have no better warrant for these things, than their own conjectures. They may take upon them to avow without reason, that to have been done in the Apostles times, whereunto neither scripture nor Father giveth testimony: and in me it is great immodesty to affirm that, which but one of the Fathers seemed to doubt of, though I allege sufficient reason of my affirmation. For in the first three hundred years after Christ, when Christians neither had frequent Synods to determine doubts, nor synodal constitutions to direct the Bishops, nor the authority of the Christian Magistrate to rectify what was amiss in the government of the Church, there was great necessity that the Bishop should use the advise and counsel of other wise and learned men: otherwise, his will would have seemed to stand for a law, and his government would have been subject to oversight in himself, to remediless wrong towards the clergy and people, and to the obloquy and scandal of all. But when as provincial Synods were frequently 
* viz: Twice a year. Conc. Nic. c. 5. Antioch. c. 20. Chal. ced. c. 19  assembled to determine doubts, to right the causes of them that were wronged, to prescribe so many Ca●ons and constitutions, as to the BB: assembling in Council seemed sufficient for their direction, when the authority of the christian Magistrate was helpful to the Church; then we may easily conceive, that as the Council and assistance of the Presbytery was not so needful, so both to the Presbyters desiring their ease and Scholastical quietness, and also to the Bishops desiring to rule alone, it would seem needless: which reason I am well content it shall be put into the equal balance of the Readers judgement, against the cavils of the refuter, 
Pag. 46.47.48.  wherewith he hath blotted more than a whole leaf. It happened to the Presbyteries as after it did to the provincial Synods. For when by experience it was found to be very troublesome & chargeable to the BB: hurtful to their churches, tedious to suitors by reason of multitude of causes referred to Synodal audience, that all the BB: in every country should twice every year for a long time be absent from their churches, to be present at Synods; it was decreed, both by the Emperors and BB, that those causes wherewith provincial Synods had usually been troubled, should be referred to the audience and decision of the Archbishop or Metropolitan. Even so, when it was found troublesome and tedious to the Presbyters, and hurtful to the Church, that their time which might better be spent in study of Divinity, to furnish them for the public Ministry, should be taken up in hearing brabbles and quarrels, and also their assistance seemed not needful to the Bishops for the causes aforesaid; it is not to be marveled, that their assistance grew out of use. For whereas the refuter objecteth, and is the only thing worth the mentioning which he objecteth, that the Presbyteries continued in Ambroses time, and long after: I answer, that they continue to this day. But as their assistance now in matters of government is not much used, so before Ambrose his time it began to be neglected.  
And thus much concerning the testimony of Ambrose: which having cleared as well as that, 1. Tim. 5.17. being the only places of moment, which use to be produced in this cause, I might safely conclude from all the premises, that therefore there were no Lay-Elders in the primitive Church: From whence, besides the main conclusion, that therefore the primitive Church was governed by Diocesan Bishops, 
Two conclusions inferred upon the disproof of Lay-Elders.  the two particular assertions concluding against our new sect of disciplinarians will necessarily follow. The first, that therefore there were no parishional Presbyteries: the second that therefore parish Bishops or pastors were subject to the Diocesan Bishops.  
Against the former, 
Chap. 10.155.  he objecteth a speech of D. Bilson affirming that every Church in the Apostles times had many Prophet's Pastors and Teachers, which, as the refuter saith, 
Ad pag. 49.  might make a Presbytery. But the Churches D. Bilson speaketh of, were not in several parishes, but as he saith in populous cities, such as that of Ephesus Act. 20: and those provided, not for any one parish, but for the whole city and country adjoining, that is to say, the Diocese. For when my adversary shall produce any one pregnant testimony that in such congregations, as we call parishes, there was a Presbytery of Ministers, I will also grant, that there were no other but parish Bishops. In the mean time let the Reader hold this for a certain and undeniable truth, that there were no Presbyteries of Ministers, but only in cities and Cathedral Churches, but hereof I shall have occasion to speak in the second book.  
As touching the second conclusion, it followeth thus: the parish pastor had either a Presbytery to assist him, or he was subject to superiors, as namely the Diocesan and provincial Bishops, to overrule him, or else he ruled like a Pope; for a fourth thing cannot be named, before there were Christian Magistrates. But it is absurd to imagine, that in the primitive Church they had an absolute popeling, who neither had assistants nor superiors, for that were to ascribe not only supreme, but also sole power to them: and it is as false, that in several parishes there was a Presbytery to assist him, therefore it remaineth that the parish Bishops were subject to the authority of the Diocesan and provincial Bishops.  
To the proposition he answereth two wries, first by retortion: that what I say of the parish Bishop his ruling as a Pope, may with more probability be spoken of a Diocesan Bishop, which I have answered before. For this is the second place where he laboureth out of my word● to prove our Diocesan Bishops to be pope's, using this insultation in the margin. Sic tu beas ami●os? But though their parish Bishops, whom they make the supreme Ecclesiastical officers, would be absolute popelings, if presbyteries were not adjoined to them, because they should have not only Supreme, but also sole authority: yet it followeth not, that our Bishops, to whom neither supreme, nor sole authority belongeth, should he esteemed such.  
Secondly he denieth the disfunction, alleging that a fourth thing might be added concerning the chief authority of the people: Which, if it be added in the proposition, is with the rest to be denied in the assumption. For this brownistical or rather anabaptistical conceit (for some of the Brownists disclaim it) that the Bishops in the primitive Church were subjecteth to the people, as if the state of the Church had been democratical or popular, is a dotage that was never dreamt of till of late, and therefore as it is most confidently to be denied, so it needed not to be inserted in the proposition.   

CHAP. IX. Answering the testimonies which by the refuter are alleged to prove Lay-Elders.  
But now had I need to call for armour of defence. For hitherto saith the refuter we have warded the blows that M. D. gave to beat down the Lay-presbyterie, now let us show, that we also can strike, if need be.  
The Reader, that hath found the refuter so strict in exacting Syllogisms of me, even when I perform the part of an answerer, cannot but expect most formal and accurate Syllogisms at his hands.  
But he shall find that to be true, which I foretold him not long since: that this great Champion, not daring to urge his testimonies, or to reduce his proofs into Syllogisms; according to the poor policy of them all, holdeth out certain testimonies, as it were Pallas shield, thinking with the bare quotation of them, though he cite them not, to put us to silence. And to this purpose, like a notorious Mountebank, setting himself to delude the simple, he commendeth his witnesses, even Christ himself, his Apostles, and Evangelists with swelling titles, when their testimonies themselves are not so much as cited; as though he thought it more needful to win credit to his witnesses, then to prove, ●hat they testify that, for which he would seem to allege them. But you shall hear Pyrgopolinices himself: For the scriptures we have (among others) these mighty ones to wage battle for us. First the great Emperor of the Christian army, our Saviour Christ himself, Mat. 18.17. Next a great worthy, 
Ad pag. 50.  Luke the Evangelist, Act. 14.23. Add to these james the Apostle, one of the Pillars of the Church jam. 5.14. and that famous General of the gentiles, the Apostle Paul: Rom. 12 8.1. Cor. 12.28.  
These are most worthy witnesses indeed, and without exception. If any one of these give testimony to your Lay-Elders, we will most willingly yield. But I pray you let us hear their words; It shall not need: if you will not believe us, that they give testimony to Lay-Elders, yet believe other divines, who say they do. Are they witnesses, what they said only, or what by the holy Ghost is committed to writing? If the latter, why be not their own testimonies produced, but other witnesses must be deposed, that they said so, when it appeareth upon most authentical record, whether they said so or not?  
Let us therefore hear the words themselves. 
§ Sect 2. The first allegation. Matt. 18.17.  The first is Matt. 18.17. Where our Saviour Christ saith dic Ecclesiae, tell the Church or assembly.  
What then? therefore there ought to be Lay-Elders in every congregation.  
See you not by this time, what a striker this is? first there may be question, whether Ecclesia signify the whole congregation of the people, or an assembly of judges or governors: if the former sense be followed, there is no show for Lay-Elders. If the latter, which is the more likely, question again may be made, whether Christ speak of the Synedrion of the jews, as Calvin and some others suppose, or of Christian governors: if of the Synedrion, which was a civil senate and indeed the high counsel of estate in the policy of the jews, what doth that make for Ecclesiastical Elders in the Church of Christ, and that in every parish?  
If of christian governors, as the Fathers expound it; what sense is there to understand the words of Lay-Elders, unless it can otherwise be proved, either that Christ had already ordained them, or that afterwards they were in use in the Church of Christ. But the former is absurd: and for the latter they have not so much as a fair show, being disarmed of the two places, which I have vindicated out of their hands, viz: 1. Tim. 5.17. and Ambrose in 1. Tim. 5.1. Nay further I add, that if it could be proved (as it never will) that ever there were Lay-Elders in the Church before this our age, yet they should but argue from the Genus to the Species affirmatively, tell the governors, ergo Lay-Elders: wherefore this is a very silly argument.  
Yea but other divines say, that Christ spoke of Lay-Elders. What others say it is not greatly material in this kind, so long as we plainly see, there is no necessity nor probability so to understand him. But who are they that say so? chrysostom, Theophylact, Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Piscator upon the place itself, 
Chrys. in Mat. 18. presulibus S●eta● presidentibus. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  etc. For the three first, because they are no parties, I can be content to examine their testimonies.  
All that chrysostom saith of those words is this, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tell the Church, that is Prelates and governors: and on those words whatsoever you shall bind on earth, &c: nec dicit saith he, Ecclesiae presuli, neither did he say to the prelate of the Church, whom he understood by Church, bind him with bands or cords, etc.  
Theophylact explaineth the words thus: 
Theoph. in Mat. 18.  If before two or three witnesses he being reproved shall not be ashamed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Oecolampadius translateth thus, 
For of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the genitive plural is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to the rule, in d●●abus primis declinationibus ge●i 〈◊〉 plurales circumflectuntur.  Ne graveris tunc in Ecclesiae suggestu invulgare peccatum, stick not then to publish his fault in the pulpit of the Church or judgement seat. But the accent showeth that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are to understand An tistites or presides, the Prelates of the Church. And those words, what you shall bind, &c: he expoundeth thus, If thou who art wronged shall hold the offender as a Publican or Ethnic, even such a one he shallbe in heaven, but if thou lose him, that is, forgive him, he shallbe pardoned in heaven, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for not only what the Priests loose are loosed, but also what we who are wronged do bind or lose, the same shallbe bound or loosed: where, by Priests, he meaneth those, whom before he called the Prelates of the Church.  
Erasmus maketh this Paraphrase: 
Paraphra. in Mat. 18.  If the offender be so untractable, that he will be moved neither with shame nor fear of judgement, bring the matter to the congregation, that either he maybe reform by the content of the multitude, or by authority of them which be ruler's ou● the multitude. But if he be so far past cure, that he will not be corrected neither by secret and brotherly monition, neither by the knowledge and consent of two or three, neither by the shame of his fault uttered and disclosed, neither by the authority of the ●hiefe rulers, leave him to his disease.  
My adversary therefore, to salve his credit, had need to bring those, from whom he had these testimonies at the second or third hand, to depose, that chrysostom, Theophylact, and Erasmus do say, that Christ speaketh of Lay-Elders. Otherwise he will hardly escape the censure of imposture, and seeking to seduce the people with glorious shows.  
To the rest of his witnesses I answer, that what new writers, being parties in the cause, do testify without warrant of scripture, evidence of reason, or testimony of antiquity, it deserveth no credit.  

Sect. 3. The 2. allegation. Act. 14.23.  The second testimony, Act. 14.23. that Paul and Barnabas ordained Presbyters in every Church, therefore Lay-Elders. How is this consequence proved? because the greek Scholiast and a few new writers say so.  
But here the disputer, for his credit sake, must plead, that he (for his part) never saw the Greek Scholiast, but received this allegation from T. C. else he must be accused either of gross ignorance, or notorious falsification. I see not saith T. C. why it may not be referred to Elders (meaning Lay-Elders) as well as too Bishops, 
Lib. 2. part. 2. pag. 36.  (meaning Ministers) seeing S. Paul there setteth forth, how they set a full order in the Church. And of that judgement is the greek Scholiast, which affirmeth, that those which followed S. Paul and Barnabas, were worthy to be Bishops, and that they created of them Elders and Deacons: Understanding Oecumenius, as if by Bishops he meant ordinary Ministers, and Elders and Deacons, their Lay-Elders and Lay-Deacons: which were a notable depraving of Oecumenius his meaning, if he were so to be translated. But his words being these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, those who have but small skill in greek do know, that the article of the plural number with the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth most usually signify no more than the proper name alone, so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is all in one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so is used by Oecumenius in the very next sentence following, as you shall hear. Besides, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signify they were worthy, but they had the dignity or honour: or if they had been worthy to have been Bishops, Paul and Barnabas had small reason, in that want of sufficient Ministers, to make them lay either Elders or Deacons. So that Oecumenius his words are thus to be translated, it is to be noted, that Paul and Barnabas had the dignity of Bishops, for that they ordained by imposition of hands, not only Deacons but also Presbyters.  
Note also saith he that in Miletum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Barnabas and Paul were by imposition of hands ordained, but I found another copy which for Miletum hath Antioch, 
In verse. 26. from thence they sailed to Antioch, the copy whereon Oecum, writeth, hath M●letum.  and that is more probable. His meaning is that at Antioch Paul and Barnabas were ordained Bishops. Act. 13.2.  
And that Oecumenius by Presbyters understood Ministers or Teachers, it is apparent by his words going before: for demanding, why the Apostles made not Presbyters in Cyprus and Samaria, but in these places mentioned▪ Act. 14. he answereth, those were near to jerusalem and the apostles, and in Antioch the word prevailed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but in these places they needed much exhortation, chiefly those of the gentiles needed much teaching.  
The third testimony, 
The 3. allegation. jam. 5.14.  jam. 5.14. Is any man sick among you? let him call for the Presbyters of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. Therefore there were Lay-Elders in S. james time.  
This consequence is proved because Calvin and four other new writers say so.  
The fourth: 
The 4. allegation. Rom. 12.8. Ambrose in Rom. 12.  Rom. 12.8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he that ruleth, in diligence, this Ruler must needs be the Lay-Elder. For beside certain new writers, Ambrose saith so. But Ambrose understandeth the words generally of any Ruler, expounding him that ruleth to be eum qui curam ut praesit fratribus suscipit him that undertaketh the care to rule his brethren.  
The fifth 1. Cor. 12.28. 
The 5. allegation. 1. Cor. 12.28.  God hath appointed in the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 governments: these governments must needs be of Lay-Elders, for besides some new writers, Ambrose, Jerome, Theodoret, do testify so much.  
Ambrose his words be these, 
In 1. Cor. 12.28.  sunt & gubernatores gui spiritualib. retinaculis hominibus documento sunt, there are also governors who with spiritual reins do nurture men.  
Jerome, qui sciunt singulos prout apti sunt gubernare, who know to govern every one according as they are apt. Theodoret, hereby he signified the administrations or governments of the Church.  
These be all the places of scripture which this great striker 
§ Sect. 4.  durst make show of. 
A common exception against these allegations.  Whereof not any one can be said with any show of probability to speak one word for Lay-Elders. If Lay-Elders were first proved by other arguments or presupposed, the best argument that could out of these places be raised, were from the Genus to the species affirmative; as if they should say, the scriptures speak of governors, therefore of Lay-Elders; of Presbyters, therefore of only governing Presbyters.  
But seeing they never were, nor ever will be proved by other arguments; the reason taken from these places, is from the Genus, to a fancied and platonical Idea, or poetical species, and that affirmatiuè. If I should say, it is a bird, therefore a Swan, it were but a simple argument: but if thus, it is a Bird, therefore a black Swan, it were too ridiculous. Such are the arguments of this disputer: for if he should say, the holy Ghost speaketh in three of these places of governors, therefore of Presbyters, it were a weak argument; but when he inferreth therefore Lay-presbyters, who were more rare than black Swans, it is very ridiculous. If the worst argument in my Sermon, even when he made the worst of it, had concluded no better than the best of these, he would never have done insulting and triumphing. But I cannot blame him, they be the best proofs his cause can afford; they are the testimonies, which the principal patrons of the Presbytery do use to allege.  
But you will say, this is a strange kind of arguing to proceed from men, who allow no office in the Church but what hath express and direct warrant in the scriptures: this is the meaning of the scriptures, because some new divines do think so. We are wont to hold, that scripture is to be expounded by scripture, as by conference of other parallel scriptures, or by inference out of the context itself, deduced by some artificial argument; or if these fail, especially, in such places as concern matters of story or fact, as for example, whether there were any Lay-Elders in the primitive Church, we fly to the expositions of the Fathers, & testimony of antiquity. But what would you have a man do, these proofs and testimonies failing, the best gloss they can set upon their cause, and the fairest excuse for themselves is, that some other new writers, in matters of substance for the most part Orthodoxal, have been partly of their mind, and yet if we consider, that two or three principal men, having upon necessity devised the Presbytery, to supply the room of the Bishop before ejected, and afterwards (being grown into liking with their own devise, because a few places of the scriptures and Fathers especially, 1. Tim. 5.17. and Ambrose in 1. Tim. 5.1. seemed to favour the same) commended it to others, as warranted by scriptures and Fathers; others, taking it upon their word without sufficient trial, have yielded their consent, and by their writings commended the same to posterity: I say, if these things be considered, we have no great reason, much to esteem the testimonies either of the principal Authors, or of the pedarie fautors of the Presbyterian discipline, being all parties in the cause.  
But now if I should prove unto you, 
§ Sect 5. New writers falsified by the refuter.  that as this disputer abused the names of so many of the Fathers, as he hath named: so also hath wronged some of the new writers: assuredly, if he be not as shameless, as he is nameless, his face which now he hideth, 
De council. qu. 5. cap. 3.  he will never dare to show. For first, where he produceth D. Whitakers as a witness, that Christ when he said tell the Church meant Lay-Elders: it is evident to any that readeth him, that by Ecclesia in that place, he understandeth the Church represented in a Council, whether provincial, which he showeth to be above a Bishop; or general, which he proveth to be above the Pope. For if a Bishop or the Pope should offend, the course which our Saviour prescribeth to Peter himself and the rest of his Apostles should be taken; First, by private admonition, Secondly, before two or three witnesses, and thirdly, if these fail, by telling the Church.  
For the second place he allegeth D. Fulke, 
In Act. 14.23.  who doth not once mention Lay-Elders, nor mean them in that place. But our translation being accused by the Rhemists, for that where we should say Priests, 
In Act. 14.  we say Elders: D. Fulke doth not deny, but that Priests or Ministers are there meant by Elders, whom he could be content should be called Priests, as Priests is the English of Presbyters, and wisheth that the sacrificers of the law had never been called by that name, but that it had been reserved (if I understand him) to signify the Ministers of the Gospel. There is no question therefore between them, whether Lay-Elders be there meant; but whether the Ministers, who are there meant by the name Presbyteri, whom the Papists would have translated Priests, may not also be called Elders.  

In act. 14.23.  Aretius, though he holdeth the distinction of Elders, and so is a party in the cause, notwithstanding by Presbyters, Act. 14 23. he understandeth Ministers only. Ministers ordinat per singulas Ecclesias, expend hic quid sint Presbyteri, nimirum ministri certis Ecclesiis deputati, unde duplex fuit primitivae Ecclesiae genus Presbyterorum, unum quod Ecclesiae praer at docendo, quales isti hic sunt, etc.  

In jam. 5.14.  For the third, he abuseth again the testimony of D. Fulke, who, as in the former place, by Presbyteros, understandeth Priests or Ministers. And as the Rhemists blamed, after the same manner, our translation, for saying Elders and not Priests, he answereth as before. And whereas they object, that our Elders be not such as the Apostle james requireth to be sent for, as being not deputed specially to public praying or administration of the Sacraments; he answereth, that although in some Churches there be some Elders appointed only to govern, yet is there no Church, in which there be no Elders appointed specially to public prayers and administration of Sacraments. But admitting, that the Ministers of our Church be such as the Apostle speaketh of, you demand why we translate them not Ministers▪ I answer (saith he) because the word signifieth Elders, & not Ministers, & yet we contend not for the term, nor refuse the name Priest, when it signifieth the same whom the Apostle calleth Presbyterum, but when by abuse of Papists it is taken to signify a sacrificer.  

Act. 14.23.15.4.6.22.24. &. 20.17 28. Tit. 1.5.  In the second and fifth, he quoteth D. N●well, who indeed speaketh of certain Seniors which with the Pastor, that is the Bishop, were to exercise the discipline of the Church, but whether they were chosen out of the Clergy, or laity, he showeth not: by the places which he quoteth for the proof of them, diverse whereof, even in the judgement of Calvin, are to be understood of Ministers, he may seem to mean Seniors of the Clergy.  
In the fourth and fifth he abuseth the testimony of Th. Morton (not the learned and judicious Dean of Winchester, 
Th. Morton. in 1. Cor. 12.28.  but another old acquaintance of mine) who in Rom. 12.8. & 1. Cor. 12.28. by governors, understandeth those, who have the government of the Church.  
These may suffice for a taste of his good dealing with new writers, especially our own country men: the rest, let examine them who either have the books, or think it worth their pains.   

CHAP. X. Containing an answer to the same testimonies, and some other proofs, as they are urged by other disciplinarians.  
THus much might suffice to have answered his allegations out of the scriptures; were it not, that some perhaps will imagine, that these places might be better urged. For their satisfaction therefore, I will take upon me, briefly, yet fully to answer these and some other of the best proofs, as they are urged by T. C. M. Calvin, Beza and Dudley Fenner.  
First therefore concerning, 
Mat. 18.17. urged by T.C.l. 1. pag. 176.  Mat. 18.17. T. C. argueth thus. By Church is meant either all the people, or the Pastor alone, or the Pastor with the ancients and Elders; but neither the people, nor Pastor alone, therefore the Pastor with the ancients and Elders.  
The disjunction is grounded upon a supposition of the newfound parish discipline, that there were no other Ecclesiastical governors but parishional, which I shall hereafter by Gods help prove to be absurd. In the mean time, for the confutation of this disjunction, it shall suffice to note that, which all disciplinarians confess, that our Saviour Christ speaketh according to the manner of those times either bidding them tell the assembly, that is the Synedrion; of the jews; or at least, that the party offending is to be delated to the like assembly, authorized for hearing of causes, in the Church of Christ. Wherefore T. C. and our new disciplinarians, must first prove these two things, first, that there was an Ecclesiastical Presbytery in every Synagogue, and secondly, that what they had in every Synagogue we ought to have in every parish, before they may urge the like, in imitation of them, to be erected in every parish among us. But they are so far from proving the latter of these assertions, that they fail in the former. T. C. professeth, 
T. C. lib. 2. part 2 pag. 46.  he cannot prove it out of the old testament; but that it may be concluded out of the new, he hopeth the Reader will judge; considering that the policy of the Church now, was in this point taken from the jews Church. As if he should say: forasmuch as the Church, which imitated the jews, had in every parish a Presbytery (which indeed is most notoriously false) it is to be supposed, that the Church of the jews had in every Synagogue the like. Where, by a circular disputation, the question which we deny, is brought to prove his argument, whereby notwithstanding he would seem to prove the question. For aid therefore he bringeth the custom of the modern jews, who, if they had any such custom, were no fit precedents for us to follow. But indeed they, though they have their Rabbi in every Snagogue, yet an Ecclesiastical Presbytery they never had for aught that I can find. And whereas he, and after him the author of the Counterpoison, allege Jerome, 
Ad Al●gasiam. qu. 10.  to prove, that they had their Elders in Every Synagogue, which should aswell admonish the polluted to abstain from the assemblies, as to reprove the Sabbath-breakers; I cannot sufficiently wonder at the allegation: for Jerome mentioneth that custom of the jews, which he speaketh of, as one of the worst of the Pharisaical traditions which he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which one (saith he) I will mention to the shame of the whole nation, and which I will not mention for modesty sake; & therefore we may be sure, neither Christ transmitted, nor Jerome commended it to the Church. Secondly, the governors of their Synogogues, which Jerome speaketh of, were such as were to judge of clean and unclean, a duty peculiar to the Priests. 
Leuit. 10.10.  Neither doth he speak of admonishing the polluted from coming to the assembly, but only of judging between clean and unclean. And thirdly that which T. C. addeth concerning the Sabbath, is by Jerome mentioned as another tradition of the pharisees having no affinity with the former.  
Yea but the new testament speaketh of them in diverse places, 
§ Sect. 2. T. C ibid. pag. 47. Matt. 23.2. de Rep. Hebr. l. 2. cap. 8. De polit judaic. c. 18. Sigon li. 5. c. 10. Act. 13.15. & 18.8.17.  call them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the chief of the Synagogues. The archisynagogi were such as now they call their Rabbis as being the Scribes and pharisees who were their Teachers sitting in the chair of Moses, as Sigonius witnesseth. Bertram likewise saith, those who at the first were called Prophets and afterwards Scribes and Doctors of the law, at the last in the Synagogues were called Archisynagogi, (for those who were in the Temple were called scribae templi) and of these in the greater Synagogues there were more than one. Beza also seemeth to have been of the same mind. Howbeit, both he and Bertram (who dedicateth his book unto him) do think, that in the Synagogue of the cities, these Rulers had Elders joined with them. But it may be you expect their proofs. Hear therefore the very foundation of the Presbytery: to wit, that what was the order of the Church of the jews, Christ translated and recommended to his Church. But in the Church of the jews there were Elders joined to the Teachers to make up an Ecclesiastical Senate. How the proposition will be made good, I know not: The assumption is proved thus. There were Levites in the Synagogues, saith Beza, 
Bez. de presbyt. & excommun. 102.  in whose hands the spiritual administration was, there being joined to them ut probabile est as it is probable, some Citizens of note. Hence is mention of the Archisynagogi, who ruled the assemblies. 
Bertr. de polit. judaic. c. 18.  Those saith Bertram who had been called Prophets and after Scribes, as the last in the Synagogues were called Archisynagogi, unde verisimile est whence it is likely that those Archisynagogi, did moderate the order of Seniors, who were to inquire into men's manners: for the Synagogues also had their Ministers, Luc. 4.20. So that (belike) the Minister or attendant, to whom Christ gave the book, was one of these Seniors, or ex illustrib. civibus, as Beza speaketh. Well, & what was their office? Horum proculdubio partes fuerunt, their office no doubt was, not to admit to the Synagogue them, whom the Synedrion of jerusalem had excluded from the Synagogues. 
Bez: ubisup:  And what their office hath been since in the Church, you heard it proved before, by Satis opinor constat: I think it is evident enough. So that the very foundation, 
Eccl: disc.  whereon the presbytery of Lay-Elders, (which with such vehemency and violence hath been urged as the undoubted ordinance of Christ) is grounded, is no better than the probable conjectures of some new writers, who are parties in the cause: probable (I say) in their own conceits: For else there is not so much as probability in their Assertions. And so much of M. Cartwrights collection out of Matth: 18.17. and what else is said of others, in favour of the presbyters in the Synagogues of the cities.  


§ Sect. 3. Calu: in Matth: 18.17.  
Bez: de presbyt, & ixion: p. 106. neque ambigimus quin Chruns ad verāistā institutionem ecclesiastici Synedrij respexerit  
Counterpois. 4. Reason for Elderships.   Now let us see what Calvin, Beza, and others, collect out of that place of Matthew. When Christ biddeth them tell the Church: Forasmuch as there was no Christian church established, whereunto they might repair, it were absurd to understand Christ as propounding the judgement of the Church, which yet was not. Therefore dubium non est, it is not to be doubted, but that Christ spoke of such an assembly as was then in use alluding to the order of the old Church, wherein, after their return from Babylon, a select Council was established, which they called Sinhedrim, in Greek Synedrion, whereunto the censure of Doctrine and manners was committed. Which Synedrion, besides some Priests and Levites, consisted of the Elders of the people. And although the discipline was corrupted amongst the jews in our Saviour Christ's time, and therefore it is not likely that our Saviour would send his Disciples to their Assemblies to have their causes heard; yet dubium non est, it is not to be doubted, but that form of discipline which had been under the Law, was by Christ transmitted to us: and that the form of discipline, which was in use in the Church of Christ succeeded in the room thereof.  
The sum is.  
What manner of presbyters were among the jews, the like Christ ordained in his church: when he said, Tell the Church:  
But among the jews there was an Ecclesiastical presbytery, which, besides the priests and Levites, consisted of the Elders of the people:  
Therefore such an Ecclesiastical presbytery Christ ordained in his Church.  
The proposition hath no other proof but their own testimony, signified in those asseverations, dubium non est, neque ambigimus: for that which is added by Beza & the author of the counterpoison, that the words which Christ used, Let him be to thee as an Heathen or Publican▪ to prove that he spoke according to their custom, do in no sort prove, that he translated their form of government into his church. For if Christ did translate from the state of the jews, any Consistories into his church, than he transmitted such, as were either ordained of God, or devised by men.  
If the former, than such as God ordained for the government of the people, either in the Wilderness, or in the Land of promise. In the Wilderness, by the advise of jethro. and approbation of God, 
Exod: 18.21.22. Deut: 1.15.17. Num: 11.16.17.  there were Rulers set over thousands, hundreds, fifties, and ten, to judge the people: the deciding of more difficult causes being reserved to Moses. But the multitude of these difficult causes increasing, and Moses waxing weary of them, the Lord joined to him a Senate of 70. Numb: 11.  
Answerable to these, the Lord appointed Consistories or Senates, for the government of the people in the Land of promise.  
To the former, Deuteron: 16.18. 
Deut: 16.18.  judges and Officers shalt thou make thee in all thy Cities, throughout all thy Tribes, and they shall judge the people with righteous judgement. To the latter, Deut: 17. 
Deut: 17.8.  If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgement between blood & blood, between plea & plea, between plague and plague, in the matters of controversies, within thy Gates, then shalt thou arise, and go up into the place which the Lord thy God shall choose, and thou shalt come unto the Priests and Levites and the judge (that is, judges saith Calvin) that shall be in those days, and ask, and they shall show thee the sentence of judgement.  

Verse. 5.  This prescript the godly king josaphat followed exactly 2. Chron. 19 both in respect of the inferior consistories in the cities, placing judges in the land throughout all the strong cities, 
Verse. 8.  city by city: and in jerusalem did he set of the Levites and of the Priests and of the chief of the families of Israel for the judgement and cause of the Lord, saying to them; In every cause that shall come to you of your brethren that dwell in the cities, between blood and blood, between law and precept, statutes and judgements, you shall admonish them, etc. Besides these, the Lord ordained no consistories, or senates. But none of these did Christ translate into his Church, for none of them was Ecclesiastical. Neither did he translate those which were devised by men; whether by the jews, as their Synedrion or Sanedri●n, 
joseph. antiq. lib. 14. c. 11. Sigon. lib. 6. c. 7.  which was their chief counsel of state, which Calvin saith after their return from Babylon they did institute, or by P. Gainius the Proconsul of Syria, who ordained four more Synedria of the like nature: which some suppose to have been the cause, why our Saviour speaketh in the plural number Matt. 10.17. Mar. 13.9. But of the counsel renewed by josaphat, and the Synedrion ordained of the jews, 
§ Sect. 4. The proposition confuted.  I shall have occasion to say more in answer to the assumption.  
But how little credit is to be given to that proposition, may appear by this dilemma: for by Church, Christ doth signify either the consistories and assemblies of the jews, or assemblies in the Church of Christ.  
If the former, then was the direction, which Christ giveth, peculiar to those times, and pertaineth not to the Church of Christ, 
Perpet. govern. chap. 4.  as D. Bilson showeth in the fourth chapter of his book, whereunto I do refer you. If the latter, than had he not so much as respect or reference to the Consistories of the jews, so far was he from translating them into his Church, 
Matt. 18.6.7 10.  as shall appear by this most plain explication of the text according to the latter sense.  
Our Saviour Christ entreating of scandals and offences, first teacheth us that we be careful to avoid offences, and that we do not in that respect seem to disregard any of his little ones. 2. He directeth us what course we are to take when we are offended. If thy brother (that is, one professing the same religion) shall sin against thee (that is, privately,) either by injury, 
Vers: 15.  doing thee wrong, or if ye will also, by evil example scandalising or giving thee offence, by his sin committed in thy knowledge, laying as it were a stumbling block in thy way, 
Levit 19.17  thou must as the Lord hath commanded not suffer sin to rest upon him, but in a desire to reclaim him, thou must 1. use private admonition, & brotherly reproof; go, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, argue and redargue, convince & reprove him, between thee & him alone. If he hearken to thee acknowledging his fault, 
Iam: 5.20. Vers: 16.  and testifying his repentance, than hast thou won or gained thy brother, and saved a soul from death. But if he hear thee not, suffer not sin so to rest upon him, but take with thee yet 1. or 2. witnesses, & set upon him jointly, that either by the presence & authority of so many together he may be reclaimed, or at least a way be prepared to public trial; that howsoever thy testimony alone would be rejected, yet in the mouth of 2. or 3. witnesses, the matter may be sufficiently testified. And if he will not hear them, but remain obstinate, 
Vers. 17.  then tell the Church, that is, the assembly of them who in the church have spiritual authority to censure offenders, whether it be the Consistory of one City, or particular church, or the Synod of a Province or Nation, or an universal Counsel, according to the nature of the offence, and the quality & degree of the offender. And if he will not hear the assembly, but remaining obstinate, draw upon him their censure of excommunication, whereby they shall bind the offender, & after a sort deliver him to Satan; then shalt thou hold him no more as a brother, or think thyself bound to exercise the duties appertaining to the communion of Saints, but withdraw thyself from him, abandon him, and have no more to do with him, than a jew of this time would have to do with an heathen or publican, that by these means seeing himself avoided & shunned, he may at length be ashamed and brought to repentance. And lest any man should lightly esteem the judgement of the Church, 
Vers. 18.  that is, of such spiritual governors as have authority in the church to censure offenders, Verily I say unto you, saith our Saviour, speaking to his Apostles, and in them to all their successors, to whom the keys of heaven are committed, 
Matt: 16.19 john. 20.23.  Whatsoever you (for you and such as you sitting in Consistory or Synod, are they whom I meant by the Church or assembly) whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall lose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Neither think, when I mentioned the church, I meant a great assembly only, or the whole congregation; for I say unto you, that where 2. or 3. are gathered together in my name, 
Vers: 19.20.  I am there in the mids of them, & therefore, if but 2. of you shall consent in ask any thing of God (as namely pardon for the penitent sinner) it shall be granted unto you.  
If against this exposition it shallbe objected, that the Churches hearing and censuring of offences would be prejudicial to Magistrates: I answer, offences and offenders admit divers distinctions. Of offences, some are open & notorious, some are secret & private. Some again are grievous and capital crimes, which may not be concealed or left unpunished, other be offences not so heinous or enormous, but they may be concealed and pardoned, where is hope of amendment: For notorious and enormous crimes our Saviour doth not prescribe this course, but for the private and less offences. Again, offenders are either (in the judgement of charity) our brethren in Christ, or the sons of Belial: For the latter, we may take the civil course of justice, for the former we must take a spiritual course of Christian charity, that we may win our brother unto Christ, or recover him being fallen, which course our Saviour here prescribeth.  
By Church therefore or assembly, our Saviour meaneth neither the supposed Ecclesiastical senate of the jews, nor yet a Presbytery of Christians answerable thereto, consisting for the most part of Lay-elders. Not the former: for Christ speaketh of such, as should meet in his name, to whom he promiseth, what they bind upon earth, shallbe bound in heaven: neither are we to think, that our Saviour would send his disciples to the corrupt Consistories of the unbelieved jews, as Calvin also saith. It was a strange conceit therefore of Beza, not only to imagine, 
In Matt: 18 17. & in Marc: 5.22.  that the name Church is here attributed to the jews, but that the Archisynagogi assembled together were they who are meant by Church in this place. Or if that were true, how should this direction belong to us, seeing not only the imaginary Ecclesiastical Senate of the jews is vanished, but also the true Synedrion is long since abolished, and their whole policy abrogated. Not the latter, for our Saviour, by Church understandeth such as should have power to bind & lose sins, as appeareth by the words following. Which power of the keys of binding and losing sinners, 
Matth: 16.19. Ioh: 20.23,  of retaining and remitting sins, our Saviour Christ hath so peculiarly appropriated to the Apostles, & their successors in the ministery of the word and Sacraments, as nothing more.  
Neither had the jews indeed such an ecclesiastical Senate, as they speak of, 
§ Sect. 5. The assumption confuted  mixed of the Priests and Levites, with the Elders of the people: as I am now to show in answering the assumption. For if this be true, that the jews had no such Presbytery, then what show of truth or probability is in their argument taken from Matth: 18.17▪  
Calvin saith, that the jews after their return from captivity, 
in Math: 18.17.  had a chosen counsel, to which was committed the censure of doctrine & manners, which they called Sinhedrin, or Sanedrin, in Greek Synedrion. T.C. holdeth, that the Synedrion was not then first instituted, 
Lib: 2. part: 2 pag. 41.  but restored: which seemeth to be the truth: Howbeit his reason (as almost all the rest) is but a mere colour. For it would follow (saith he) that the Priests, & other levitical teachers who were a part of that Bench, had then their first institution: when it is plain, that the Priests and levitical teachers were instituted before the Synedrion, 
Exod: 28. Numb: 11. De presbyt: & excomm: pag 103. Lib: 2. part: 2. pag. 40.  and so might have continued their function, though the Sanedrin had never been. Beza fetcheth the first institution of it from Moses, & the instauration thereof, when it was decayed from josaphat. T. C. doubteth not to fetch the Eldership from Exod: 4.  
With his Elders therefore, as being the eldest in conceit, I will begin. This order of Eldership (saith he,) was taken from the government of the people of God, before, and under the Law. Before the Law, the Elders which Moses assembled, Exod: 4. 
Exod: 4.29.  were Ecclesiastical officers: for it is not likely, that under such a Tyrant, they should have Magistrates of their own.  
I answer briefly: the state of the Hebrews, if you respect the whole people, was neither a settled Church, nor established commonwealth. But if you respect the several kindreds and Families, they were ruled by the Elders of the people, which were the heads of the Families; 
See Beza, de Presbyt: & excomm: pag. 101.  who, as always from the beginning, so at that time, & until the separation of the Tribe of Levi, to the priestly function, were both priests and magistrates, to their several kindreds and Families. Wherefore let them, who will needs have these to be Lay-Elders, tell us, who were then the priests, whom these Elders did assist.  
Under the Law, he findeth these Elders in Elisha his house, 2. King: 6. and in Ezekiel's house, Ezek: 
2 King: 6.32 Ezek: 8.1.  8. because it is unlike that in so corrupt a state the Prophets could have the civil Governors to consult with: & is it not more unlike, that there should be approved Elders of an ecclesiastical Senate, either in the Apostoticall Church of Israel, under Achab and jehoram, or in Mesopotamia, whether Ezekiell, and those Elders of juda were transported, who could never be found under the most godly Kings at jerusalem?  
Again, he findeth them standing on the right hand of Ezra, and on the left, Nehem: 
Nehem: 8.2.  8. Being distinguished both from the teaching Levites, and from the people: From the people, because they stood by Ezra. From the teaching Levites, because he speaketh of them after. Therefore they must needs be Lay-Elders: as though, either some of the Princes of the people might not stand with Ezra, or that these might not have been priests, or that all the Levites were teachers, or that there were no more teaching Priests or Levites but those, which are mentioned then, and there to have taught the people. He that considereth what T. C. was able to say in a good cause, must needs think this cause to be very bad, which he was not able to make good by better arguments, than those most unlikely likelihoods.  

§ Sect: 6.  Beza holdeth that 2. sorts of counsels or consistories were ordained by Moses, which should be held both in jerusalem, the place which God did choose, & in other cities; whereof the one, was civil, the other ecclesiastical, consisting of the priests, levites, & scribes, or teachers, & also the seniors of the people. But the reader shall easily understand this latter to be a mere fiction, if he consider that the Synedrion at jerusalem, which was the highest court & chief council of state, having power of life & death, & authority to deal in causes both civil & ecclesiastical, consisted of the high priest, & other priests and Levites, 
2. Chron: 19.8, 10, 11. Num: 11.16 Ezek: 8.11. Sigon: li. 6. c. 7, ex Talmud: Lib. 6, c, 4, ex Ier: 19, 1,  together with the Princes & Seniors of the people, being besides the Highpriest 70. or 71. in number: Of which, that in Deut: 17.8.9. is to be understood. These were called Sanedrin, and did sit in Gazith: In which number, those which were priests, were called Seniores Sacerdotum, and those which were Princes, were called Seniores populi, as Sigondus saith. And likewise that the Sanedrioth or consistories in other cities, consisted as well of the learned levites as of the seniors of the people. josephus saith, that to every consistory in the cities belonged 2. Levites. The reason hereof was, 
Lib, 4, Antiq, 8.  because the laws whereby that church & commonwealth were governed, were the laws of God; wherein the Priests, Levites, & Scribes were most skilful, and therefore best able to determine what was right according to the law. And therefore another sort, which should consist of Priests, levites, and elders of the people, 
De presbyt: & excom: pag. 104- Levit 10, 10  & which should respondere de iure (as Beza imagineth this should) was altogether needles. But his proofs are as weak, as his imagination was strong. His only proof for the 1. institution of the Ecclesiastical senate, is Levit 10.10. where they were ordained saith he, to show the difference between holy & profane, between clean & unclean, & to teach the law of God. But no such thing can, with any show of probability be gathered out of the text, where the Lord speaking to Aaron, commandeth him, & his sons the priests, by a perpetual law, that they should not drink wine nor strong drink, when they were to enter into the sanctuary, whereby they might be hindered from exercising their function discreetly & soberly, either in judging between holy & profane, between clean and unclean, or in teaching the people; which duties were to be performed in the sanctuary, by the priests, as well severally as jointly, & no ecclesiastical senate at all here instituted: or if there were, 
Cap. 11.  it should (according to bertram's conceit) consist wholly of the Priests, to whom alone this speech is directed. As for Elders of the people, they were not to intermeddle with these things. The high Priest indeed, if it pleased him, might consult with other Priests, and use their assistance, as Azariah did use the aid of 80. 2. Chron. 26. 
2. Chron. 26.17  But that there was a settled Presbytery or senate Ecclesiastical ordained by God, we do not read: and that it should consist in part of Laymen, there is not the least semblance of likelihood.  

Pag. 103.104.  His proofs, that there were two diverse Synedria instituted, are these First, because the number of the one is defined to be 70 the other left uncertain. Secondly because the second was not ordained at the same time with the former. I answer, there is neither number set down, nor time, of that which never was.  

§ Sect. 7.  His proof for the instauration of two distinct Synedria is out of 2. Chron. 19 where he saith josaphat ordained two Synedria or counsels, the one Ecclesiastical for the causes of God, over which the high Priest was chief; the other civil, for the causes of the King, over which Zabadiah a Prince of juda was chief. But it is evident by the text, that it was one and the same high counsel of state, which afterwards was called Sanedrin, or Synedrion Hierosolymita●um, consisting of the Levites and Priests, and of the heads of the chief families in Israel, ordained for the judgements of God and controversies of men, which was to hear and determine all manner of causes that were brought unto them from the judgements or consistories of the inferior cities, & were to judge between blood and blood, that is slaughter and slaughter, between the law and the precept, between statutes and judgements, having among them in the causes of God, Amarias the high Priest; and in the causes of the King, Zebadiah a Prince of juda, as chief, and that the Masters or governors the levites were with them to instruct them in the law. 
Shoterim. See 1. Chron 234.  For whereas he would prove, that josaphat ordained two distinct counsels at jerusalem, by these reasons, because the duty of the one was to deal in the causes of God, the other of the King: the one should determine de iure, the other de facto: the one, had for the precedent the high Priest, the other a Prince of juda: none of these reasons do prove, that josaphat ordained any thing but that, which before had been appointed by God; 
Deut. 17.9.10.  namely, that the difficult controversies which the judges in the cities could not determine between blood and blood, plea and plea, plague and plague, should be brought to the Synedrion or counsel of the place which God shoul● choose, the which is there noted to consist of the Priests, 
In Pentateuch. in deut. 17 9 Also see Deu. 19 17.  Levites and ●udge, that is judges, saith Calvin, as appeareth by the holy history, where it is declared that josaphat besides the Priest's and Levites chose the Princes of the families of Israel: for the godly King would decline n●uer a whit from the rule of God's law. To this counsel the difficult causes afore said as we●l civil as Ecclesiastical, as well de facto, 
Sigon de rep. Hebr. lib. 6. c. 7.  as de iure, were to be brought from other civil courts, as appeareth both in Deut. 17.8. and also 2 Chron. 19.20.  
Besides, it is ridiculous to imagine, that the civil senate should determine only de facto, and that questions de iure should be brought to the Ecclesiastical; the rather because that counsel, which was appointed by God, Deut. 17. and renewed by josaphat did consist of the Priests and levites and Elders of the people, and was to determine and to decide all questions of doubt and difficulty: or if they were to seek to an Ecclesiastical senate, it is absurd to imagine, that Lay-Elders should be joined to the Priests and levites to answer de iure.  
As for the causes of God, which verse 8 are termed the judgement and cause of the Lord and are particularized, verse. 10. and Deut. 17.8. (between blood and blood between law and precept, etc.) we are to understand them to be not only Ecclesiastical but also civil, so far as either they were to be decided b● the laws of God, or concerned the observation or transgression of God's law, whereby that land was governed, in judging, whereof, they also exercised God's judgement.  
The causes of the King were such as belonged to the King's house, or his exchequer. And it is fond to imagine, that those causes which were to be decided by the judicial and morell laws of God, were not the causes of God, as well as those which concerned the ceremonial law.  
Neither do I therefore reject the exposition of Beza and some others, who by the causes of God, understand Ecclesiastical causes, and by the causes of the king, civil causes, because it is prejudicial to my defence; but because it is repugnant to the truth: for though their interpretation were admitted, it would no more prove, that there were two distinct Syn●dria, 
Antiq. lib. 9 c. 1.  then that which I do embrace. For though Zebadiah the prince of juda was the chief in the causes of the King, as Amariah the high priest was the chief in the causes of God, yet were they Colleagues and coassessors in the same counsel, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  as josephus also doth witness. For speaking of this act of josaphat, he saith, that he being returned to jerusalem appointed judges there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Priests and levites, and of the chief or principal men of the people: 
Synedrion fuisse. 71. cui precrat Sacerdos Summus. The high Priest had autho●itie to call or assemble the counsel, till the time of Antipater Herod's Father, but after wards not without the Lieutenants leave. Sigon. li. 6. c. 7. josep. l. 20. Cal. in Mat. 18.  requiring them to exercise just judgement, but especially that they should be diligent in determining those difficult causes that should be brought to them from inferior judgement seats: but the chief or precedents of them, as colleagues and coassessors be appointed Amasiah the Priest, and Zabadiah of the tribe of juda: and relating the law, Deu. 17.8. 
(a) Li. 4. c. 8.  he saith, if the judges (in the cities) be not able to determine any cause, it is entirely to be sent to the holy city, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
(b) Li. 6. c. 7.  and let the high Priest and the Prophet (that is the scribe or Doctor of the law saith 
(c) Luk. 22.66.  Sigonius) and the senate assembling together, pronounce what seemeth right.  
Besides, it is manifest, that the counsel at jerusalem, after the captivity, which consisted of priests and levites, besides the Seniors of the people, and whereof the high priest was precedent as Bertram confesseth, having authority to assemble it, etc. Act. 5.21. Matt. 26.57.59. was the high council of state called the Sanedrin or Synedrion, or consistorium Gazith which dealt in causes not only Ecclesiastical, but also civil, and in causes criminal and capital. Neither happened this by the ambition of the priests, but by the ordinance of God in respect of the first institution, Deut. 17. and instauration by josaphat. 2. Chron. 19 and by his approbation, as Calvin witnesseth, in respect of the erection of it after the captivity. For as the Lord promised by Esay to restore their judges and counsellors after the captivity, 
Esa. 1.26. Ezek 44.24.  as before; so Ezekiell prophesieth, that the Priests, after the captivity, should not only teach the people, and judge between holy and profane, between clean and unclean; but also that they should stand up to judge controversies, judging according to God's judgement. josephus also testifieth, that the Priests were ordained by Moses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Contr. Appion. lib. 2.  overseers of all, judges of controversies, and punishers of such as are by the law condemned.  
And so much for the present shall suffice concerning the counsel at jerusalem, until I come to answer Calvin's opinion. 
§ Sect. 8. Exod. 18. Deut. 1. &. 16. 2. Chron. 19 De presb. & excom. pag. 102. In Marc. 5.22. de presbyt. 112. Pag. 103.   
As touching Ecclesiastical Presbyters in other cities, Beza hath nothing but his own conjectures: For the courts of judgement, which both Moses instituted, and josaphat renewed, though they had Levites among them, were to deal not only in Ecclesiastical, but also in civil and criminal causes. The reasons which he bringeth for distinct Ecclesiastical senates are three. First, because the Archisynagogi had, as it is probable, Seniors of the people joined with them. Secondly, because the name of Church in this place of Matthew is given to them, which could not be, unless they did consist of the laity, as well as the clergy. Thirdly, because as the civil consistories assembled in the gates, so the Ecclesiastical, in the Synagogues. To the first I answer, that a probability (if this were such, as indeed it is not) is no proof: to the 2. that the name Ecclesia is not given to the Archisynagogi, but to the Rulers of Christ's Church assembling in his name, with whom he promised his presence, and to whom he committed the power of the keys, to whom also the name Ecclesia, which may be given to any company of Christians, be it but of two or three meeting in the name of Christ, doth fitly agree. Thirdly, he telleth us of Ecclesiastical consistories ordained by Moses, and renewed by josaphat, sitting in Synagogues; when there is not once mention in the old testament, either of Ecclesiastical consistories, or yet of Synagogues. And in the new, such judges are mentioned in Synagogues, 
Mat. 10.17. & 23 34. Act. 22 19 Cap. 13.  as punished by stripes. Bertram also witnesseth, that in the Synagogues of the cities, judgements were exercised by ordinary judges; the greater and weightier causes, as also the appeals of the less being referred to the counsel ●t jerusalem. And again, that the people came to the Synagogues to prayer, 
§ Sect. 9 Cap. 18.  to hear the law and the Prophets, and to hear the judgement of Moses law, as well civil as Ecclesiastical And so much of Beza.  
Calui● by Ecclesia understandeth the Synedrion or Sanedrin of the jews instituted by them after their return from Babylon: 
In Mat 18.17. In Num. 11.16.  which he conceiveth to have been an Ecclesiastical senate, to which belonged the censure of doctrine & manners, having the power o● excommunication etc. What this Synedrion was, Calvin himself shall tell us, It is certain saith he that the jews, when they were returned from the Babylonian banishment, because they might not make a King, did imitate this example (of appointing 70. Elders. Num. 11) in ordaining the Synedrion. Only so much honour was granted to the memory of David and the Kings, that out of their stock they would choose 70. governors, in whom should be the chief power: And this course continued until Herod, etc. The Sanedrin indeed was the high counsel of state, which was to judge of causes, not only Ecclesiastical, but also civil and criminal, yea capital, having the authority of the sword and power of life and death. Whereby they adjudged malefactors convicted of capital crimes to one of these four kinds of death, stoning, 
Sigon. lib. 6. c. 7. ex Talmud. & Petr. Galatin.  burning, killing with the sword and strangling; having also authority to ordain Sanedrioth, that is, the consistories of judges in other cities; to whom alone it appertained to judge the cause of a tribe, of a false Prophet, of the high Priest, etc. And howsoever their power was much restrained after jewrie became a province subject to the Romans; notwithstanding the Romans having granted the jews 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 liberty to live according to their own laws, permitted them to exercise authority both in judging not only Ecclesiastical but also civil and criminal causes, 
Act. 6. & 7. and 22.4.5.19.20. and 24.6. & 16.10.11. Deut. 17.12.  and also in punishing by stripes and imprisonment, and sometimes by death. Moreover, by the law of God, he that disobeyed the sentence of this counsel, was not, as our Saviour Christ here saith, to be held as an heathen or Publican, but he was to die the death. Finally there was but one Synedrion for the whole estate of the jews by the appointment of God, and that in the place which he should choose, either ordained by Moses, or restored by josaphat, or renewed by the jews after their captivity. Wherefore our disciplinarians might as well desire to have a parliament or high counsel of state in every parish, as such a consistory as this was.  
To conclude this place: Though it were true, that the jews had an Ecclesiastical Senate consisting of Priests and Elders of the people: yet it cannot be proved, that in this place of Matthew Christ alluded to it, and much less that he ordained the like in his Church. But now I have showed, that the jews had no such Ecclesiastical senate: and therefore out of this place nothing can with any show of probability be concluded for Lay-Elders.  
The second testimony T. C. urgeth thus: 
§ Sect. 10. Act. 14.23. T. C. lib. 1.174.  
diverse Ministers were not ordained in every congregation:  
diverse Elders were ordained in every congregation: therefore there were Elders which were not Ministers.   
The proposition he proveth, because it was not like that they had diverse Ministers for such a number of congregations as were then to be preached unto. I distinguish of the word congregation, which T. C. useth ambiguously: for in the assumption it signifieth the Church of a whole city: in which sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is all one: 
Tit. 1.5. act. 14.23.  and so it is true, that diverse Presbyters were placed in every Church, In the proposition, as appeareth by the prosyllogisme, it signifieth every particular congregation, which T. C. seemeth to acknowledge to have been diverse in every city or Church, contrary to our refuter, as we shall hear in the second book. And in this sense it may be true, that not every congregation had diverse Presbyters: as with us every city or Church hath diverse Presbyters, yet every congregation hath not. 
Tit. 1.5.  I say then, what Paul required Titus to do in Crect, the same he and Barnabas performed in these countries: that is, they ordained Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every city or Church; which Presbyters were also such as the Apostle Tit. 1. calleth Bishops, and requireth in them ability to preach. And although in every city or Church there were diverse of them, yet not diverse for every meeting. There is no necessity therefore, nor yet probability, that by Presbyters in this place we should understand any but Ministers, contrary to the perpetual use of the word: Neither can any interpreter be alleged old or new, that is not a party, which doth understand the word of Lay-Elders. 
De relig. pag. 1 68 In Act. 14.23. In Act. 14.23.  Zanchius, though a favourer of the Presbytery, reckoneth this place among those, wherein Ministers of the word are called Presbyters. Aretius, though he acknowledgeth the distinction of Presbyters into two sorts, yet he confesseth this place is, as you heard before, to be understood of Ministers. Calvin himself the principal Patron of the Eldership, understandeth by Presbyters in this place Ministers, and Preachers. Prebyteros his vocari interpreter, quibus iniunctum erat docendi munus: Presbyters here I interpret those to be called, to whom the office of teaching was enjoined. Yea but saith T. C. though Calvin say Ministers; here be called Presbyters, 
Lib. 2. part. 2.35. & 36.  yet he doth not say that they only: yea he must be understood (as implying Lay-Elders under Presbyters) seeing he avoucheth the place of Titus, which to us seemeth all one with Act. 14,) for the establishment of these Elders, and quoteth instit. lib. 4. c. 3. s. 8. where he writeth thus. 
Lib. 4. c. 3. § 8.  Whereas I called those who govern the Churches indifferently, Bishops, Presbyters, Pastors, Ministers, I did according to the use of the scripture, which confoundeth these words: for whosoever exercise the ministery of the word, it giveth the title of Bishops to them. So where Paul commandeth Titus to ordain Presbyters in every city, he straightways addeth, for a Bishop must be unreprovable, Tit. 1.5.7. so Phil. 1.1. & Act. 20.17.28. here now it is to be observed, that hitherto we have reckoned those officers only, which consist in the ministery of the word. You see then, how Calvin in his institutions, urged this place in the Epistle to Titus for Lay-Elders. Will you also hear his judgement in his commentary upon the place? 
Calvin. in Tit. 1.5.  although we gather saith he out of the 1. Tim: 5: that there were two sorts of Presbyters, yet the context here will straightways show, that no other than Doctors are here understood, that is who were ordained to teach; becàuse by and by he will call them Bishops.  
But for all this T.C. seeth not, why it may not be referred to Elders, meaning Lay-Elders, as well as too BB: meaning Ministers. But say I, you must see that Lay-Elders not only may, but must necessarily be understood in this place, or else it is absurdly alleged by you to prove them. Yes, he and the Author of the counter poison will prove, that they are meant here: for the word Elders is set down generally signifying as well Lay-Elders as Ministers, therefore Paul and Barnabas ordained Lay-Elders as well as Ministers. To the consequence I first answer, that if Elders were a general name comprising more sorts than one, and if Luke had said, that they ordained all sorts of Elders, this consequence would have held: for from the Genus universally taken, we may affirmatively conclude the special sorts. But Luke not speaking so, it is sufficient for the truth of the history, if they ordained any sort of Elders. Now it is confessed of all, that they ordained Ministers, therefore though Elders were the Genus, yet this were a very weak argument. Yea but saith T.C. S. Luke there setteth forth, how they set a full order in the Church: 
Counterpois. arg. 6. for Elders.  and his purpose was saith another to declare how the Apostles brought the Churches to a perfect and full order of Church government, Whereunto I answer first, that the Church might have a perfect and full order of government without them, And secondly that Luke's meaning was not to signify that they brought those Churches to a full and perfect order of government at their first conversion, which was not to be expected; but that now they began to establish Churches, placing among them Presbyters or Ministers, as being necessary for the very being of visible Churches, without mention (I say not of Bishops, who notwithstanding were added before they were brought to the full and perfect order of government, but even) of Deacons.  
The consequence therefore were nought, though the antecedent were true, that is, though Presbyter were the Genus, or general word, signifying as well Lay-Elders as Ministers; for it were only an argument from the Genus to the Species affirmatively. But the antecedent I have before proved to be most false: there being not any testimony to be produced out of scriptures, Counsels, Fathers, or histories of the Church where Presbyter signifieth an Ecclesiastical function in the Church of Christ, doth signify any other but a Minister of the word. And therefore it is absurd to imagine, that Luke Act. 14. doth by Presbyters mean any other than Ministers.  

§ Sect. 11. Iam. 5.14. Counterpois. argum. 5. for Lay-Elder. 1. Tim. 4. 1. Thess. 5.14.  The third testimony, I find not urged any where, but in the counterpoison. Where it is said, that james willing them, when they be weak, to send for the Elders of the Church, thereby plainly declareth, that the Church ought not only to have a pastor and a doctor, whose chief attendance must be on reading exhortation and doctrine; but also many, who ought always to be ready at an instant calling of diverse and many at once, that none in that necessary work be neglected. It followeth thereby that besides them, there ought to be such other Elders as may admonish the unruly, comfort the weak minded, and be patient towards all.  
If all this were granted as it is propounded, it would not follow thereupon, that therefore there should be any Lay-Elders, but many Ministers in every Church: for such were those in the place cited, 
1. Thessa. 5.12.14.  and it is the duty of those, whom james would have sent for, to attend unto reading, doctrine and exhortation.  
But his meaning (no doubt) was this: There aught to be many Elders in every Church, therefore some Lay-Elders. The consequence he taketh for granted: the antecedent he proveth thus. There were many Elders in every Church in S. james time, therefore there ought to be many now.  
For answer to his antecedent and proof thereof, we are to distinguish of the word Church. For if thereby he mean the Church of a whole city and country adjoining, there were, and are many Presbyters in every Church: but if thereby he mean every several congregation, meeting, or assembly of Christians: there neither are, nor were many Presbyters appointed to every such Church. In S. james time, though in each Church there were diverse assemblies of Christians meeting as they could; yet were not parishes distinguished, nor Presbyters severally and certainly allotted to them; but to the Church of a whole city and country adjoining, there was one Bishop, and many Presbyters provided. But when parishes were distinguished, to each of them severally a Presbyter was assigned out of the Clergy or Presbytery of the city; the residue of the Presbyters remaining with the Bishop, who (as before the division of parishes) retained still the charge of the whole Diocese, as I will God willing show in the next book. Wherefore, though in S. james time, before the division of parishes, there were in every Church (that is Diocese) many Presbyters; yet it doth not follow, that therefore in every parish there should be diverse Presbyters.  
But his consequence is especially to be insisted upon: for though there were in each Church many Presbyters, as at Ephesus Act. 20. and at jerusalem where james himself was Bishop Act. 15. &. 21. of which number james would have the weak to send for some; yet in that number there was not one, who was not a Minister. Neither can any sound reason be alleged, why we should conceive these Presbyters, of whom james speaketh, to have been any other than Ministers. First the title which is given them, viz: Presbyters of the Church as Act. 20.17. is peculiar to Ministers, not one instance to be given to the contrary. Secondly, the function, for the performance whereof they were to visit the sick, chiefly, if not only pertaining to Ministers, and that was not only to pray over the party, and that (as it seemeth by the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) with imposition of hands, 
Bez. in jam. 5.  but also to anoint him with the oil in the name of the Lord, that by the oil, as an outward, though temporary Sacrament, annexed to the temporary gift of healing, granted for a time not only to the Apostles, 
Mar. 6.13.  but also to their successors in the ministery of the word, the sick might be restored to health; and by prayer joined with imposition of hands, the sins of the party might be remitted, and so the cause of the sickness be removed.  
Wherefore I make no question, but the speech of Saint james is to be understood, according to the perpetual use of the word, the general interpretation of all writers both old and new, 
Zanch. de relig pag. 168.  (excepting not all that be parties in the cause,) and the general and continual practice of the Church, expounding him, as if he had said, let him call for the Ministers, etc.  

§ Sect. 12. Rom. 12.8. Counterpoison. arg. 2. for Elders.  The fourth testimony is thus urged. If the Apostle setting down the ordinary members of Christ his Church, which differ in their proper action, do set down the Elder to be over the people with diligence, and not to be occupied in the ministery of the word either by exhortation or doctrine, but to admonish them and rule them; then the onely-governing Elders were ordained by the Apostles: but the first say they is manifest, Rom. 12.6.7.8. therefore the second.  
But the first, say I, is so far from being manifest, that it cannot so much as obscurely be gathered out of the text. It is true, the Apostle speaketh of the members of the body of Christ, and of the diverse gifts bestowed upon them, which the Apostle exhorteth every one knowing his proportion, or measure, in all humility and modesty to employ to the common good of the whole body. But you must understand, First, that the members of Christ are not only officers in the state Ecclesiastical, but all Christians whatsoever, as well in the body politic, as Ecclesiastic, whether public or private. Secondly, that the Apostle doth not speak of distinct offices which are not coincident to the same persons, but of the diverse gifts, and graces of God's spirit: 
Rome 12.6.  for so he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, &c: having diverse gifts according to the grace which is given unto us, of which all or most may concur in the same subject. As for example, a good and faithful Minister, hath as a Minister: First, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the gift of expounding the scriptures and of prayer, Secondly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a function to Minister and serve God in the edification of the church, Thirdly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the gift of Teaching. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the gift of Exhortation: 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the gift of government: and as a good Christian. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: the grace to distribute, and to communicate to to the necessities of his brethren, in simplicity and cheerfulness. 3. That these gifts are not proper to Ecclesiastical persons, 
See D. B●lson, Pag. 137, 138.  but common to others.  
But if the Apostle had here propounded distinct offices, than might 7. be distinguished, and those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or in-compatible in the same person. But neither are there according to these branches. 7. distinct offices; And beside, they are, or may be all, or divers of them, coincident to the same person. As for Lay-Elders, they are neither particular, lie expressed, nor in the general implied. The speech is general, he that governeth, in diligence, appartaining to all, that have authority, not only in the church, but also in the family or commonwealth. Indeed, if it were presupposed, (which will never be proved by them, nor granted by us) that among governors, Lay-Elders had a place in the primitive church; then this general might particularly be applied to them, after this manner; all governors ought to be diligent, therefore they. But seeing there were none such, for men to argue from the general, to a feigned special, and that affirmatiuè, in this manner; the Apostle speaketh of governors, therefore of Lay-Elders: It is an argument like all the rest, not worth the answering.  
Yea, but the disputer allegeth Calvin, who in his institutions affirmeth that this place cannot be otherwise understood. 
Lib. 4. c. 4. Sect. 8.  I would be loath to contest with Calvin, whose name is reverend, and whose memory is blessed. Nevertheless, it is evident by that which hath been said, that it may and ought otherwise to be expounded.  
Yea Calvin himself confesseth elsewhere, that howsoever this place do seem especially to be understood of Ecclesiastical Governors or Seniors; 
Inst. li. 4. c. ●● § Sect. 4.  tamen dubium non est, quin omne iustae prefecturae genus nobis commendet; Yet it is not to be doubted but that the Apostle doth commend unto us all kinds of just government.  

In Rome: 12.8.  And again, although properly he call the Church-governors, and namely the Seniors, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, notwithstanding what he saith of them, may universally be extended to governments of all sorts. By Caluins own confession therefore, the words may generally be understood. And if they may, then also they must. For who shall dare without good warrant, to restrain the general sense of the holy Ghost to one only particular; Especially, that being but a counterfeit; as if the Apostle when he saith, he that governeth, in diligence, had said, let the Lay, or only governing Elders be diligent in their office.  

The countterpois. Beza de presbyt: & excomm. 113.  Yea but the Apostle speaketh of such a Governor, as might neither teach nor exhort: and therefore being neither Pastor nor Doctor, it must needs be the only governing Elder. Of this Enthymeme both the antecedent is false, and the consequence unsound. For if the Apostle speak of such a Governor, as might not teach, nor exhort, then neither distribute, nor show mercy; and by the same reason, the teacher, and exhorter, of whom he spoke before, may not govern.  
But as I said, the Apostle doth not speak of distinct offices, but of diverse gifts, which many times concur in the same person. So that, as he that teacheth and exhorteth, may also govern, and distribute: so he that governeth, as the Pastor, may teach and exhort, and not only he, but the Father is to teach and exhort his children, the master his family; yea, 
Coll. 3.16. Heb. 3.13.  private Christians are to instruct and exhort one another. Neither doth it follow, if he which governeth be neither a Pastor nor Doctor, that straightways he should be an only governing Elder. For husbands, parents, masters, and magistrates, masters of Colleges and hospitals, are governors, though neither Doctors nor Pastors, 
In Tit. 1. sect: 2. contra Rhem. § Sect. 13. 1 Cor. 12.28.  and yet are they no Ecclesiastical Lay-Elders. To conclude, D. Fulke understandeth this place chiefly of Bishops, whom he supposeth here to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Heb: 13.17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
The fifth and last testimony, is thus enforced by them. If God hath set in his Church Governors distinct from the Ministers of the Word, then hath he ordained Lay or only governing Elders. 
Bez. de presbyt: & ex: comm: 113. T. C. lib. 2. part. 2.38. Counterpois: Argum: 3. for Elders. Vers: 27.  But the first is testified by the Apostle, 1. Cor. 12.28. therefore God hath ordained lay or only governing Elders.  
In this Syllogism no part is sound: for first the consequence of the proposition is nought: for by Church as it is taken in the assumption, citing 1. Cor. 12. is meant the whole body of Christ, and by the members of his body, all Christians; among whom God hath established degrees of superiors to govern, and inferiors to obey in all societies, as well in the family & commonwealth, as in the Ecclesiastical state.  
Secondly, the assumption is false: for, although it be true that in Christ's body there are governors occonomical & political distinct from the Ministers; yet Paul doth not in this place testify, that Christ hath set in his Church governors distinct from the Ministers; and much less doth he testify, that in the Church, that is the state Ecclesiastical, he hath ordained governors which are not Ministers. Nay, which is more, the Apostle doth not once mention governors in this text: for it is the fault of the translation, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is helps and governments, to read helpers and governors: it being the purpose of the holy Ghost in all the 12.13. and 14. chapters, to discourse of the diverse gifts wherewith God doth adorn the membes of his Church: & in this context, in the midsts of other gifts, which are expressed in the abstract, he placeth these two, for so he saith, powers, gifts of healing, helps, governments, kinds of tongues. Now it is no better reason to make two distinct offices of helpers and governors out of these words, then to raise three others out of the other three, powers, gifts of healing and kinds of tongues. But it were ridiculous to make three distinct offices of these three; so is it of the other. And if the other three are to be accounted as gifts, and not as offices; why should we not so conceive of helpings and governing, that is to say, the gift of helping and governing? Yea I say further, that although in the beginning of the verse, the Apostle doth reckon three offices, Apostles, Prophets, Teachers: yet his purpose was not exactly to distinguish Ecclesiastical functions, but to enumerate the diverse gifts of God's spirit, 
Eph. 4.11.  wherewith the members of Christ's body are adorned, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for the common good of the body: Some being honoured with the gift of the Apostleship, some with the gift of Prophecy, some with the gift of teaching; some with the gift of working miracles, 
Chrysost. 1. Cor. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts. 20.35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  some with the gift of healing diseases; some with the gift of helping and relieving those that be distressed, as chrysostom expoundeth it, and as the word is used, Act: 20. some with the gift of governing, some with the gift of tongues.  
For if the Apostle had meant in this place to distinguish the Functions and Offices of the Church: then from this Text should eight distinct offices be collected; neither should these gifts have been coincident into the same persons; so that teachers might not govern, and governors might not teach, 
Oecum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  etc. whereas chose, it is evident, that the Apostles had all these gifts, as chrysostom also saith: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Prophets and Teachers had divers of them, etc.  
It is plain therefore, that the Apostle did not distinguish the offices of the Church, but orderly recount the gifts and graces, wherewith the Lord doth beautify divers members of the Church.  
And whereas the Corinthians were proud of their gift of tongues, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost: in 1. Cor: 12. 1. Cor: 12.31. & 14.1.3. In 1. Cor. 12.  and despised others; the Apostle showeth that among all these gifts which he reckoneth, that of tongues deserveth the last place: And therefore exhorteth them to be zealous of the better gifts, chiefly to follow after love, and to covet after spiritual gifts, but among them to desire, rather to prophecy, that is to preach, then to speak with tongues.  
And whereas the holy Ghost doth marshal in order the gifts of God, according to their worthiness, saying: First, second, third: if by helps he should mean Deacons, and by governments Elders, then must we hold Deacons to be preferred before Elders, which will not be granted. If any man doubt whether helps and governments are to be accounted gifts, chrysostom may resolve him: who as of the former he saith, that is in especial manner the gift of God, so also of the latter, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be fit to govern, and to administer spiritual things: and he addeth, that our duties are called Gods gifts, to teach us, that our ability in performance of our duty, is the gift of God. So Oecumenius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which also he calleth a gift, though it require our labour also and industry.  
Nazianzen also reckoneth them among the graces of the spirit. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  For the spirit (saith he) is one, but the graces are not equal, nor yet the receptacles of the spirit. For to one, by the spirit is given the word of Wisdom and contemplation; to another, the word of knowledge or revelation; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  to another, firm & undoubted faith; to another, the inoperations of powers, & high wonders; to another, the gifts of healing▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, helps, that is, Presidencies▪ or Patronages; governments, that is, Poedagogies of the flesh, kinds of tongues, interpretations of tongues.  
I am not ignorant, 

Ambros: in 1. Cor: 12. A-Apostolos] ipsi Episcopi sunt.  
Theodoretus Eccleesiarun administrationes per haec significavit.  
Anselm: Th: Aquin: Dyonisius, Carthus: N. Lyranus. in 1. Cor: 12.   that some before our time have understood diverse of these members to have been Ecclesiastical functions. But yet their exposition wholly agreeth with the government of our Church, not with the pretended discipline. For by Apostles, they understand, not only the 12. Apostles, but their successors also in the government of the Church, that is to say, the Bishops; and by helps, they understand them, who help the Bishops in the government of the church, as the Deans and Archdeacon's; and by governments, the governors or rectors of several parishes.  
These with 1. Tim: 5.17▪ are the testimonies of Scripture, which usually be alleged by the patrons of the presbytery, not one of them almost either omitting any of them, or adding any other. 
* Ad pag: 5●  So that this Disputer might truly conclude, that this is the strength, and indeed all the strength they have out of the Scriptures. Which how strongly or strangely rather, they have concluded for the Lay-Elders, it doth sufficiently appear to them, that have not either a strong prejudice, or a weak judgement. Assuredly, if the Fathers be no stronger for them, than the Scriptures, then is the cause of the Lay-Elders very weak and languishing.   

CHAP. XI. Answering the Allegations out of the Fathers, for Lay-Elders.  
OF the Fathers he also braggeth, as he did before of the Scriptures. But in the upshot, all the force of his arguments, either out of Scriptures or Fathers, relieth upon the authority of certain new writers, who are the most, & almost all of them, parties in the cause. Which is a kind of arguing, devised to retain the unlearned in their former opinion; that because so many late Divines understand the Scriptures and Fathers, according to their received opinions, they may be confirmed therein.  
But is not this a strange kind of reasoning: Ignatius, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, (which are all the Fathers he nameth, & but nameth, as though with their names he hoped to overcome us) give testimony to Lay-Elders; therefore Lay-Elders were in use in the primitive church: & when we quietly grant this consequence, & only desire them to prove the antecedent: Is it not strange, I say, that this disputer should not produce the testimonies themselves, & endeavour by necessary evidence to demonstrate, that they are to be understood as speaking of Lay-Elders? but to bring in a sort of new writers, the most whereof are parties, to depose, that these, ancient Fathers say as they would have them.  
Did they hear them say so, or did they read their writings? If they read their testimonies; are they the same which we have in print, or some special manuscripts, which yet are not come to light? if such, why are they not produced? If their testimonies be upon public record, & in print, why should not we examine the records themselves, & trust to our own eyes and judgements, rather than to the opinions of them, who are partial in the cause? Or if these new writers had reasons to persuade us, that these Fathers do speak for Lay-Elders, why are not their reasons produced?  
By your leave, I will produce their testimonies for you. And because it pittyeth me the to see well-meaning people abused (I had almost said gulled) with glorious shows: I will let them see, that not any one testimony, which you do use to produce out of the Fathers, doth conclude for Lay-Elders.  
And first, 
§ Sect. 2. The testimonies of Ignatius answered.  as touching Ignatius, whom he first nameth: because his testimonies were (belike) too hot to be handled▪ yet, he putteth him off fairly, saying that hereafter he will show how he is to be understood, when he cometh to answer my quotations out of him.  
But I quote him not in the question of Elders, but among my proofs for Bishops. And if he have no stronger proofs out of Ignatius for elders, than the selfsame that I allege for Bishops, may you not think that he is very strong for them? The truth is, he perceived they were too weak to be urged by him as an opponent, and therefore chose to speak to them as an answerer, hoping to persuade the simple reader, that Lay-Elders are sufficiently proved by Ignatius his testimony, if they be not disproved thereby, as hereafter you shall hear.  
T. C. and after him the author of the counterpoison, 
Lib: 2. part: 2.45. H.I. pag: 67, Protestat. out of Sc. 41. Ad Trallian. Ad Trall.  the demonstrator of discipline, & almost who not? cite this sentence of Ignatius. There is no Church which can stand without her Eldership or counsel. Unto which, H.I. addeth 2. more, out of his epistles to them of Tarsus & Smyrna. In the 1. of these Epistles, Ignatius saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, be subject to the Bishop as to the Lord: & a little after, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & to the Presbyters, as to the Apostles of jesus Christ our hope. Of the Deacons in the next words he saith, that they be ministers of the mysteries of Christ jesus, and not of meat and drink. A reason of the former speech he rendereth in these words, the Bishop is the type of the Father of all, the Presbyters are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Consistory of God, and a band or College of the Apostles of Christ. Then followeth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without these, that is, BB. Presbyters, Deacons, no elect Church is, no holy congregation, no assembly of Saints.  
This testimony proveth, that as each Church had a Bishop and Deacons, so also Presbyters and a presbytery. But what manner of presbyters they were, it appeareth: 1. by the Bishops and Deacons, between whom they are usually ranged by Ignatius, as the second degree of the Clergy, willing the Laymen to be subject to the Deacons, the Deacons to the Presbyters, the Presbyters to the Bishop, 
Ah Smyrn.  and the Bishop to Christ: which by the way is H. I. third testimony, and in effect the same with the second. 
Ad Tarsens: Ad Philadelp   
And again, let the Presbyters, and the Deacons, and the rest of the Clergy, together with all the people, be obedient to the Bishop.  
By which it is plain, they had not in those times, either Lay-Elders, or Lay-Deacons: For the very Deacons are by him called the ministers of Christ unto the word of God, and ministers of the mysteries of Christ.  

Ad Smyrn. Ad Trall.  As for the BB: they were not parish Bishops assisted, according to the new conceit, with Lay-Elders, but BB: of Cities (such as Ignatius himself, who was Bishop of Antioch, the chief City of Syria,) having the assistance of diverse Presbyters, who were Clergy men, or ministers; and so are in express terms reckoned by Ignatius, as one of the degrees of the clergy, whom in the words before alleged, and in other places, he resembleth to the Apostles of Christ, and would have them so obeyed: 

Ad Smyrn. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
ad Maguel. The Senate of the Apostles. Ad Antioch.   exhorting them with the words which Saint Peter useth to ministers, 1. Epist: 5.2. to feed the flock, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  
This is also proved by the universal consent of the most ancient councils, Canons, and Fathers, who in innumerable places, mentioning Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, never conceive of them otherwise then of 3. degrees of the clergy, in that very sense wherein our church doth use & retain them.  
And thus much concerning that most worthy martyr, and Bishop Ignatius: saving, that I would commend a few sentences of his, to this disputer and his consorts. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, be you united to the Bishop, submitting yourselves to God by him in Chirist, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for whosoever are Christ's, they are with the Bishop. And again, do not think that I speak this, as having understood the separation of some, 
(a) Ad Philadelph.  he is witness to me, for whose sake I am bound, that I have not learned this from the mouth of man, 
(b) Ibid. § Sect. 3.  but the spirit hath preached unto me, saying these things, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the Bishop do nothing, love unity, avoid divisions.  
The testimony, which is usually cited out of Tertullian, is in his Apologetico. Where, having said that Christians did use to meet in assemblies and congregations to prayer, and to the hearing of the word, he addeth 
(c) The testimony of Tertulli. apolog. Cap. 39  there are also exhortations, 
(d) T. C. and after him the counter poi●. cite this testimony thus: If there be any that hath committed such a fault that he is to be put away from the partaking of the prayer of the Church, and from all holy matters or affairs: there d● bear rule or be precedents, certain of the most approved ancients or Elders, which have obtained this honour, not by money, but by good report.  chastisements and divine censure: judgement is exercised with great advise, as among those who are certain that God doth see them: and it is a great foreshowing of the judgement to come, if any shall so offend as that he shallbe banished from the communion of prayer, and of the assembly, and of all holy fellowship. President probati quique seniores honorem istum non pretio sed testimonio adepti, the precedents of our meetings are approved Seniors, having obtained this honour, not by reward, but by good report. By which testimony it is apparent, that the same parties were the precedents of the assembly as well in prayer and in the ministery of the word, as in the exercise of discipline and censures. But Ministers and not Lay-elders were precedents and Rulers of the meetings in public prayer and ministery of the word, therefore also in the exercise of discipline. Who these precedents were, Tertullian himself showeth else where, testifying that the Christians received the Sacrament both in the time of their meals, and also in their meetings before day, nec de aliorum manu quam presidentium sumimus Neither do we receive it at the hands of any others then of our precedents. On which words Beatus Rhenanus writeth thus, Presidentes voc at presbyteros etiam alibi, the Presbyters he calleth precedents also in another place, and quoteth the place alleged out of the Apologeticke. And whereas Tertullian imagined (though erroneously) that the husband of a second wife could not be a Bishop or Minister, 
(e) De c●rona militis.  his opinion he vttere●▪ in these words, how derogatory from faith, 
Lib. 1. ad uxorem.  and how opposite to piety second marriages are, the discipline of the Church and the prescript of the Apostle doth declare, come digamos non sivit presidere, when it doth not suffer twice married men to be precedents that is Ministers. And whereas the Catholics, 
De Monogamia: quem librum scripsit adversus Ecclesiam. Hierom. in Catalogue.  whom he endeavoureth to refute, understood that rule of the Apostle as peculiar to Bishops & Ministers, he chargeth them also with the breach thereof even in that sense. Quot enim & ex digamiae president apud vos, insultantes utique apostolo? for how many after their second marriage are precedents among you, even insulting over the Apostle and blush not when these things are read before them? It is plain therefore, that the Seniors which were precedents in the assemblies of Christians, of whom Tertullian speaketh, were Ministers, whatsoever some new writers whom he quoteth, do say to the contrary. For whereas among others who were parties in the cause, he quoteth B. jewel, who indeed is no party, I answer, if he have alleged the rest no better than him, (as for my part I mean not to search, especially seeing the chief of his Authors are quoted at Random,) he will gain the opinion of a notable falsifier of Authors. 
Pag. 649.  Harding blamed the translator of the Apology into English, for translating Presbyteri Elders and not Priests; 
Pag. 650.  The translation Bishop jewel defendeth, saying that Presbyter a Priest is nothing else but Senior, and that a Priest and Elder are both one thing. And whereas Harding affirmed, that Priests and Deacons waited only upon the Bishops but gave no sentence in counsels (which in respect of provincial counsels, is evidently false) he disproveth that assertion. First by Act. 15. 
Pag. 651.  Secondly, by Nicephorus. Thirdly, by this testimony of Tertull●an, precedent probati quique Seniores the judges in such Ecclesiastical assemblies be the best allowed Elders, that is according to Bishop jewels interpretation, Priests, for to that end he citeth the testimony, and before he had said that Senior and Priest is all one.  
D. Whitgift conceiving, as Bishop jewel did, that these Seniors were Ministers; T. C. objecteth, (and it is the only thing he objecteth) that it is incredible, 
Li. 2. part. 2 Pag. 41.  that all the Churches, whose defence Tertullian taketh upon him, and whose usage he doth describe, had such a college of Seniors that were Ministers. Whereunto the answer is easy, that Tertullian speaketh of the Churches in cities, in which only were Presbyteries (unto which the parishes of the country adjoining, so soon as there were any, were subject) and those wholly consisting of Minister's. Neither can any testimony or example be alleged, either of Presbyters that were not Ministers, or of Presbyteries in villages or country parishes.  
As touching Cyprian: 
§ Sect. 4. The testimony of Cyprian answered.  the disputer might have cited some testimony, or at least quoted some place in his writings, before he had laboured to prove what was his meaning. But his concealing of the place itself, and his producing of witnesses (who are all parties) to depose that Cyprian speaketh for Lay-Elders, is a plain argument that he trusteth to his witnesses, more than to Cyprian himself. For my part, I know not what place he meaneth: if he will approve his sincerity, let him name one place if he can, which even in his own conscience doth seem indeed to make for Lay-Elders. 
Demonstr. c. 12. H. I. pag. 67.  The Demonstrator of discipline and H. I. in his book though they take together such testimonies of the Fathers as they thought favoured Lay-Elders; yet they durst not mention Cyprian, as reposing any of their strength in his testimony.  
T. C. citeth Cyprian, as noting a piece of the office of these Elders by dividing the communion bread into equal portions, 
Lib. 2. part. 2.42. Cypr. lib. 4. epist. 5.  and carrying it for the assistance of the Bishop in little baskets or trays, where by placing their office in this assisting the Minister, he doth manifestly shut them out from the ministering of the Sacrament, &c: whereof also it cometh that in another place he calleth them brethren which had care of the basket. 
Li. 1. epist. 9 Sportulantes fratres.   
When I consider T. C. his learning and professed piety, I cannot sufficiently wonder at his allegations out of the Fathers, 
Li. 4. epist. 5.  and at this among the rest. Cyprian, being himself absent in time of persecution, writeth to the Presbyters, Deacons and people of Carthage, signifying that he and some other Bishops (whom he calleth his colleagues) had received Celerinus, and Aurelius, two notable young men into the Clergy, and ordained them Lectores Readers, with purpose, that when they should be of age, to ordain them Presbyters. In the mean time, know ye saith he, that we have already designed to them honorem Presbyterij, the honour of Priesthood, ut sportulis ijsdem cum. Presbyteris honorentur that they may be honoured with the wages (or as it was afterwards called canonical portion) equal with Presbyters, sessuri nobiscum, being hereafter to fit with us (namely as Presbyters) when they shallbe grown in years. And that this was Cyprians meaning, the other place by him cited doth prove. For whereas one Geminius Victor had by his will named Faustinus a Presbyter to be a tutor or guardian; 
Li. 1. epist. 9  Cyprian doth reprove it as contrary, not only to the Canons of the Church, but also to the word of God, which would have none that is a Soldier to God to be entangled with worldly business. 
2. Tim. 2.4.  To which purpose he allegeth the example of the levites, who for the same cause had no possession like the other tribes. The which manner and form saith he, is still retained in the Clergy, that they who in the Church of God are preferred to the order of Clerks, should by no means be called away from the divine administration, nor be tied to worldly cumbers and employments, said in honore sportulantium fratrum tanquam decimas ex fructibus accipientes, but that receiving the honour of brethren, who have wages of the Church, as it were tithes of fruits, they should not depart from the Altar and service of God. Those, 
Duaren. de sacr. eccls minist. & b●n. lib. 1. c. 18. C. de sacro. cccl l. placet. etc. Lib. 3. epist. 14. & 15.  whom he calleth sportulantes fratres, were afterwards called Canonici, a Canon, that is from the ordinary and certain pension or prebend which was allotted to them.  
And where he saith the Presbyters were excluded from ministering the communion, it is apparent in the writings of Cyprian, that usually they did administer that Sacrament, and in diverse of his Epistles are reproved by him, for giving the communion to some, which had fallen in time of persecution, without his consent.  
The Author of the Counterpoison citeth another testimony of Cyprian, 
Lib. 3. epist. 22.  writing to the Presbyters and Deacons, signifying unto them, that in the want of diverse of the Clergy, he had ordained new. 
Clero proximos.  Know ye saith he that I have made Satyrus' Reader, and Optatus subdeacon, whom we heretofore had made next the Clegie, when either to Satyrus' on Easter-day we granted once or twice leave to read, or when with the Presbyters Doctors Readers we appointed Optatus the Teacher of the hearers, 
Doctorem audientium.  examining whether all things did agree to them, which ought to be in those who are prepared for the Clergy. Where, because Presbyters are mentioned as distinct from Doctors, (which he supposeth to be Ministers) and Readers, he inferreth they were Lay-Elders. To omit his mistake, and not understanding the place, it is evident that Doctores audientium were Catechists, 
Theod. Balsam. in Conc. Nenocaess. c. 5. & Ancyr. c. 20. Niceph li. 5. c. 4.  (for audientes were the inferior rank of Catechumeni) who were so far from being chief in the Clergy next to the Bishop as Presbyters, that Cyprian signifieth, when he and the rest had appointed Optatus doctorem audientium, they had made him next to the Clergy, that is at the next election to be chosen into the Clergy, examining whether all things did agree to him which ought to be in them who are prepared for the Clergy. Neither should this seem strange, seeing Origen was Catechist at Alexandria, when he was but eighteen year old: Who afterwards coming into Palaestina, was permitted by the Bishops there, publicly to expound the scriptures. Which when Demetrius the Bishop of Alexandria understood, by letters he reproved those Bishops; 
Euseb. lib. 6. c. 20. Niceph. l. 5. c. 14.  ask them, if ever it were heard, that Laymen, such as Origen then was, should preach in the presence of Bishops. Therefore the distinction of Presbyters from such Teachers, doth not prove that themselves were not Ministers.  
Such Teachers in Alexandria after Origen, were Dionysius and Heraclas; whom notwithstanding, the Presbyters, who till then were wont to choose their Bishop out of their own order, 
Hier. adevagrium.  elected Bishops, as hereafter we shall show. But what manner of Seniors the Presbyters were, whom Cyprian so often mentioneth, may sufficiently appear by this one testimony, where he saith, 
Li. 3. epist. 1.  cum episcopo Presbyteri sacerdotali honore coniuncti, the Presbyters were joined with the Bishop in the honour of Priesthood.  
What other allegations they have out of Cyprian worth the answering, I know not. But this I protest, that I have read over Cyprian, having always an eye to this present question; but I never met with any one testimony, that (in my poor judgement) did seem to sound for Lay-Elders.  

Pag. 11.  As for those other places, which are in a petition directed to Q. Elizabeth, 
Pag. 41.  and in a protestation which lately came out of the North, quoted out of Cyprian, and other ancient writers; 
Perpet. govern. Chap. 11.  I find them all more than sufficiently answered by the learned and reverend B. Bilson, to whom I refer the Reader, having myself insisted longer on this question then at the first I intended.  

Ad pag. 52.  Neither will I vouchsafe an answer to his new supply, either of testimonies of new writers (though I know some of them to be falsified) or examples of other reformed Churches, whereby he seeketh to blear the eyes of the simple. For if this cause were to be tried by plurality of voices for witness to the truth, or of examples for practise of it, who knoweth not, that we are able to oversway them without comparison, no writer till our age giving testimony, no Church since the Apostles times until this present age giving approbation to Lay-Elders; but all writers and Churches before our time, giving testimony and approbation to the government of Bishops.  
To omit that as in the number of learned men we are not inferior, so in the multitude of Churches at this day, which do not admit the Lay-Elders, 
Lib. 4. c. ult.  we are far superior, as hereafter shallbe showed.  
And thus much I hope will suffice for the first point.  
FINIS.   

LONDON Imprinted by Thomas Creed. 1611.    

THE SECOND BOOK, PROVING That the Primitive Churches, endued with Power of Ecclesiastical Government, 
The second point of the 5.  were not Parishes properly but Dioceses; 
The 3. point.  And that the Angels of the Churches, or ancient Bishops were not Parishional, but Diocesan Bishops.  

The First Chapter entreating of the divers acceptations of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Church, Diocese, and that which is translated, Parish.  
IN this second conflict I find the Refuter very confident, like the men of Ai, (though not upon the like occasion) as though my forces were not able to stand before him. But forasmuch as in the former assault I have taken the Acropolis & chief hold of the Presbyterian Discipline, I doubt not, but that when he shall with the men of Ai look back, and see the chief Tower of his defence, I mean the Presbytery, vanishing as it were a smoke, his courage will be abated. For the Presbytery being down, what hath he wherewith to hold out Bishops? For seeing the Primitive Churches were governed either by Diocesan Bishops, as we hold, or by Pastors of Parishes, assisted with Lay-Elders as they imagine, who seeth not that upon the overthrow of the Presbyteries, the government by Bishops is necessarily inferred? Having therefore proved the first point of the five, with such evidence of truth, as I am well assured all the gainsayer thereof will never be able sound and substantially to confute, I need not doubt of prevailing in the rest. As for the 2. next points which I handle, concerning Dioceses, and Diocesans; the refuter thinketh they be the weakest of all the five, 
Pag. 53.  and the worst appointed, and thereupon would take occasion to cavil at my order, (as if I were to learn Method of him) whereas indeed his imputation of weakness to these 2. parts, if it were true, would commend my disposition of them as Homerical, seeing I have marshaled them Nestorio more, after the manner of Nestor, in medio infirma, placing the weakest in the midst. The chiefest points in my estimation being the first, and the two last. The truth is, I did more lightly pass over these two than the rest, but not out of an opinion of weakness in the points themselves, but partly in a conceit of their evidence, and partly in consideration that they were not either so worthy or so needful to be insisted upon as the rest. For first, I supposed them to be so evident, that howsoever T. C. in whose steps our new Disciplinarians tread, upon weaker grounds than a man of learning & judgement should have stood upon, doth deny them; yet scarcely any other man of learning & judgement besides him would gainsay them. Secondly, that the three weightiest points which are most contradicted, and in which these 2. are presupposed, were most worthy in that brevity (whereto I was confined) to be stood upon. And thirdly, that I needed not to be so careful in proving of them, seeing the chiefest patrons of the pretended Discipline, as Calvin and Beza, etc. do herein join with us against our new sect of Disciplinarians, as hath already been proved.  
Now whereas I brought forth these forces, intending only a light skirmish, & velitationem quandam tanquam levis armaturae; my adversary bringeth his main battle into the field, as if the event of this whole warfare depended upon this encounter. I will therefore not only bring a new supply like those of the Israelites which came upon the men of Ai, as they were pursuing the other companies of Israel; but also cause these Arguments, which now like the troops of Israel seem in his conceit to fly before him, to return upon him a fresh.  
And forasmuch as here we are to entreat of Churches, 
§. 2. How the word Ecclesia is taken in the Scriptures.  Parishes, and Dioceses, it shall not be amiss to begin with the names which are diversly taken. And first with the word Ecclesia; which signifying generally 
a Act. 19.32.39.40. Psal. 22.23. & 26.5.12. & 149.1. Nehem. 5.7. in the Greek translation. , any assembly, company or congregation of men whatsoever, civil or ecclesiastical, holy or profane, is in all the places of the new Testament (excepting Act. 19) appropriated to the Companies of the faithful. For whereas all mankind is to be divided into two Companies; the one is the world, which is the kingdom of darkness, containing many particular companies which are all the Synagogues of Satan, the other, the Kingdom of God; this latter is called Ecclesia, signifying a Company of men as redeemed, so also called out of the world, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  as the Greek word importeth. Ecclesia therefore is a company of men called out of the world unto salvation by Christ, that is to say more briefly, the Church doth signify a company of Christians.  
And thus it is used in the Scriptures either more 

Generally, to signify either the 

Universal company of them that are elected in Christ, or called to be Saints, as Ephes. 1.22. & 3.21. & 5.23. 24.25.27.29, 32. Act 2.47. Colos. 1.18.24.  
The two main parts of the universal Church 

Triumphant in heaven, as Heb. 12 23.  
Militant on earth, as Mat. 16.18. 1. Cor. 12.28. Eph. 3.10. 1. Tim. 3.15, and that either 

dispersed in divers nations and Countries throughout the world, 1. Cor. 10.32. & 15 9 Act. 8.3. Gal 1.13. Phil. 3.6.  
Congregated in an universal or Ecumenical Synod        
Particularly, & that either 

Definitely, to signify the Church of a 

Nation in the number 

Singular. Act. 7 38.  
Plural. Rom. 16.4. 1. Cor. 16.1.19. 2. Co. 8.1. Ga. 1.2.22 

And these either dispersed or congregated into a 

Synod or consistory. 

Mat. 18.17  
Act. 15.22    
Congregation, whether set: or uncertain as 

Act. 11.26. & 14.27. 1. Cor. 11 18 22. & 14.5.12.19 23.28.34.35.3. joh. 6.          
City and Country adjoining. Act. 5.11. & 8.1. & 11.12. & 12.1.5. & 13.1. & 14.23. & 20. 17.28. 1. Cor. 1.2. 2 Co. 1.1. & 8.23. Col 4.16. 2. Thes. 1.1. 1. Tim. 5.16. jam. 5.14. Apoc. 1.4. 11.20. & 2.1.7.8.12.18. & 3.1.7.14.  
Village or town. Rom. 16 1.  
Family, Rom. 16.5. 1. Cor. 16 9 Col. 4.5. Philem. 2.    
Indefinitely, signifying any company of Christians, not defining either the 

Place, Society, whether of a Nation, City, etc. quantity, whether an entire church or but a part, as 

Act. 9 ●1. & 15 3.4.41. & 18.22. Rom. 16.16 23.1. Co. 4.17. & 6.4. & 11.16. & 14. 33. 2. Cor. 8.18.19.24. & ●1 8.28. & 12.13. Phil. 4.15. 1. Thes. 2.14. 2. Thes. 1.4. ●. Tim. 3.5.3. john. 9 10. Apoc. 2.7.17.23.29. & 3.6.13.22. & 22.16.          
The significations of the word Church being so manifold in the Scriptures, 
§. 3. What is to be called a Church.  it may be demanded what is truly and properly a Church upon earth. Whereunto I answer by warrant of the word, that every company of men professing the true faith of Christ, is both truly a Church, and also a true Church. So is the whole company of the faithful upon earth the true Church and spouse of Christ, the pillar and ground of truth.  
So is the company of Christians professing the true faith of Christ in any Nation or part of the world to be termed by the name of a Church. For even as the whole people of Israel professing the true religion, were one Church, though containing very many particular Congregations or Synagogues, which also were so many Churches: even so the whole people of England, professing through God's mercy, the true Catholic and Apostolic faith, is to be called the Church of England. For whereas some allege, that the Church of the jews was one, because it was under one high Priest, who was a figure, and therefore ceased: it is evident that it was one Church, because it was one people or commonwealth, ruled by the same laws, professing the same religion, both before there was one high Priest, and after there were through corruption more than one. Neither was the high Priest in respect of his pre-eminence and government over the priests and people a type of Christ (for then had he, as well as Melchisedeck, been a type of Christ's government and kingly office, as well as of his priesthood, and consequently Christ might have been a priest of the order of Aaron, as well as of Melchisedeck but in respect of his sacrifice for the whole people, and intercession for them, and his entrance alone within the sanctuary, bearing the names of the twelve Tribes: for Christ's government appertaineth to his kingdom, and not to his priesthood.  
Likewise the Christian people of any City and Country adjoining, whether that which we call a province or diocese, though consisting of many particular congregations, is rightly termed a Church, as the Church of jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Smyrna, Sardes, Philadelphia, etc.  
In like manner, the Christian people of one Town or Village, containing but one congregation, which we call a parish, is truly called a church, as perhaps that of Cenchreae. And to conclude, the company of faithful in one family do deserve the name of a Church, as hath been showed. Indeed that any particular Church of a whole Nation, City and Country, Town, Parish, or family, (family I say being alone, and not a part of a congregation, but as an entire Church or parish by itself) may be accounted a true visible Church, there is required besides the profession of the true faith, wherein the life and being of a Church consisteth, the ministry of the word and sacraments, and eutaxy, or some good order of government. Not that all governors are to be placed in every society or Church, but that the effect and benefit of the government is to redound to every particular. For as well might an high Council of State, or Parliament, such as was the synedrion of the jews, which was but one for the whole Nation, be required in every City, and a Mayor and Aldermen (such as be in London and other chief Cities) in every village, as a Bishop and Presbytery in every parish.  

§ 4. Visible Churches not parishes only, H. I. pag. 6.  All which I have the rather noted, because some having first strongly conceited, that there is no true visible Church but a parish, nor lawful church-officers but parishional, have haled the places of Scripture, where Ecclesia is mentioned, to the confirmation of their conceit: and thereupon, as their chief foundation, have built their newfound parish discipline. 
Of the jews there may, so oft as there is mention of their synagogues.  Whereas in very truth, scarce any one testimony of such a congregation of Christians, as we call a parish, can be alleged out of the Scriptures. Indeed at the very first conversion of Cities, the whole number of the people converted (being sometimes not much greater than the number of the Presbyters placed among them) were able to make but a small congregation. But those Churches were in constituting, they were not fully constituted, until their number being increased, they had their Bishop or Pastor, their Presbytery and Deacons; without which Ignatius saith, there was no Church: meaning no accomplished or fully constituted Church. Neither was the Bishop and the Presbytery, which at the first was placed in any City, provided only for that set number which was already converted; but they were there placed for the conversion of the whole City and country thereto belonging: their ministry being like to the leaven put into three pecks of meal, which by degrees seasoneth the whole lump. Neither was it meant, that the whole number of Christians of each City and territory, being much increased, should continue but one particular ordinary congregation assembling in one place; but that upon the multiplication of Christians, division should be made of the whole Church into divers particular congregations, which after happened in all Churches accordingly. But upon this division, there was not to every several congregation allotted a Bishop and a Presbytery, but only several Presbyters assigned, singuli singulis, some of the Presbyters continuing with the Bishop. The Bishop himself remaining, as it was first intended, and as the Church of God every where throughout the world expounded that intent, by their practice, the Pastor or superintendant of the whole City and country adjoining. Neither are all the Disciplinarians in the world able to show, that there were, or aught to have been, after the division of parishes and assignment of several Presbyters unto them, any more than one Bishop and one Presbytery for a whole diocese. But of this more hereafter.  
In the mean time, 
§ 5. The acceptation of the words, ecclesia, etc. in the ancient Writers.  having showed that the use of the word Ecclesia in the Scriptures doth not savour their conceit, who imagine there is no true Church, but a parish, the word signifying (according to the usual phrase of the holy Ghost) any company of Christians, whether great or small; I am now to declare the use of the word Ecclesia, paroecia, dioecesis, (which are commonly translated, Church, parish, diocese,) in ancient Writers. Where I am to note, that setting aside the general signification of the word Ecclesia, signifying either the whole Church in general, or the two main parts of it in heaven and earth: in which sense paroecia and dioecesis are not used, as also the largest signification of dioecesis, containing the whole circuit of a patriarchal and archiepiscopal jurisdiction, (as the diocese of the Patriarch of Alexandria contained all Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, the diocese of Antioch, the East Countries, etc.) In which sense, the word paroecia is not used, setting aside I say these large significations of ecclesia and dioecesis: otherwise these three words, ecclesia, paroecia, and dioecesis, are for the most part used as words of the same signification. For as in the singular number, commonly each of them doth signify a diocese, excepting wherein the distribution of the diocese paroecia is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for then only it signifieth the city and suburbs, and excepting where some addition restraineth the word paroecia or ecclesia, to the signification of a parish, as ecclesia or paroecia cui presbyter praest: so in the plural, if they be referred to one diocese, they signify parishes, or some parts of the diocese (though with this difference, that dioceses do note Parishes only in the Country, but ecclesia and paroecia, commonly, as well those in the City, as in the country) but referred to whole Nations, or larger parts of the world, they signify dioceses.  
But I will speak of them severally, 
The acceptations of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, paroecia.  beginning with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 paroecia: the rather because our Refuter, and others of his feather, finding in Eusebius the Churches of jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, etc. to be termed paroeciae, straightways conclude, that they were such Churches as we call parishes. Which, if they write as they think, is a very unlearned collection. For whereas the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is diversly used, sometimes with reference to a Bishop, sometimes with relation to a Presbyter; in the signification of a parish, it is never used as the whole Church, subject to the Bishop, but in that sense is either referred to one Presbyter, as his proper charge: or if it be referred to the Bishop, it doth signify but one parish among many belonging to his Bishopric. But most usually, and almost always in ancient Writers, yea and many times, both in those of the middle, and also of the latter age, it is taken either for the whole diocese, or for the city and suburbs; whereto as the Bishops see, the rest of the diocese doth appertain.  
And because my adversary shall not say I speak without book, 
§. 6. Paroecia betokening a Bishop's charge, doth signify a diocese.  I will bring pregnant testimonies to make good my assertion. First therefore, whereas one 
a Can. Apost. 14.  of the ancient Canons, called the Apostles, forbiddeth a Bishop to leave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his own charge, and to leap into another: and whereas Eusebius the author of the ecclesiastical history, being the Metropolitan Bishop of Caesarea, and much importuned to remove to Antioch, which at that time was the seat of the third patriarch, refused that offer: Constantine 
b Euseb. l. 3. de vit. Constantini, pag. 146.  the great doth greatly commend him for keeping 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Apostolic canon. Which canon the Council of Nice hath reference unto, when it saith 
c Conc. Nic. c. 15.  that Bishop's removing from one City to another, or as we speak, from one See to another, did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, contrary to the Canon. The meaning therefore of the Canon forbidding a Bishop to remove from one paroecia to another, was to forbid him to remove from one Diocese to another. The council of Antioch, speaking to the same purpose, retaineth the same words, forbidding a Bishop 
d Conc. Antioc. c. 21.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be translated from one paroecia to another▪ Where it were absurd to understand the council as speaking of a parish, because this council being latter than the council of Nice, it is evident that at that time, there were not only Bishops of Dioceses, and metropolitans over Provinces▪ but also patriarchs dividing among them the Christian world. And to the same purpose, the council of Sardica 
e Epist. synod. Sardic. apud Theodor. l. 2. c. 8.  noting the breach of these canons, among other unlawful practices of the Arians, expresseth it in these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, translations from less Cities to greater paroecias, that is, dioceses, or bishoprics In the same Council it is decreed 
f Con. Sard. c. 15. , that if any Bishop will ordain in any degree of the clergy, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, out of another paroecia, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Minister belonging to another Bishop, without the consent of his own Bishop, the ordination shall be void. The counsels 
g Conc. Ancyr. c. ●8. Conc. Antioch. c. 18. Martin. Brac c●a●, Capil. synod. gr. c. 10. e●. 12.  of Ancyra and Antioch speaking of Bishops, the one, not received 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the paroecia, or diocese, the other, not accepting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the paroecia or bishopric unto which he was ordained, most plainly by paroecia understand the charge of a Diocesan Bishop. Epiphanius 
h Epiph. epist. ad joan. Hierosol. apud Hieronym. t. 2.  excusing himself to john the Bishop of jerusalem, who was offended with him, for that he had, as was supposed, ordained a Presbyter in his diocese, answereth among other things, that divers Bishops had ordained in his diocese, without his offence. Yea, he had exhorted Philo & Theoprobus, two Bishops, that in the Churches of Cyprus, which were near to them, ad mea autem paroeciae videbantur ecclesiam pertinere, eo quod grandis esset et lat a provincia, ordinarent presbyteros, et Christs ecclesiae providerent, but seemed, faith he, to belong to the Church of my paroecia, that is, Bishopric, they would, because it was a great and large province, ordain Presbyters, and provide for the Church of Christ. Where it is testified, that the Churches throughout a large Province, were but part of his paroecia, that is, diocese.  

§ 7. The like use of the word in later times.  But I will descend to latter times, wherein it was provided, that a Bishop of another City 
i Conc. Aruern tempore Pelag. c. 9 , should not contrary to the canons, invade parochiam cuiuslibet episcopi, the paroeciae, meaning diocese of any other Bishop. The third Council of Toledo 
k Conc. Toletan. 3 tempore Pelag. c. 3.  hath these words; Si quid episcopi ecclesiis ad svam parochiam pertinentibus dederint, etc. If Bishops shall give any thing to Churches belonging to their paroecia, that is, Bishopric. Gregory the Great when he would signify, that the ancient canons commanded that provincial synods should be held twice a year, saith 
l Lib. 7. epist. 110. , they had taken order, de habendis per parochias concilijs. The synod held in England 
m Apud Bedan. in b●st. Angl. l. 4 c. 5. can. 2. .6.  An. 673. decreed, that no Bishop should invade the paroecia of another: and that Bishops and other clergy men, being strangers, may not exercise any priestly function without the leave of the Bishop, in cuius paroecia, in whose diocese they are known to remain. In the Council of Arles 
n Con. Arelat. sub Carolo Madge c. 17. , it was ordained, that once a year every Bishop should go about parochiam suam, that is, his diocese. The Council of Mentz 
o Conc. Mogunt. c. 31.  appoint, that every Bishop in sua parochia, that is, in his own diocese, should make diligent inquiry, whether there were any Presbyters or Deacons therein, that belonged to another Bishop, that they might be returned to him. In the Council of Rhoan 
p Conc. Rotho▪ mag. c. 6. , the Bishop is forbidden principalem cathedram s●ae parochia negligere, to neglect the Cathedral Church or chief seat of his paroecia, that is, Bishopric. To conclude, the Council held at Worms 
q Vorm●tien●. c. 62. , forbiddeth Bishops, qu● parochias non habent, which have no charge of their own, to exercise their function, or to ordain in alterius parochia, in the paroecia of another Bishop, without the appointment of the Bishop in ●uius parochia, in whose diocese they be. Whereby it doth evidently appear, that the word paroecia, being attributed to a Bishop, as his whole charge or circuit of his episcopal jurisdiction, doth signify a diocese, consisting of many parishes. And that in Eusebius it is so to be understood, it is most manifest, because he calleth great Churches, after the division of them into many parishes, not only in the Country, but even in the Cities, by the name of Paroecia. To which purpose, 
That in Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 paroecia signifieth the Diocese.  let us confer a few places in Eusebius, concerning the Church of Alexandria: whereby his meaning, when he speaketh of this argument, will easily appear. For having said, lib. 6. cap. 1. that Laetus was the precedent of Alexandria & the rest of Egypt, he addeth 
r Euseb. l. 6. c. 1.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but the Bishopric of the paroecia or Churches there (in Alexandria and Egypt) Demetrius had lately received. In the eight chapter 
s L. 6. c. 8.  he saith, that Demetrius was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the precedent or Bishop of the paroecia, that is, the Church there. For so he explaineth himself 
t Lib. c. 26.  chap. 26. calling him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Bishop of the Church of the Alexandreans: and what he meaneth by that speech he showeth 
u L. 6. c. 3●.  chap. 35. Where speaking of Dionysius his next successor but one, he useth these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he taketh upon him the Bishopric or charge of being precedent of the Churches belonging to Alexandria. So that when he saith Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the paroecia, or church, his meaning is all one as if he had said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, of such a Bishopric as contained many Churches. And in the same sense he speaketh (though in the plural number) when he mentioneth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. 
Euseb li. 4. c. 15. & l. 5. c. 23 The 2. signification of Paroecia betokening the city or chief seat of the Bishop  the paroeciae or churches of Pontus, the churches of Asia, the paroecia of the holy catholic church. Thus than we see, that in ancient writers the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek, and paroecia (corruptly parochia) in Latin, is usually taken for the whole diocese consisting of many parishes, when it betokeneth a Bishop's whole charge.  
§. 8. Sometimes it signifieth but a part of the Bishopric, as when the whole diocese is divided into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifying the city or chief seat, or see of the Bishop: and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the rest of the diocese in the country or countries thereto belonging. For manifestation whereof, those two places mentioned in the sermon are sufficient. The former is one of the ancient Canons called the Apostles, in these words 
x Can. apost. 34  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. The Bishops of every nantion it behoveth to agnize him that is Primate or first among them, and to esteem him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as their head or chief, and to do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing that exceedeth the bounds of their own charge or jurisdiction, without his consent, and that every one do deal in those things alone, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which belong to his own Paroecia, that is, see or Church & the country's which be subject onto it. Neither may he (that is, the Metropolitan,) do any thing without the consent of all. So shall there be concord, and God shall be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Ghost: Which canon is renewed and explained in the council of Antioch, the canons whereof were part of the ancient code 
y In the Council of Chalcedom Act. 11. the 16. & 17. Canons of the council of Antioch are out of the book of the Canons of Counsels quoted as the 96. & 97. Canon, which showeth that the ancient book agreeth with the edition of Til●us, which reckoning the Apostles Cano●s by themselves alloweth 20. Canons to the Council of Nice, 25. to that of Ancyra, 15. to the Counc. of Neocesaria & 20. to the counc. of Gangra, all which arise to 80. Whereto if you add the canons of the council of Antioch the 16. of that council will be the 96. & the 17. the 97.  or book of canons received in the ancient church, recited some of them in the great council of Chalcedon, and ratified all of them in the general council of Constantinople held in Trullo the emperors Palace. The canon is this: It 
z Conc. Antioch. c. 9  behoveth the BB, of every Province to acknowledge the Metropolitan B. and that he taketh upon him the cure of the whole Province because there is a concourse of all men who have business from all places unto the Metropolis on mother City. Wherefore it hath been thought good or decreed, that he should excel in honour, and that without him the rest of the Bishops should do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nothing exceeding the bounds of their own charge, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to the ancient received Canon of our Fathers, (meaning the afore cited Canon of the Apostles, which it reciteth, as you see, word for word) but those things alone which concern his own Pa●oecia, that is, his own See or City, and the Countries which be under it. For every Bishop hath authority over his own Paroecia, and doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, administer according to the fear (of God) wherewith he is endued, and hath a provident care, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the whole region (or country) which is under his City (using the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, Paroecia and City, indifferently) so that he may ordain Presbyters and Deacons, and order all things with judgement: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but beyond his bounds he may do nothing without the Bishop of the Mother City: neither may he without ●he consent of the rest. Then which testimonies, nothing can be alleged more pregnant, either for the signification of the word, or for the proof of our assertion, that the Churches or charges of Bishops were not parishes, but dioceses.  
Sometimes indeed the word Paroecia doth signify that which we call a parish: 
§ 9 The third signification of paroecia.  but then either it is used with such reference to a Bishop, as it is plainly noted to be but one among many belonging to his charge, and is commonly uttered in the plural number; 
C. Tolet. 3▪ c. 20.  or else it is referred to a Presbyter as his proper charge. To which purpose consider these testimonies. The Council of Carthage, 
a Carth. 4. c. 102.  which is so much alleged by the Disciplinarians, speaketh, as of the Bishop of the diocese, so of a Presbyter, qui Parochiae praeest, who is set over a parish. The 
b Conc. Tolet. 4. c. 25. & 26.  Council of Toledo speaketh of Presbyters ordained in parochijs & per parochias. Innocentius 
c Inn. ●. ep. 8. ad Flor.  the first writing to Florentius a Bishop, blameth him for usurping a parish which belonged to the diocese of Vrsus another Bishop. And elsewhere 
d Epist. l. ad. Decent. c. 5,  he speaketh  ●● 

§. 11. The significations of Dioecesis.  As for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or dioecesis, I hope I shall not need to prove, that it also signifieth a diocese. Neither do I greatly need to show, that in the signification of a diocese, it is given to Bishops; seeing the sense of it being diversified according to the variety of the persons to whom it is attributed; in the sense of a diocese, as we term it, it is properly ascribed to Bishops. The word indeed seemeth generally to signify the circuit of any man's charge or administration, who hath government in the Church. For as there is Ecclesia, a Church of a Patriarch, and of a Metropolitan, of a Bishop, 
Sozom l. 8. c. 3. Ius Graecorom p. 89.  and of a Presbyter; so there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or dioecesis, of a Patriarch, which we may call a patriarchal diocese; of an Archbishop, which we call a Province; of a Bishop, which we call a Diocese; and of a Presbyter, which we call a Parish.  
For the two first, these few examples may suffice. The Emperor justinian 
a Cod. lit. tit. 4. de Episcopali audientia.  appointeth, 
The Diocese of a Patriarch.  that a Clergy man should not be accused at the first before the Patriarch of the Diocese; but first, according to the sacred constitutions, before the Bishop of the City, in which the Clergy man liveth: then, if he be suspected as partial, let him bring the party accused before the Metropolitan Bishop. But if he also shall not allow of the accusation, 
§. 29. Sancimus, graece 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & Novel. 123. c. 22.  let him bring him before the Synod of that province &c. but if still he think himself wronged, let him appeal to the Patriarch of the Diocese, from whose sentence there lieth no appeal etc. Afterwards he addeth this exception; that whereas there are two sorts of patriarchs, some, who in the Provinces wherein they are, bear the office of metropolitans, (their See being of ancient time the Metropolis of the Province, such were the Bishops of Antioch, Rome, and Alexandria,) others per totam Diocesin, throughout the whole Diocese, do ordain the metropolitans and other Bishops who are under them, as the Bishop of Constantinople 
b H●rcalea was the Metropolis of Thracia, unto which Byzantium had been subject. , and perhaps jerusalem; 
c Caesarea was the Metropolis of Palestina. ) therefore the causes, which happen in the Provinces of the former sort, are immediately from the Bishops to be brought to them as to metropolitans.  
In the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
d In's Graecor●m. p. 100 , or disposition of the Churches, subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople, made by the Emperor Leo the Philosopher, it is noted, that seven Metropolitan Churches, were withdrawn from 
e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  the Roman Diocese, with the Bishops under them, & one also, viz. Sele●cia in Pamphylia from 
f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  the Diocese of the East, (meaning of the Bishop of Antioch, for he, as Theodoret 
g Theod. l. 4. c. 23.  saith, was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the ruler or chief of the Bishops in the East,) together with 26. Bishoprics subject thereto. Epiphanius 
h Epiph. haer. 68 , as you heard before, testifieth this to have been the custom, that the Bishop of Alexandria should have the Ecclesiastical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Diocese, or Administration of all Egypt & Thebais, Mareot, Libya, Ammoniace, Maraeotis, and Pentapolis. It is said of Gregory the Great 
i joan. Diac. in vit. Greg. l. 3. c. 13. The Diocese of an Archbishop. , that unto the Bishoprics of his Diocese, he invited Bishops of another Diocese, vacantes, being voided of their bishoprics, as the Bishop of Smyrna, he invited to a Bishopric in Sicilia.  
The circuit also of an Archbishop's jurisdiction is sometimes called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Dioecesis, and the Archbishop himself 
k Conc. Chalc●. 8. & 17. , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as in the Council of Chalcedon, where Archbishops are reckoned as a middle degree, between metropolitans and patriarchs; the name of Patriarch being also given sometimes unto them. If any have a controversy with the Metropolitan of the Province, let him go unto, either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Primate of the Diocese, or to the patriarch of Constantinople. The same Council 
l Chalc. c. 28.  appointeth the metropolitans of the Dioceses of Pontus, Asia, and Thracia to be ordained by the Patriarch of Constantinople, and the BB. of every province in those Dioceses to be, as they were wont, according to the Canons, to be ordained of their Metropolitans. So that according to this sense a province is but part of a Diocese. Socrates speaking of the first Council of Constantinople, saith 
m Socrat. l. 5. c. 8.  that they established patriarchs, meaning Archbishops, dividing unto them provinces. Thus of the Diocese of Pontus, Helladius the Bishop of Caesarea, Gregorius the Bishop of Nyssa, Otreius the B. of Metileno obtained the Patriarchship. The Patriarchship of the Diocese of Asia was assigned to Amphilochius of Iconium, and Optimus of Antioch in Pisidia and Gregory 
n Lib. 3. Epist. 3.  writing to Constantius the Archbishop of Milan, mentioneth divers BB. of his Diocese, as you heard 
o Li. 1. c. 7. §. 9 § 12. The Diocese of a Bishop.  before.  
But we are briefly also to show that a Bishop's charge is called Dioecesis. The first Council of Constantinople decreeth 
p Conc. Const. 1. c. 2. , as it is commonly understood, that BB. should not go out of their Diocese unto Churches without their bounds, and that they should not 
q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  confound the Churches. Where a Diocese is attributed to a Bishop, as the circuit and bounds of his jurisdiction; and Churches, which the Council forbiddeth to be confounded, are confounded with Dioceses. Again, that BB. 
r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. etc.  being not called, may not go without their Diocese, to ordain Ministers, or to exercise other ecclesiastical administrations.  
In the Council of Africa 
s Conc. Afric. c. 65. Carth. Graec. c. 101.  it was decreed that those people which never had a Bishop of their own, should not have a Bishop but by the decree of the whole Synod of the province, and the Primate, and by the consent of him in whose Diocese the said Church is. Again, that one Bishop 
t Conc. Carth. 2 c. 11. Dioecesis taken for the country, and parts of the Diocese therein.  do not invade the Diocese of another. Thus Dioecesis signifieth the whole Diocese. But where we find it opposed to the City, or to the Cathedral church, then doth it signify the rest of the Diocese; as in the African Council 
u Con. Afric. c. 84. Conc. Carth. grae. c. 118.  it was ordained that the Churches in the Diocese converted from Donatism, should belong to the Cathedra or See of the Catholic B. Again, 
* Con. Afric. c. 38. & Carth. graec. 72. Carth. 5. c. 5.  the BB are forbidden to leave their chief seat or See, & to remove themselves to another church in their Diocese.  
Thus in the plural number, it signifieth sometimes all the churches in the Diocese, meaning the country, & sometimes any of them severally. It was concluded upon in the Council of Carthage, 
x Carth. grae. c. 14.  that the BB. which live in the unity & communion of the Church, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that he should not only justly retain his own See, but also possess such Dioceses, that is parts of the Diocese, as had gotten to themselves a a schismatical Bishop of their own. Again, it was decreed 
y Conc. Carth. 2. c. 5.  that Dioceses (that is, parts of the Diocese in the country) which never had a Bishop, should not have any: and that Diocese which sometimes had, should have their own B. And if in process of time, the faith increasing, the people of God being multiplied, shall desire to have a peculiar governor, with the consent or liking of him, in whose power the Diocese is, let them have a Bishop. We have heard it ordained 
z Conc. Carth. graec. c. 57 sive Cart. 3. c. 46. Afric. c. 23.  (saith Honoratus and Vrbanus in the 3. Council of Carthage,) that Dioceses (meaning but parts of the Diocese in the Country) should not obtain a Bishop, but with the consent of him under whom they are placed. But perhaps some in our Province when they have been ordained Bishops in such a Diocese, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by the grant of the B. who originally holdeth the Dioceses, have challenged other Dioceses, this aught to be amended. Epigonius answered, that which is meet, is reserved to every Bishop, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that out of the company or combination of Parishes jointly possessed, no part should be taken to have a Bishop of her own, but by the consent of him, who hath authority, meaning the Bishop of the City, unto which the Country belongeth. But if he shall grant that the Diocese (meaning part of his own Diocese) permitted shall enjoy a Bishop of their own; he that is so preferred may not encroach upon other Dioceses, (that is, other parts of the Diocese,) because that one being taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, out of the body of many was vouchsafed alone to receive a Bishopric of their own. The which sentence when Aurelius the Bishop of Carthage, and precedent of that Council had consented unto, was decreed by the whole Council.  
And that we may know the Parishes in the Country together with the several Presbyters set over them, belong to the Diocesan Bishop, even they also sometimes are called by the name of Diocese. In the council 
a Conc. Tolet. 4. c. 35.  of Toledo Bishops are required, per cunctas Dioeceses parochiasque suas, to go yearly through all their Dioceses and Parishes. And again 
b Ibid. c. 32. , so to rule their Dioceses, that is, Parishes, that they do not presume to take any thing from their right, but (according to the authority of former Counsels) they take only a third part of the offerings and tithes. But in an other Council 
c Conc. Braccar. 2. c. 2  it was determined, that no B. walking per suas Dioeceses, through his Dioceses, shall take any thing besides the honour of his chair, that is, 2● shillings, or require the third part of the oblations in the parish churches. Sometimes it is used for a parish Church. In which sense, a parish Presbyter is said in the Council 
d Conc. Agat. c. 53. & 54.  of Agatha, Dioecesin tenere. In the Council of Orleans 
e Aurelian. 3. c. 18.  dioecesis & Basilica are used promiscuously, as Synonyma. To which purpose it is said 
f Aurel. 4. c. 32. , that if any man hath, or desireth to have Dioecesin, that is, a Church, in his ground, he must assign sufficient land unto it, & provide a Clerk for it.   

CHAP. IJ. Proving by other Arguments that the ancient Churches which had Bishops, were not Parishes, but Dioceses.  
ANd thus much may suffice to have spoken of the names, about which the testimonies which I have brought, have been almost so many evidences for the Diocesan, and against the parishional Bishops.  
Now I proceed to other arguments; desiring the Reader to remember that the question is concerning such Churches, as were endued with power of Ecclesiastical government and jurisdiction, to wit, whether in the Apostles times, and the ages following, they were Parishes, as we call them, or Dioceses. And first I will show they were not Parishes, and after, that they were Dioceses.  
For, if Parishes, than the Parishes either in the Countries, or Cities were such: but neither the parishes in the Country, nor in the City, had a Bishop of their own and a Presbytery. Which is so evident a truth to them that have read the Counsels, Histories, and Fathers of the ancient Church, that it is to be wondered, how men of learning and reading, being also men of conscience, can deny it. But seeing it is denied, I must be content to prove it, viz. that regularly, lawfully, ordinarily Bishops and Presbyteries were not placed in the several parishes. For these words I hope may be added with the Refuters leave, seeing neither it can be preiudicious to me what was at any time unlawfully done, nor advantageous to him, unless he will urge a reformation, according to the pattern of the Churches (if there were any such) which were irregularly, extraordinarily, and unlawfully governed.  
First therefore for Country parishes, because I maintain the negative, and the proof of the affirmative lieth upon my adversary, I challenge him to produce some proof, if he be able, within 400. years after Christ, of Country parishes lawfully, regularly, ordinarily furnished with power of ecclesiastical government, and governed by their own Bishops, such as they speak of, assisted with their Presbyteries. Which if he be not able to perform, (as I am well assured he is not) he must acknowledge his parish Bishop to be of the same stamp. with his lay-presbyters, that is to say, a mere counterfeit. But not expecting his proof, I will prove, that neither they had Bishop of their own, nor yet Presbyteries. As touching the former, it cannot be denied, but in some places the Presbyters of parishes growing ambitious, have desired to be Bishops of their parish, and their people vain glorious have seconded their desire. But in all well ordered Churches, their presumption hath been resisted, and their vain desires frustrated. I do confess, that in Africa, which always bringeth forth some novelty, and from whence all T. C. his news in this cause do come, some parts of the diocese being very populous, have obtained a Bishop of their own. But when? 
Conc. Carth. gr. c. 54. & 101.  when the charge was so great, as that by itself it seemed to deserve a Bishop. And how? First, with the leave of the Bishop of the city, in whose diocese it was. Secondly, with the approbation of the Metropolitan and the provincial Synod. Thirdly, he which obtained the honour of being a bishop was advanced to a higher degree, than himself had before, or other country pastors have, and was ordained a Bishop by the Metropolitan and two other Bishops at the least.  

§. 2. Decrees of the councils of Africa.  But it shall not be amiss both to recite the decrees of the African counsels in this behalf, though, touched before; and also to acquaint you with the determinations of godly Bishops, and canons of holy Counsels elsewhere.  

Conc. Carth. 2. c. 5.  In the second council of Carthage it was decreed, that the Dioceses (meaning, as I have said, parts of any diocese in the Country) which never received Bishops of their own, may have none; and that diocese which sometimes had, may still have a Bishop of their own. And if in process of time, the faith increasing, the people of God being multiplied, shall desire to have a governor of their own, that then they may have a Bishop with his leave, in whose power the diocese is.  

Conc. Carth. 3. c. 42. et. 43. Carth. gr. 54.  In the third Council of Carthage it is said, that it had been determined in many Counsels, that the people which be in the parishes or dioceses held by the Bishops, which never had a Bishop of their own, should not receive governors of their own, that is to say, Bishops, but with the consent of the Bishop, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by whom from the beginning they have been enjoyed. But forasmuch as some having obtained this honour abused it tyrannically, and withdrew themselves schismatically from the communion of other Bishops: and forasmuch as also certain Presbyters lifting up their necks against their BB. used indirect means to allure their people, that themselves might be made Bishops; therefore it was ordained, that such a people in the paroecia▪ or diocese, which is subject to the ancient Bishop, and never had a Bishop of their own, should not obtain a proper Doctor, meaning Bishop. And as touching those which had attained to this honour unlawfully, and withdrew themselves from the synods of Bishops, it was determined that they should not only lose their diocese, but also their own Church. For it is fit the Bishops which are united to all their brethren, and to the whole synod, should justly retain not only their own Cathedra or See, but also that they should possess such dioceses. And whereas some 
l Ibid. c. 46. Carth. gr. c. 57  being made Bishops in part of other men's dioceses, with their leave and consent, did encroach upon parts of the diocese not granted unto them, it was concluded, that he which in the diocese is preferred to be Bishop, by the consent of the ancient Bishop, who holdeth the mother or cathedral Church, shall only retain that people unto which he was ordained. Finally, in another Council 
m Conc. Afr. c. 65. Carth. gr. c. 101  of Africa, it was decreed, that such people as never had B. of their own, should in no wise obtain a B. unless it be by the decree of the whole synod of every province, and of the primate, and also by the consent of him under whose diocese the said Church is placed.  
Out of which canons, we may observe these things. First, that the Country churches belonged to the jurisdiction of the Bishop in the City.  
Secondly, that ever from the beginning, they have belonged to the Bishop of the City.  
Thirdly, that those parts of dioceses, which then had no Bishop of their own, never had.  
Fourthly, that the number of Bishoprics was not wont to be diminished, or the circuits of them enlarged, but chose, if there were cause, the number was increased, and the circuits or dioceses lessened.  
Fifthly, that when a new Bishopric was to be erected, it was erected in some Bishop's diocese, but not without his leave and liking, and also approbation of the Primate and Provincial synod.  
Sixthly, that when a new Bishopric was erected, that part wherein it was erected, was taken, as before I noted 
n Cart. gr. c. 54. , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from all the parts jointly possessed, and as it were from the body of the rest.  
Seventhly, that he which was preferred to such a Bishopric was not a parish Bishop. For besides his own Church, he had a diocese. Neither were they appointed according to the new conceit to every parish, but to such populous parts of dioceses, as might seem worthy of a Bishop.  
Eighthly, that when a new Bishopric was erected, the Presbyter who obtained this honour, was anew ordained thereto as Bishop, and so placed in a superior degree of the ministery, then that which he had when he was the Pastor or Presbyter only of a parish.  

§ 3. Decrees of Fathers.  To these canons we might add the decrees of 
o Clem. ep. 1. ad jacob.  Clemens and 
p Anaclet. ep. 3. c. 2.  Anacletus, ordaining that Bishops should not be ordained in Villages or Towns, or small Cities, lest the names of Bishops should grow vile: but in such places Presbyters were severally to be placed in each of them. But I need not the testimonies of such as are supposed counterfeit: and yet it is to be confessed, that the Epistle of Clemens was above one thousand two hundred years ago translated by Ruffinus; and that which in this point either of them decreed, agreeth with the general and perpetual practice of the Church, from the Apostles time to our age. But to let them pass: the Epistle of Leo 
q Leo ep. 87. ad episc. Afr. c. 2.  the Great, is without suspicion, which he wrote to the Bishops of Africa, requiring that this among all the statutes of the Canons be observed, that not in any places or towns, Bishops should be consecrated, nor where heretofore they have not been, seeing where the less people or smaller companies are, the care of Presbyters may suffice. But episcopal government is only to be set over greater people and more frequent or populous Cities, lest what the decrees of the holy Fathers inspired of God have forbidden, the height of priesthood should be given to villages and parishes, or obscure and solitary towns, and the episcopal honour whereto more excellent things ought to be committed, itself should grow vile or contemptible, by the multitude thereof. 
The decrees of counsels.   
The canons whereof he speaketh (that I may also come to them) were the Canons of the counsels held at Sardica and Laodicea. The council held at Sardica not long after the council at Nice, assembled by the authority of the two Emperors Constans and Constantius, celebrated by 341 BB. as Balsamo saith, among whom some of the chief had been present at the council of Nice, as Hosius and Athanasius etc. which also confirmed the faith before concluded in the council of Nice, at that time much oppugned by the Arians this council, I say, determined 
r Conc. Sardic. c. 6.  that it is simply 
s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  unlawful to constitute a Bishop in a village or small 
t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  City, unto which even one only Presbyter doth suffice. For it is not needful that Bishops should be placed there, lest the name & authority of a Bishop grow into contempt. But the Bishops of the province (being assembled as before was said by the Metropolitan) must ordain Bishops in such Cities as where before had been Bishops. But if there shall any City be found so abounding with multitude of people, that it may seem worthy of a Bishopric, let it have a Bishop.  
For that of Laodicea, though it were but a provincial Synod, yet the decrees thereof were received into the ancient Code of canons, and were confirmed by the general council 
u Con. Constant. in Trull. c. 2.  held in Trullo. In that council 
x Conc. Laodicen. c. 56. alids 57 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (for so Balsam and some manuscripts and latin translations, read) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  therefore it was decreed, that Bishops ought not to be placed in villages and country towns, but visitors: and that those which before that time had been ordained, might do nothing without the consent of the Bishop, who is in the City: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
The same hath Photius, 
y Phot. Nomecan. lit. 1. c. 19  Ne sit omnino in parva civitate vel vice Episcopus.  
To these we may add the decree of the council of Toledo: which though it were of latter times than the counsels before mentioned, 
z Conc. Tolet. 12. c. 4.  yet was held above 9 hundred years ago, being ratified and confirmed by Eringius the King: which I do the rather mention, because whereas the Bishop of Merida 
z Conc. Tolet. 12. c. 4.  by the commandment of their late King Bamba, had ordained a Bishop in a monastery standing in a small town, the said council finding it to be a novellous attempt, contrary to the canons of the counsels and practice of the Church, decreed that there should not continue in the place aforesaid an Episcopal See, neither should any Bishop afterwards be placed there. As for him, that was ordained not by his own ambition, but by the King's compulsion; they grant to him this favour, to be removed to the See of some Bishop deceasing. And in the end they make this general decree: If any man shall cause a Bishop to be made in those places, where a Bishop never was, let him be anathema in the sight of God almighty: 
So Burchardus readeth decret. lib. 5. c. 32.  and moreover let both the ordainer and the ordained lose the degree of his order, because he hath presumed to overthrow not only the decrees of the ancient Fathers, but also the Apostolical ordinances.  
This therefore is my first argument against parish Bishops in the country: 
That which was judged unlawful by the canons of approved councils, and decrees of godly Bishops, was never lawfully, regularly, ordinarily practised:  
But the placing of Bishops in country parishes, was judged unlawful by the canons of approved counsels, and decrees of godly Bishops, as I have showed:  
Therefore the placing of Bishops in country parishes was never lawfully, regularly, ordinarily practised.   

§. 4. That Chorepiscopi or country BB. were not parish BB.  It may be, that my adversary, who is ready to catch at every syllable, will from the canon of the council held at Laodicea before cited, object, that before that time, there were Bishops placed in country towns: and thereupon conclude, that therefore there had been, before that time, parishional Bishops. To this objection I answer, by denying the consequence, or the proposition which is understood, viz. that the country Bishops (which had been before ordained) were parish Bishops. For those Bishops, because they were placed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Countries, were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as you would say, Countrie-Bishops, to distinguish them from the other Bishops, whose See was in the City. Now these Chorepiscopi were not in all Dioceses, much less in all parishes; nor assigned, where they were, to one parish (as they were Bishops) but where the Diocese was large, were ordained in some places remote from the city, to supply the absence of the Bishop, in some such circuits as our rural Deaneries are, wherein divers parishes were contained. These Chorepicsopis at the first, had Episcopal ordination, by the imposition of the hands of three Bishops, insomuch that of the three hundred and eighteen Bishops assembled at the Council of Nice, there were fifteen Countrie-Bishoppes: For which fifteen, if all pastors of parishes had been Countrie-Bishoppes, there might have been, I doubt not, fifteen hundred, if not fifteen thousand: But when these Countrie-Bishoppes, being but the bishops suffragans, and substitutes, placed in the Country to supply the bishops room, and to exercise some matters of less moment appertaining to the Episcopal function, began to encroach upon the bishops right, and to usurp Episcopal authority, and jurisdiction beyond their commission; they were by little and little restrained; and when they would not be kept within their compass, their order (at least as they were Bishops) being but an humane-ordinance, devised for the ease of the Bishops in the city, was in most places abolished.  
But forsomuch as that which is recorded concerning these country Bishops, doth give great light to this present controversy, it will not be unprofitable, nor, I hope, unpleasing to the reader, if I acquaint him with that which is written concerning them.  
First therefore in the council of Neocesaria, whereunto among other BB. two Chorepiscopi subscribed, we find this difference between country presbyters & country Bishops: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
a Conc. Neocaes. c. 13.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Presbyters or Ministers of the country may not offer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the cathedral Church of the City, the Bishop or Presbyters of the city being present, neither may they at the time of prayer deliver the bread nor the cup: but if they be absent, and one of them alone be called to prayer, than he may, because he is of the same Church or Diocese, as some note. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
b Ibid. c. 14. , but country Bishops, who are indeed after the manner of the 70. yet being honoured as fellow Ministers, they do offer. Upon which words Balsamo 
c Theod. Bals. in Conc. Neocaesar.  noteth two things. First, where the council saith they were as the seventy, it seemeth to deny that they had power to ordain ministers and deacons. Secondly, that among other uses, for which they were appointed, they were ordained to distribute the money to the poor, which appertained to them. Besides, we may observe that both the country Bishops and country Presbyters, belong to the diocese of the Bishop in the city (which hereafter will more clearly appear) and that the country Bishop was in a degree of honour superior to country Ministers, and yet inferior to the Bishops.  
The council of Ancyra 
d Conc. Ancyr. c. 13.  which is more ancient than the former, and both of them elder than the council of Nice, perceiving the country Bishops to encroach upon the Bishop's right, determined 
e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  it to be unlawful for country Bishops to ordain Presbyters or Deacons.  
The council of Antioch, 
f Conc. Antio. c. 8. the Latins call them for matas literas.  though it gave liberty to country Bishops which were blameless, to send canonical letters (as the manner of Bishops among themselves, in those times was) which it denied to country presbyters: yet for so much as the Chorepiscopi still presumed to ordain, alleging that they might lawfully do it, because they had been ordained as Bishops. It therefore determined, 
g Con. Antioc. c. 10.  that Bishops placed in the Towns and Countries, called Chorepiscopi, although they had received the ordination of BB yet they should know their own measure, and govern the Church's subject unto them, and content themselves with the care and oversight thereof: and having authority to ordain Subdeacons' and Exorcists, should satisfy themselves with preferring of them, and not presume to ordain Presbyters or Deacons, without 
h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the Bishop in the City whereunto both himself and the Country are subject. But if any shall presume to transgress this decree, he shall be deprived of that honour which he hath. And whereas they pretended that they had episcopal ordination, and therefore as BB might ordain Ministers; to take away that pretence, it determined also, that the Country B. should be ordained (not of the Metropolitan and two or three other Bishops, as a Bishop, but as other Presbyters or Ministers) of the Bishop of the City, unto which he is subject. So that whereas before Chorepiscopi were Suffragan Bishops, afterwards (according to this decree) they were but Presbyters in deed, though they had the title of Bishops; neither were they acknowledged for any more by the Fathers and Counsels of latter times.  
There is an Epistle which goeth under the name of Damasus, 
i Damas. epist. 4. de Chorepiscopis.  the Author whereof supposeth, that Chorepiscopi are but Presbyters, because they are found 
k Conc. Neocaesar. c. 14.  to have been ordained at the first after the example of the 70. But now because they are not necessary in regard of their diligence towards the poor, and because they presumed above that which was lawful for them to do, therefore they are removed from Episcopal offices. We know (saith he) there were but two orders among the Disciples of Christ, that is to say, of the 12. Apostles, and 70. Disciples: whence this third came, we know not; for neither are they Bishops, because they be not ordained of three Bishops, but only of one; neither may Bishops by the Canons be placed in Country towns; neither may they be in the City, because in one City there may be but one Bishop. Neither will they be called Presbyters, but will be accounted more than Presbyters. Whether Damasus were Author of that Epistle, I know not; but this I am sure, that Leo 
l Leo epist. 88  the great in his Epistle to the BB. of Germany and France, doth show himself to be of the same judgement, a good part of his Epistle differing little from the aforesaid Epistle, which beareth the name of Damasus. And this judgement of Leo was so approved of the Council of Civil, 
m C. Hispal. 2. c. 7.  whereof Isidore was Precedent, that it followeth the same almost word for word.  

§. 5. The second argument taken from Country Bishops.  Now because my Adversary shall not say, that what I have alleged concerning Country Bishops, is impertinent, he shall understand, that as the main question concerning dioceses in the primitive Church is from hence most manifestly proved, as you shall hear in due place; so this present question which we have in hand concerning parish Bishops. For surely if there were any parishional Bishops in the Country, than the Country Bishops were such: but they were not such, for they were set over divers parishes. Again, if the Chorepiscopi were subject to the Bishop of the City, and the Country whereof they were Bishops was part of the diocese belonging to the Bishop of the City; then much more the Presbyters of parishes (who were inferior, and in some things subject to the Chorepiscopi, as the Bishop's substitutes) were subject to the Bishop; and their parishes, being but a part of the Country whereof the Chorepiscopi were called Bishops, were but a part of the diocese. So far were either the parish Presbyters from being Bishops, or their parishes from being entire Churches, endued with the power of ecclesiastical government. But the former is true, as hath been proved, therefore the latter.  
That the Chorepiscopi were superior to them, it is apparent, because not only they had some jurisdiction over divers parishes, but for a time had episcopal ordination, and had authority to ordain Subdeacons', and to place Readers in parishes, as also they might send Formatas, or Canonical Epistles, which the Presbyters might not do. Likewise, when Bishops were at any time converted from heresy, 
n Con. Nic. c. 8.  though they were not permitted to be Bishops of the City, yet they were gratified with the name and authority of Chorepiscopi. In the time of Theodosius and Valentinian, a certain Bishop had been ordained by two Bishops only: but this ordination the Council of Rhegium 
o Conc. Rhegiens. c. 1.2.3.4.  pronounced void, and censured the ordainers. As for the party ordained, because he had of himself renounced the Bishopric, they thought good to follow the example of the Council of Nice, and to gratify him with the name and title of a Chorepiscopus; but so, as that he should not ordain, nor exercise any other episcopal function, but only confirm Novices, and consecrate Virgins, and in all things behave himself as inferior to a Bishop, and as superior to a Presbyter. And this was my second argument, whereby I have proved, that Country parishes had no Bishops.  
Neither had each of them a Presbytery, 
§. 6. Parishes had not Presbyteries.  but several Presbyters assigned to them, as sufficient for such a charge as was determined by the Council of Sardica 
p Conc. Sardic. c. 6. , and by the judgement of Leo 
q Leo epist. 87. . Yea not Presbyters only did severally govern parishes, as with us, but sometimes Deacons also were by themselves set over charges. You heard before divers testimonies of the Presbyters of parishes, as namely that 
r Conc. Carth. 4. c. 102.  of the Council of Carthage, Presbyter qui Paroeciae praest, etc. the Presbyter which governeth the parish. The like is presupposed of Deacons in the Council of Eliberis, 
s Conc. Eliber. c. 77.  which is supposed to be as ancient as the Council of Nice: If any Deacon ruling a people, shall without a Bishop or Presbyter baptise any, etc.  
Again, if parishes besides their Presbyter or Pastor had a presbytery, than was it either of the Ministry, or of the Laity. But Presbyteries of Ministers were only in Cities, and Cathedral Churches, and not any examples can be alleged of Presbyteries in the Country, no not to assist the Chorepiscopi, much less to assist the Presbyters of parishes: and Presbyteries of Lay men were never heard of till this last age: Therefore the several parishes had not Presbyteries.  
Moreover, Churches endued with power ecclesiastical sufficient for the government of themselves, 
The parishes had not the power of Ecclesiastical government.  having also a Bishop and Presbytery, had the power of ordination, as themselves also teach.  
But Country parishes had not the power of ordination.  
Therefore Country parishes were not endued with power ecclesiastical, neither had they a Bishop or Presbytery of their own.  
For the Assumption, let the Refuter consider with me, what course was taken in Country parishes, when their Minister was departed. Among themselves they had ordinarily none; or if by chance they had, they could not ordain him, but were (as sometimes it happened in Cities) to offer him to the Bishop to be ordained. Universities they had none from whence to fetch a learned Minister: out of other dioceses they were not to be supplied, unless first it did appear, that their own Bishop was not able out of his Clergy to furnish them. To the Bishop of the City therefore they did resort, who out of the Clergy belonging to the Cathedral Church, (wherein, as the Nursery of the diocese, divers were brought up in the study of divinity) did supply their want, assigning some one of his Clergy unto them. But if there were none fit, (as sometimes their store was drawn dry, by supplying the wants of many) they might not ordain a Minister of another diocese, whom they called another Bishop's Clerk, without his leave and dimissory letters: for that in the Canons was condemned as a great wrong; and such ordinations were to be disannulled. If therefore the Bishop neither had of his own, nor knew not readily where to be supplied out of a neighbour diocese, with the consent of his neighbour Bishop, he sent to the Metropolitan, 
t Conc. Carth. Gr. c. 54. sive Carth. 3. c. 42.  who either out of his own Clergy, or some other in the Province, was to supply them. And this, as it is evident to them who have read any thing concerning the state of the ancient Churches; so is it confessed by Calvin. Each City (saith he) 
u justit. l. 4. c. 4. §. 2.  had a College of Presbyters, who were Pastors and Teachers; for both did they all discharge the office of teaching, etc. to the people, and also that they might leave seed behind them, they were diligently employed in instructing the younger sort of the Clergy. To every City a certain region was attributed, which should receive their Ministers from thence, and be accounted of the body of that Church.  
It is therefore evident, that Country parishes had not each of them a Bishop and Presbytery, nor that power of ecclesiastical government which they talk of.  
And much less had the parishes in the Cities. 
§ 7. The parishes of the Cities had not several Bishops.  For it was never almost heard of, that there were at any time more Bishops (so properly called) than one in a City, where notwithstanding were many Presbyters, when schism or heresy was not the cause of setting up a second or third against the one only lawful Bishop: excepting that in the same Church sometimes a second either hath been permitted the title of a Bishop without episcopal authority, or else ordained as a coadjutor to the first. And when there have been more than one by schism or heresy, yet neither the orthodoxal and Catholic Bishop, nor yet the schismatical or heretical Bishop, was a parishional Bishop, but each of them was Bishop of all that were of the same faith with them, in the City and Country adjoining, there having been divers times in the Cities only more parishes than one, not only of the true Christians, but also of the heretics and schismatics, as before was noted concerning Antioch.  
I shall have occasion to speak more of this point when I shall 
x Lib. 3. cap. 3.  entreat of the singularity of pre-eminence which the Bishop in every diocese had for term of life. A few testimonies therefore shall suffice in this place. In the Church of Rome there were many not only Presbyters besides the one only lawful Bishop, but also divers parishes and titles soon after the Apostles times, whereunto Presbyters were assigned severally, the Bishop being the superintendant over them all. About the year 250. Cornelius 
a Euseb. lib. 6. c. 43.  being chosen Bishop of Rome, Nonatianus a Presbyter of Rome discontented with the election, by the instigation of Nonatus a fugitive Bishop lately come out of Africa, not only broached the heresy of the Novatians, or Catharists, but procure●● three simple B shops fetched from the uttermost parts of Italy, to ordain him B●shop of Rome: having also inveigled by his subtleties, certain famous men, that had been Confessors to be of his party, and to join with him in the schism against Cornelius. Of this fact, what was the judgement of Cyprian, of Cornelius, and other Bishops, and finally of the Confessors themselves, you shall in few words hear. For when Novatianus had sent his Messengers, as to other chief Bishops, so to Carthage, to procure the approbation of Cyprian, he dissuadeth them from the schism, telling them 
b Cypr li. 2. epist. 11.  that a B●shop being ordained, and approved by the testimony and judgement of his fellow Bishops, and of the people, another may not by any means be ordained. And writing to some of those Confessors, he signifieth his great grief, 
c Li. 3. epist. 2.  because he understood that they, contrary to the order of the Church, contrary to the law of the Gospel, contrary to the unity of Catholic discipline, had thought it meet, that another B. should be made, that is to say, which is neither right nor lawful to be done, that another Church should be erected, the members of Christ dismembered, etc.  
Cornelius having called together divers Bishops besides his own Clergy, deposed the Bishops who ordained Novatianus: and writing of these matters to Fabius 
d Euseb. l. 6. c. 43.  the B. of Antioch, he saith, this Patron of the Gospel forsooth (meaning Novatian) did not know that in a Catholic Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there ought to be but one B. in which notwithstanding he could not be ignorant, but that there are 46. Presbyters, and 108. more of the Clergy.  
The Confessors 
e Epist. Cornel. ap●d Cypr. l. 3. epist. 11.  afterwards acknowledging their fault, among other things in their submission confess, that as there is but one God and one Lord, so in a Catholic Church there ought to be but one Bishop.  
Now whereas Cornelius testifieth, that there were beside the Bishop, who ought to be but one, 46. Presbyters in the City of Rome, and 108. others of the Clergy: if any man (notwithstanding it be also testified by divers, that there were divers Churches in Rome, whereunto several Presbyters were assigned) will needs hold, that the whole Church of Rome was but one parish, and that all these Presbyters and Clerks attended but one particular ordinary congregation; I cannot let him from being so absurd. Howbeit, this is certain, that in the next age, in Optatus 
f Contr. Parmen. l. 2.40. & quod excurrit basilicas, etc.  his time, when there were in Rome above forty parish Churches, whereunto several Presbyters were deputed, there remained still but one only Bishop.  
The like is to be said of Alexandria, wherein (as Epiphanius 
g Haeres. 69.  testifieth) were before the time of Constantine many parish Churches, all which (at least so many as were Catholic) were under one Archbishop, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and over them severally are Presbyters placed, for the ecclesiastical necessities of the inhabitants, who might each of them be near unto their own Church, etc. Now (saith Epiphanius) besides the Church called Caesaria, which was burnt in julian's time, and re-edified by Athanasius, there are many others, as the Church of Dionysius, of Theonas, of Pierius, of Serapion, of Persaea, of Dizya, of Mendidius, of Amianus, of Baucalis, and others. In one of these was Colluthus Presbyter, in another Carpones, in another Sarmatas, and Arius 
h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  in another, namely, that which is called Baucalis.  
The same is testified by Nicetas Choniates, 
i L. 5. Orthod. fid. c. 1.  affirming, that in Alexandria there were of old many Church's subject to the B. of Alexandria, committed severally to Presbyters, as that which is called Baucalis, and those which have their names from S. Dionysius, Theonas, etc. and that Arius being the governor of the school in Alexandria, was by Achilles the B. (the predecessor of Alexander) set over the Church called Baucalis. And although there be not the like evidence for multitude of parishes in other Cities immediately after the Apostles times; yet is it not to be doubted, but that in every City when the number of Christians was much increased, the like division of parishes was made, unto which, not BB. but several Presbyters were appointed: there remaining in each City but one Bishop, as the practice of all Churches in the Christian world from the Apostles times to our age doth invincibly prove.  

§ 8. The Churches which had Bishops set over them were dioceses.  But now suppose, that the Church of each City had been but one parish, which is most false; yet forsomuch as to every City there was as Calvin truly saith, a certain region allotted, which belonged to the Bishop's charge, and was from the Presbytery of the City to receive their Ministers; who seeth nor, that the charge of a Bishop was not a parish, but a diocese? And that is the second thing which I promised to prove.  
For, Churches containing within their circuit not only Cities with their Suburbs, but also whole Country's subject to them, were dioceses.  
But the Church's subject to the ancient Bishops in the Primitive Church, contained within their circuit not only the Cities with their suburbs, but also the whole Country's subject to them.  
Therefore they were dioceses.  
The assumption is proved by these reasons: first, The circuit of a Bishop's charge was anciently divided into these parts, the City with the suburbs, and Country subject to it. For proof whereof, you heard before two most plain testimonies: The former, in one of the Canons of the Apostles 
k Ca●. Apost. 34.  (so called) charging the Bishop with his own Paroecia, and the Countries which be under it: The other in the Council of Antioch, 
l Conc. Antioch. c. 9  which reciting the same words, addeth this reason: For every Bishop hath authority over his own Paroecia, and doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, perform the duty of a Diocesan, having a provident care or superintendency of the whole Country which is under his City, so that he may ordain Presbyters and Deacons, and order all things with judgement. To the same purpose is the division of Church's subject to each Bishop, into the Church of the City called 
m Cont. Carth. Gr. c. 54.72.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or N●trix Ecclesia, and all other parish Churches within the diocese called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And hence ariseth the distinction of Presbyters subject to the same Bishop that others were 
n Conc. Neo●●sar. c. 13.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Presbyters of the city, or as in some Latin Counsels they are called 
o Cont. Agat●. c. 22. , Civitatenses, others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Country Ministers, or dioecesan●, Ministers of the diocese.  
Secondly, 
The second reason.  neither was the jurisdiction over the parishes in the Country by usurpation of the latter Bishops, but a right from the beginning, belonging to the very first Bishops of the City. For evidence whereof, call to mind what before was proved, that dioceses were not wont to be enlarged, or the number of Bishops lessened; but chose those parts of the Country which ever had a Bishop, were still to retain him; and those which never had, if they were so populous, as that they seemed to deserve a Bishopric, a Bishop was with the consent of the ancient Bishop of the City, and the authority of the provincial synod, and the Metropolitan set over them. This is sure, that all Countries were under their several Cities, and whosoever were from the beginning bishops of the Cities, were Bishops also of the Countries belonging unto them. Neither might the Bishop of one City encroach upon the Country, or parishes subject to another City; but they were to be governed by them, to whom they had belonged from the beginning. In the general Council of Ephesus 
p Cont. Ephes. p●st. aduent. epist. Cyp. , when complaint was made, that the Bishop of Antioch had encroached upon them of Cyprus, for the ordination of their Metropolitan, who ever from the Apostles times, were in that and other matters of greatest moment, ordered by their own provinciciall synods, his attempt was censured 
q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  as an innovation contrary to the ecclesiastical laws, and Canons of the holy Apostles. And therefore this general decree was made by the Council for all dioceses and provinces, that no Bishop shall take upon him any other province or country 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which for the time past, and from the beginning hath not been under him or his Predecessors. And again, that to every province or country their right should be kept pure and vnui●lable, which had belonged to them for the time past, and from the beginning, according to the custom anciently received. Likewise in the Council of Carthage 
r Conc. Carth. gr. c. 54. , that the people in the Country which never had a Bishop of their own, should not receive a Bishop, but by the consent of the Bishop, by whom (and his antecestors) they have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from the beginning possessed. And where some had schismatically seized upon some part of a diocese, and being guilty of their wrong, would sequester themselves from the meetings and synods of the Bishops, it was decreed, that the lawful Bishop should enjoy, not only his See, but also such dioceses. And again, it was demanded 
s Ibid. c. 57 , what course should be taken if a Bishopric being erected in a part of the diocese, by the consent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the Bishop who hath held the dioceses from the beginning, the new Bishop should encroach upon other parts of the diocese, which were not intended to him. Answer was made, that as that part which he had, was taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, out of the company of parishes jointly possessed, and as a member 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, out of the body of many by the consent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the Bishop who had authority or power: so the new Bishop should not encroach upon any other.  
The great council of Chalcedon 
t Conc. Chalced. c. 17. , determined, that country parishes should unremovably remain to the Bishops which held them. Which Canon was renewed in the council of Constantinople 
u in T●●●lo. c. 25. , with this addition, if the said Bishops held them quietly and without contradiction for the space of thirty years.  

§ 9 The third. reason.  But nothing doth more evidently prove, that in the primitive Church dioceses were subject to Bishops, than the ancient institution of country Bishops 
x Confessed by Calvin. Inst. l. 4. c 4. § 2. & Bez● de grad. c. 24. , called chorepiscopis. Who where the country seemed larger, then that the Bishop by himself could perform all episcopal offices, were for the more ease of the Bishops, and commodity of the country Churches, appointed in certain places as their suffragans or vicegerents, and to perform under them, and for them, some episcopal duties of less moment: but yet so, as the chorepiscop●● might do 
y Conc. Ancyr. c. 13.  nothing of weight without the appointment of the Bishop, 
Conc. Antioch. c. 10.  neither might he ordain without the Bishop of the city, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unto which both himself and his Country is subject.  
Fourthly, 
The fourth. reason.  this truth is also demonstrated, partly by the perpetual successions of Bishops in all the Apostolical Churches, singularly succeeding from the Apostles times, to the latter ages, plainly evincing that even in the greatest Cities and Churches, where there hath always been a great multitude of Presbyters, there hath been but one only lawful Bishop at once successively; and partly by the universal consent of all Churches, not only in former ages both catholic and heretical (for even the Novatians, the Donatists, the Arians, etc. retained the government of the true Church by Bishops) but also of all almost at this day being established in peace, retaining for the most part the ancient distinction of Churches, according to dioceses and provinces, which hath continued ever from the first conversion of them: not any one example being to be produced in the whole world, neither in, nor since the Apostles times, until our age, of any Church governed according to the newfound parish discipline. Yea the Church of Geneva itself, which hath been a pattern to others, though it hath abolished the episcopal government, notwithstanding it remaineth a diocese under their one only Presbytery, as well as it was wont under their one only Bishop: the authority and jurisdiction of their Presbytery being not confined to any one parish (nor any one parish allowed a Presbytery) but is extended to all the parishes both in the city and territory thereto belonging, having the same circuit that the Bishop was wont to have.  
Finally, it may be alleged, that as with us bath and Wells, Coventry and Lichfield, London and Co●chester, so in the primitive Church more cities than one, with the countries thereto belonging, have sometimes made but one diocese. For when to the general Council of Ephesus 
a Exempl. libelli sin. Ephes. oblati ab Euprepio & Cyrillo Episcopis. , petiton was made by certain Bishops; that whereas it had been an ancient custom in the provinces of Europe, that divers Bishops should have each of them two cities under them, as the Bishop of Heraclea had both Heraclea and Panion, the Bishop of ●yze had also Arcadiopolis, the Bishop of C●●la Callipolis, the Bishop of Sabsadia, A phrodi●ias, and the latter of these Cities never had a proper Bishop of their own, but ever from the beginning were subject to the aforesaid Bishops: and whereas now they feared some innovation, they referred the cause to the Council. The Council therefore determined, that there should not then, nor afterwards be any innovation, but the aforesaid Bishops should according to the ancient custom, which hath the force of a law, retain the said Cities. And likewise it may be added, that some whole nations in the primitive Church were subject to one Bishop, not as the primate or Patriarch, for that was ordinary (so was Ignatius 
b Ignat. epist. ad Rom.  Bishop of Syria, Liberius 
c Socrat. l. 4. c. 12  of Italy, Cyprius 
d Nazianz. encom. Cypr. Conc. Const. Trull. c. 2.  of Africa, Diodorus 
e Theodor. l. 5. c. 4.  of Cilicia, Basil 
f Sozum. l. 5. c. 1●.  the Great of Cappadocia, etc.) but as having one only Bishop: as the nation of the Scythyans 
g Sozum. lib. 6. c. 21.  having many cities, towns, and castles, had all of them by ancient custom one only Bishop, which was the Bishop of their chief city Tomis.   

CHAP. III. Maintaining the first Argument in the Sermon, proving that the seven Churches of Asia, etc. were Dioceses.  
THese testimonies and proofs hitherto produced, are so evident & demonstrative for dioceses and diocesans, as that if no more could be said, they are sufficient, if not to persuade, yet at the least to convince the gainsayers. But if besides these, the arguments which the Refuter hath in chase, shall be made to return upon him, and to drive him and his consorts like the men of Ai, upon these new forces; and if the forces which he bringeth to maintain his quarrel, shall be found to be of no force, and altogether unable to endure the least encounter; then do I hope, that our Disciplinarians themselves will be persuaded to speak no more for the new found parish Discipline. But before I enter into this second conflict, I am to take a survey of his forces, which I perceive are divided into 2. troops, the one encountering with my forces, the other fortifying their hold of the parish discipline.  
In his encounter or refutations; 
Pag. 53.  first he findeth fault, that I do not conclude in this second part, what he would have me to conclude according to his forced Analysis. For answer whereof let my words be considered.  (Serm. s. 1 pag. 17. I come now to the second: which is, to show that in the Apostles time and in the ages following, the Churches whereof the Bishops are called Angels, (or to use their own words, the visible Churches endued with power of Ecclesiastical government) were Dioceses properly, and not parishes. This is proved out of this place etc.) 
The assertion which I endeavour to prove in the four first points of my Sermon, was this, that the Angels or governors of the primitive Church, were Diocesan Bishops, and for the substance of their calling, such as ours be. This assertion, after I had proved it in the first point 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by disproouing their Presbyteries: in the three next points I endeavour to prove it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, showing that they were such as ours are, both in respect of the largeness of their authority; to which end I show that their Churches were Dioceses in the second point, and themselves Diocesans in the third: and in respect of the height of their authority and Pre-eminence, that they were superior in degree to other ministers etc. which I prove in the fourth. In this second point therefore, if I endeavour to prove that the primitive Churches, which had Bishops, and Presbyteries, and were endued with power of Ecclesiastical government, were not parishes properly, but Dioceses; nothing could be more directly, and pertinently delivered. But the only thing, which I seek to prove and maintain in this part, as every man seeth, is, that the Churches which had Bishops and Presbyteries, etc. were not parishes properly, but Dioceses. And this I first prove by mine own arguments, and secondly maintain against theirs.  

§. 2. That the 7. Churches were Dioceses.  My arguments were two. The former grounded on the text, and is thus to be framed: 
Churches, whose circuit contained not only cities, but also countries adjoining, were Dioceses.  
The circuit of the 7. churches, whereof the 7. Angels were Bishops, (and whereto other Churches having Bishops, and Presbyteries, endued with power of Ecclesiastical government, were like) contained the cities and Countries adjoining▪  
Therefore the 7. Church's etc. were Dioceses.   
The proposition I did not express, but did presuppose it, and take it for granted. Likewise that part of the assumption (enclosed in the parenthesis) affirming that to the 7. Churches, all others which had Bishops, and Presbyteries, and consequently were endued with the power of Ecclesiastical government, were like, I also presupposed: because it is not to be doubted but that the primitive Churches endued with the power of Ecclesiastical government, were of the like nature and constitution. And upon this hypothesis, the only argument which this great disputer bringeth to make good his cause, 
Pag. 66.  is grounded: affirming that it is clear by all learned (I know not what) that the constitution of the visible Churches, was at the first one & the same in all places.  
Now that the 7. Churches within their circuit contained both the cities and Countries thereto adjoining, it is proved; first, jointly. For if the 7. Churches within their circuit comprised all the Churches in Asia, than all both in cities and countries: but the first is true; for our Saviour Christ writing to the churches in Asia compriseth all under these 7. as being the principal, and containing within their circuit all the rest.  
Then, severally: The church of Ephesus, contained a great and ample city (indeed a Metropolis or mother city) and the country subject to it: the church of Smyrna a mother city & the country belonging to it: the church of Sardes a mother city and the country adjoining: the church of Laoidcea, a mother city and the country under it: the Church of Pergamus, or Pergamun, a famous city, (which had been the fear of the Kings of Asia) and the country belonging to it: the churches also of Thyatira and Philadelphia contained a cities with their territories.  
Now let us see how our refu●er cavilleth with these arguments. The first he frameth thus: 
If the churches of Asia to which our saviour Christ writ, 
§. 3.  were great and ample cities, and not the cities alone, but also the countries adjoining, than they were dioceses properly and not parishes:  
But the churches of Asia were such. Therefore they were Dioceses etc.   
Of this syllogism (saith he) the assumption is on the eighteenth page, and the conclusion on the seventeenth. The proposition is of necessity so to be supplied. To which I answer, that the consequence thereof is nought. Even so in your conceit be almost all that you make for me. 
Ad page. 54. His answer to the proposition.  But ●s your necessity or need such, that you cannot frame a syllogism with hope to answer it, unless the proposition have consequence which you may deny? Let me entreat you, that the proposition may be simple as even now I propounded it, & then deny it if you can. Churches whose circuit contained not on the cities but also the country's adjoining were Dioceses. This proposition will stand unmovable, when the foundation of your discipline will be razed. And so will the consequence which yourself propound, being grounded on this proposition as the hypothesis thereof. But why is the consequence nought? for it will not be amiss to take a brief view how he playeth with it. 2. reasons he rendereth 1. Because it presupposeth that all Churches in the world at that time were ●mple and great Cities. Which as it appeareth to be manifestly false to all that are of any understanding; so it, and some other places in his book do plainly bewray that he doth not know, 
V●de infir. lib. 4. c. 4. § 3. What is the hypothesis of of a convexive proposition.  what is the hypothesis or thing presupposed in a connexive proposition. The which that he may know here after, let him dispose his connexive proposition in an enthymeme; and what part of the syllogism is wanting, let him understand that to be presupposed as the hypothesis whereon that consequence is grounded. And if that hypothesis be false, let him know that the consequence is nought. But if it be true (as always it is in their argumentations who do not dispute sophistically, for they presuppose and take for granted nothing but that which in their opinion is certain and manifest) then is the consequence necessary. As for example, let his connexive proposition be disposed in this E●thymeme: The 7. churches contained within their circuit, not only the Cities but the country's adjoining:  
Therefore the seven Churches were dioceses.  
That which is presupposed in this consequence is the proposition of the syllogism which is understood: viz. Churches which within their circuit contained not only cities but the country's adjoining, were dioceses. Which being a certain and manifest truth, the consequence was necessary. But if I should say thus:  
Churches whose circuit contained both cities and countries adjoining, were dioceses: Therefore the 7. churches were dioceses: in this consequence the assumption were presupposed, viz. that the circuit of every of the seven churches contained both the city, and country adjoining. Which parts of Syllogisms omitted in Enthymemes▪ if the refuter would add to make up a simple syllogism, either in his arguing or analysing, he might spare both himself and his adversary a great deal of superfluous trouble about his consequences. He must therefore unlearn that art (if he would not be accounted a trifler) of flinging all arguments into a connexive Syllogism, that he may have a consequence to cavil with.  
But so far is the proposition which he propounded from presupposing that all Churches in the world were great and ample Cities, that it doth not so much as presuppose those seven in Asia, which it mentioneth, to be such. That is not presupposed in the proposition, but is assumed or affirmed in the Assumption. Nothing is presupposed in the Consequence of the proposition, but the simple proposition, which I said was the hypothesis thereof. If it be ●aid, that what I say of the seven churches, I would have understood of all other churches, and so seem to presuppose (though not in my proposition, yet in my argumentation) that which the Refuter doth object: I answer, that as in other places I am not to be blamed for concluding from other Churches to these seven: so neither here for concluding from these seven, to all others. For the form and constitution of all the Primitive Churches, being one and the same, as the Refuter confesseth; it is evident that what is truly said of other Primitive churches in respect of their constitution, is verified of these seven: And what is verified of these seven, may be truly affirmed of the rest. Not that all churches had within their circuit great and ample Cities, (that was spoken concerning five of these in Asia) it is sufficient that they had Cities with the countries adjoining. And so had all Churches which had a Bishop and a Presbytery, or were (as you speak and mean) endued with power of Ecclesiastical government. 
§ 4. Their instance concerning Cenchreae.  Neither can you give instance in any one to the contrary. Yes, that they can. T. C. hath an instance: this disputer also hath one instance, pag. 57 and one in this place, and in some others. And yet all is but this: Some church was not a City, as for example, Cenchrea. He might have said Cenchrea. Their reason is thus explicated: 
Cenchreae was not a City,  

Rom. 16.11.  Cenchreae was a Church,  
Therefore some Church was not a City.   
I distinguish of the word Church. For I deny not but the company of Presbyters in a family is a Church, much more in a village or town. But the question is of such a church, as had a Bishop assisted with a Presbytery, and had, as they speak, the power of Ecclesiastical government. Such a Church was seated only in Cities, or great towns answerable to Cities. And therefore, if they mean (as they do: or else they might aswell hold their peace) that in Cenchreae was such a Church; I deny the assumption. Cenchreae was subject to the church of Corinth, as all other towns thereabouts, and never had a Bishop or a Presbytery of her own. Yea, but she had a Deacon. Suppose that were so, what then? several Deacons, and several Presbyters were placed in parish Churches, where was neither B. nor Presbytery, nor the power (which they speak of) of Ecclesiastical government. And yet their Deacon was but a Diaconisse, namely Phoebe. Of whom also it may be doubted, whether Paul calleth her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one that ministered to the Church in Cenchreae, in respect of an office imposed upon her to minister to the needy, & to entertain strangers on the church's cost, or in regard of her voluntary ministering to the faithful there, of her own substance. For if she were, as Bullinger, and divers before him report, nobilissima & ditissima foemina, a most noble, and most wealthy woman; it is not like, that she was a widow maintained of the church; 
Luke 8.3.  but one, which (like to Mary, joanna, Chusa, & Susanna mentioned in the Gospel, which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ministered to Christ of their goods) did maintain and relieve the poor of the Church there, and give entertainment to Christian travelers of her own cost. In which respect Paul saith of her, 
Rom. 16.2.  that she had been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a patroness of many, yea of the Apostle himself. Neither is it likely that a widow maintained of the church, as having little or nothing of her own, should have such business in Rome, or (as it is thought) at the emperors Court, as that the Apostle should write to the faithful in Rome to assist her in her affairs. But it may be you desire to hear some further reason of his denial of that consequence: you shall hear it. For, saith he, though it were granted, that these 7. were great Cities, & the Countries adjoining; ●et there might be divers others, which were small, etc. See you not how he seeketh about for starting holes? What if there were (and that is more than might be) other small churches? (as indeed there was none such as we speak of, but they were seated in the Cities, neither was any so small, but if it were endued with power of ecclesiastical government, it was of the same constitution with those which were greater). What is that to this consequence? If these Churches contained each of them not only the City, but the country adjoining, than they were not Parishes properly, but Dioceses. His answer if it be well weighed, is an exception against the conclusion. As if he should say, though I would fain wrangle with your proposition, but cannot (for how is it possible, but that if these churches did contain ample Cities with the countries, such as we call shires, belonging to them, they were not dioceses but parishes?) & although your assumption should be granted, namely, that these churches contained not only the cities, but countries: notwithstanding your conclusion is to be excepted against. For though these were dioceses, yet others might be parishes. Such a froward adversary I have met withal; who in other places accusing me, for not concluding what these churches, or the angels of them were, here findeth fault that I conclude what they were. But both his accusations are alike unjust; seeing the constitution of them, and all others (endued with power of ecclesiastical government) was the same; and what is said of the one, is to be understood of the other.  
His second reason why the consequence is nought: 
§. 5.  because it doth not appear, (neither is it true) that every one of these Churches was divided into divers several ordinary asblies, all of them depending upon some one as the chief, without power of ecclesiastical government apart in themselves. Is this the denial of any thing but the conclusion? is not the denial of the conclusion, an evidence that the answerer is confounded? and is not confusion a manifest sign of one that writeth against his conscience, resolved not to be persuaded, though his conscience be convicted?  
As touching his assertion opposed to my conclusion, that they were not Dioceses, because they were not divided. etc. it containeth three branches: First, that they were not divided into divers ordinary assemblies. Secondly, If they were, yet they did not all depend upon some one as the chief. Thirdly, That they had the power of ecclesiastical government in themselves. These assertions would have been proved by them that are opponents, and will needs persuade us to admit of their parish Discipline. But I am well assured that they are notable to prove any one of them. And although it were sufficient for me to deny these assertions, and to put them to prove them: yet because I desire from my soul to satisfy our opposites in this cause, as Brethren; and because they contain the very grounds of the parish-discipline, I will briefly disprove them. For, as touching the first, I have often wondered what our brethren mean to argue from the example of the churches which were not divided into parishes; to those that be. Would they have the Church of a City, and country belonging to it, to be all but one congregation, assembling ordinarily in one place? If they would, them are they too absurd to be thought worthy to be confuted. But though they would, the ancient christians would not; who when their multitude was increased, in all places of the world were divided into divers particular assemblies. If they would have them divided, as of necessity they must: then let them tell me, whether we (that do, and of necessity must, consist of divers congregations) are to follow the example of any ancient church, as it was before it was divided, or as it was after it was divided. If the former, then are they absurd again: If the latter, then have I that which I desire. They will say perhaps, that each congregation after the division, was as that one before. Nothing less: Let them prove that, and I will yield in the whole cause. The one before had a Bishop, and a Presbytery, as they will confess which were to attend the whole flock, but after the division, not each parish had a Bishop and a Presbytery, but one of the Presbyters assigned to it, the rest remaining with the Bishop, who (as before) assisted with his Presbytery, had a general superintendency over them, as well divided as undivided, and was but one in every diocese, as well after the division as before. Which is so manifest a truth, so confirmed by testimonies before cited, so testified by the general consent and practise of the Christian world, not one instance to be given to the contrary, as that it cannot but convince the conscience, I hope also it will persuade. For tell me I pray you, were not parishes distinguished in Constantine's time and before, as well as now? Yes questionless. Were any other assigned to them severally, then several Presbyters, even as they be now? That also is out of doubt. Was it ever, or at any time otherwise, after the division of parishes? No without question. There remained but one Bishop, and one Presbytery for the whole city and country, as well after the division as before. And that is so evident a truth, by that which hath been said, that no man of learning can with a good conscience any longer deny it.  
But it will be said, 
§. 6.  that the Churches before they were divided, were not dioceses. Whereto I answer, that the circuit of the Church, in the intention of the Apostle or first founder of it, was the same as well before the division of parishes, as after. Even as the subject of the leaven is the whole bach, in the intention of him that putteth it into the lump, though the loaves be not yet divided, yea though but a little of the dough be yet (after it is newly put in) seasoned. If you ask me how I know this? I answer. First, because the whole Church of God, ever since the Apostles days unto our age, hath so understood the intention of the Apostles, and of their first founders: the circuit of every Church having from the beginning included not only the city, but the country thereto belonging. Secondly, because that division of Churches which was three or four hundred years after Christ, with their limits and circuits, were ordinarily the same which had been from the beginning, as before hath been testified by divers ancient Counsels. Thirdly, because it is confessed by 
a Bez. de grad. c. 24.  Beza, and testified by Doctor 
b Rain. &. H. 542.  Rainolds, and others 
c Caes. Baron. an. 39.10. Wolfg. Laz. de rep. Rom. l. 2. c. 12. Beat. Rhena●●. in lib. Not●t. provinciar. imp. Rom. in descriptione Illyrici. , that the distribution of the Church did usually follow the division of the commonwealth: insomuch that those countries which were subjecteth to the civil jurisdiction exercised in any city, were also subject ordinarily to the ecclesiastical: and as they were accounted of the same county or province, in respect of civil government, so of the same Church or diocese in regard of spiritual. And as the Church followed the civil distribution at the beginning, so also if there were any new city erected by the authority of the Emperor, it was decreed by the Council of Constantinople 
d Const. in Trullo. c. 38. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  (following therein the canon of their forefathers) that the order of ecclesiastical things should follow the civil and public form.  
Therefore though these Churches had not been divided into several congregations, yet had they each of them been dioceses. But now I add, that at the time of writing the Revelation, which was almost an hundeed years after the birth of Christ, it is more than probable, that they contained divers congregations. For when Paul had continued but two years at Ephesus, the holy Ghost 
e Act. 19.10.  testifieth, that all which inhabited Asia (so properly called) did hear the word of the Lord jesus both jews and Gentiles. Well, Paul having placed many Presbyters among them, and having continued among them for the space of three years, afterwards 
f Act. 20.31.  sendeth Timothy to be their Bishop, who ordinarily continued among them until his death. And that you should not think there was but that Church at Ephesus in Paul's time, he maketh mention 
g 1. Cor. 16.19.  of the Churches of Asia. Saint Peter likewise had preached, and by his preaching converted many in Asia, to whom among others, he directeth 
i 1. Pet. 1.1.  his first Epistle. After the death of Peter and Paul, because those Churches were as Paul had foretold, much annoled with heretics, Saint john 
k Testified by Origen. Eusebius, Epiphanius, Chrysost. Nazianz. apud Caes. Baron. in a●. 44.29. , by the direction of the holy Ghost, went into those parts, preached the Gospel for many years, ordained Bishops and Presbyters where need was. To the ministry of the Apostles, add the preaching of the Bishops and Presbyters ordained by them, and disciples which they had instructed: by whose ministery, not only many particular Christians, but some Churches were brought to the faith. As that of Colossae, (which was in the confines of Phrygia, bordering on this Asia) in Paul's time, planted by the ministery of Epaphra● 
l Coloss. 1.7. , as their founder; watered by the ministery of Archippus, as their Bishop. Now I appeal to the conscience of every indifferent Reader, whether it be not unlikely, that not in any one of these famous Churches, no not in that of Ephesus, there were in the whole city and country belonging to it, any more than one ordinary congregation, after the preaching of such, and so many for the space of forty five years.  
And so much for the first of his assertions: the other two I will join together. For if there were but one Bishop for the Church, both of the city and country, (as there were but seven in all these seven Churches) and but one Presbytery: if the Churches both of the city and country were subject to the Bishop of the city: if the parishes both of city and country had neither Bishop nor Presbytery, but Presbyters severally assigned to them: if the Presbyters of the country were ordained by the Bishop of the city, and not only they, but the rural Bishops also were subject to his authority; all which, I have by most evident arguments and testimonies proved already: then did the several congregations and parishes, which I have also proved were all but members of one body, depend upon the chief Church in the city as the head, which afterwards was called Matrix ecclesia, cathedra episcopi, or the cathedral Church, neither had the power of ecclesiastical jurisdiction whereof they speak, as I have also proved before.  

§. 7. His answer to the assumption.  I come to the assumption, wherewith he cavilleth egregiously, because I said that the Churches whereof the seven Angels were Bishops, were not only the cities, but the countries adjoining, that is, as I expressed my meaning in the syllogism before, that the circuit of every one of these Churches contained both the city and country: which assumption I have made good by necessary proof. But, saith he, Who ever said that the Church of Ephesus was a great City? Who knoweth not that the City is one thing, and the Church another? But this might serve M.D. turn to dazzle the eyes of the simple, etc. As touching this foul imputation (that I may begin with it) I thank God, I am free, both from desire, and intent of dazzling the eyes of the simple. But as in my conscience I am clearly resolved of the truth of these five points contained in the Sermon: so I have endeavoured with plain evidence, to uphold and maintain the truth, against the novelty of your inventions, and the subtleties of your sophistications, wherewith you have too long both dazzled and seduced the simple. So much of that by the way.  
If he discerned the speech which I used, to be improper, had he not so much neither Art, I mean either Rhetoric, or Logic, nor grace, I mean charity, as either to conceive me to have spoken by a trope, or to explain my speech by such an enunciation, as the nature of the arguments doth require? When it is said in my text, the seven stars are the Angels; will he say, who ever heard that stars were Angels? Or when Christ saith, This cup is my blood that is sh●d, or, the new Testament in my blood: will he say; who ever heard that the cup is blood or the Testament? When I said the Churches are the cities and the country; could he neither understand me as speaking (after that most usual metonymy) of the Christian people in the city and country: nor yet explain my words, as the nature of the arguments contained in the speech doth lead him? If I should say, a man is not only body, but soul also, or, the body is not one member alone, but many, you would understand me thus: Man consisteth of body and soul; the body consisteth not of one member alone, but of many. Or thus; Whole man containeth these two parts: the body containeth not one member alone, but many. Even so the Church or diocese of Ephesus is (that is, containeth) not only the City, but the Country.  
But is that so strange a thing with our learned Refuter, 
§. 8. Churches called Cities.  that the name of the City should be given to the Church? Let him look back to Apoc. 1.11. and he shall find, that the seven Churches were, Ephesus, Smyrna, etc. And so usual is it with good Authors speaking of BB. to say they were Bishops of such or such a City, as I might fill a Volume with quotations to this purpose. These few testimonies may suffice: Eusebius 
m Euseb. Chr. an. 45. Ann. 71.  saith, that Euodius was the first Bishop of Antioch, and that Ignatius was the second Bishop of Antioch, etc. The Council of Nice writing to the Church of Alexandria, maketh mention 
n Socrat. lib. 1. fol. 177. a.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the Bishop of Alexandria. Athanasius 
o Epist. ad Epise. Afric.  calleth Damasus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Bishop of the great City Rome; and Dionysius, 
p De sentent. Dionys.  the B. of Alexandria. The first Council of Constantinople 
q Conc. Const. 1. c. 1.2.3.  mentioneth the Bishop of Alexandria, the Bishop of Constantinople, and the Bishop of Rome. And more plainly in the Council held in Trullo, 
r Const. in Trul. c. 2.  Nectarius is said to have been the Bishop of the City of Constantinople, Dionysius the Archbishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the great City of Alexandria. Look into the subscriptions of Bishops unto Counsels, as to that of Nice subscribed Osius the Bishop of the City of Corduba, Alexander Bishop of Alexandria, etc. to the Council of Sardica, Athanasius Bishop of the great City of Alexandria, Alexander Bishop of the City of Mesenia; and in like manner all the rest, styling themselves Bishops of the Cities. Look into the inscriptions of epistles written either by Bishops, or unto Bishops: Ignatius styleth himself thus: 
s Ignat. ad Polycarp.  Ignatius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Bishop of Antioch. Leo 
t Epist. 1.2.3. etc.  in his Epistles styleth himself sometimes Bishop of Rome, sometimes Vrbis Romae, of the City of Rome. Basil writeth to Eusebius the Bishop of Samosata, to Athanasius the Bishop of Ancyra, to Ambrose the Bishop of Milan, and writing to the Bishops of France and Italy, calleth himself the B. of Caesar●a.  
This title given to Bishops after the division of parishes, plainly proveth also, that they were not Bishops of any one parish, but of all the Churches in the City, and of the whole diocese.  
My assertion therefore, that each of the seven Churches was not only the City, but the country also adjoining, would according to the true meaning thereof have been confuted, if he had been able, and not the words fondly cavilled with. But not contended here with, he stretcheth my words beyond that which his own conscience would tell him was my meaning; as if I had said, that all the people in the City and Country had been at this time Christians. Which could scarcely be verified of any City and Country for 200. years after and more, I mean until Constantine's time. Nevertheless, this was an assertion which he found himself able to confute. And therefore full soberly he goeth about it, telling us, that there were not then so many Christians as inhabitants, nor it was not then in Ephesus, as it is now in London. And very learnedly out of h●s reading telleth us, that Polycarpus 
u Euseb. l. 4. c. 15.  was put to death by the rage of the heathen multitude, in the sight of his people: when every body knoweth, that in all Cities and Countries, for the space of almost 300. years, the Christians were persecuted by the Gentiles.  
If any man ask, how it may be said, that the Church contained the City and Country, when but a few Christians, in comparison of the heathen, were in either of both: I answer (as before) that the circuit of the Church or diocese was the same, when there were few, and when there were many, yea when all were Christians. Neither were there more Bishops set over the City and Country when all were Christians, then when there were but a few; the same Bishop of the City having jurisdiction over all the Christians both in the City and country, as well when all were Christians, as when but a few: which I proved before by the general consent and perpetual practice of all Christendom ever since the Apostles times; which ought without comparison to prevail with us above the authority of a few self-conceited persons among us, who are not so singular for learning, as they are singular in opinion; whose pride and arrogancy in advancing themselves against the judgement and practice of the universal church in all places, and in all ages since the Apostles times, is intolerable.  
Yea but saith he, the Church of Smyrna writing 
* Euseb. l. 4. c. 15.  of the said Martyrdom of Polycarpus, entituleth herself the Church of God which is at Smyrna. Was there a whole Diocese or Country of Christians inhabiting Smyrna? Which is an objection scarce worth the answering. For whether by the Church of Smyrna you understand the whole Diocese, it was seated chiefly in the City (as the soul, which is in all the body, is said to be in the head; and God, who is in all places, to be in heaven) or but that part which did inhabit the City, you are not to marvel, if the whole company of Christians inhabiting a City, are called a Church, seeing the company of Christians in a parish, or in a family, deserveth that name. Neither doth the naming of itself the Church which is at Smyrna, exclude the Churches in the Country from being of the same body or diocese with it. And thus much may suffice to have spoken concerning the first syllogism which he framed for me.  
Now are we to examine the second. 
§ 7. The 1. proof of the assumption, viz. that the seven Churches contained both the Cities and Countries adjoining.  M.D. (saith he) perceiving that this assumption wanted strength, sought to fortify it by two reasons. This is my adversaries usual, though odious, fashion, sophistically to argue every assertion of weakness, for which I bring proof: when rather the proof (if it be good, as hitherto he hath not been able to disprove any) doth argue the weakness of their judgement, who deny or doubt of the truth which is proved, and the strength also of the assertion, which is armed with such proof.  

Ad pag. 55.  The former reason he propoundeth thus: 
If our Saviour writing to the Churches of Asia, numbereth but seven, and some of them mother Cities, than were they great and ample Cities, and not the Cities alone, but the Countries adjoining.  
But our Saviour writing to the Churches of Asia, numbereth but seven. etc.  To let pass his unmannerly gibing, not worth the mentioning, and to refer you to the manner how this Syllogism is to be framed, before 
x Supr. §. 2.  mentioned, let us see how he dealeth with this frame which himself hath fashioned. He denieth, after his usual manner, both the proposition and the assumption. So hard is my hap, that scarce any one proposition or assumption, which he frameth for me, may be acknowledged to be true: and yet so hard is his hap, that he is not able to prove any one either proposition or assumption of mine to be untrue.  
The proposition he would confute by an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, though it were granted that our Saviour wrote these epistles to all the Churches of Asia, yet it will not follow, that therefore all the rest depended upon these, as children upon the mother. To which he addeth the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in denying the former part of the assumption, viz. that our Saviour did not write to all the Churches of Asia. His denial of the consequence he confirmeth by putting a case: If the Emperor finding some abuses commonly reigning in the whole Country of Asia, should have written to these principal and mother Cities for the reforming of those abuses, with intent (saith he) that all other Cities and Towns should be warned by his reproof of them, (which put-case with that intent is worthy to be put into a cap-case) might a man conclude thereupon, that all other Towns and Cities of Asia were subject to the government of these seven? But say I, put the case, that the Emperor so should do, with that intent, which is, and also hath been usual in such cases, that is, to the intent that what he writeth to them, might by and from them be notified to those Towns and Villages which were within the circuit of their jurisdiction: would it not strongly prove, that all those other towns and villages were subject to them? Come we to ourselves. When the King or his Counsel would have any thing intimated to all his Subjects in certain Counties, are not warrants directed to the Lieutenants of each County, from them to the high Constables of every hundred, from them to the Constables of every town? and doth not this show that the officers of the town are subordinate to those of the hundred, and much more to the governors of the County? In like manner when the Archbishop would have any thing imparted to every parish, he directeth his letters to the Bishops, they, to the Archdeacon's, they, to the officers in every Deanery, they acquaint (in particular) every Parish. Even so by Christ his writing to the 7. Churches, what he would have imparted to all the particular Churches, it may be gathered, that the rest of the particular Churches were subject to them. And it may well be, that when our Saviour writing to every one of the Angels severally, & concluding each Epistle with this Epiphonema, Let him that hath an ear, hear what the Spirit saith to the Churches, would have it understood what he writeth to the Angel, he writeth to the Churches, which be under his charge.  
And thus you have heard, how he hath fared with the Proposition. The Assumption he distinguisheth into two parts, the former, 
§ 10. Whether Christ wrote to all the churches in Asia.  affirming that Christ wrote to all the churches of Asia: the latter, that some of these seven Churches were Mother-Cities: both he denieth as false. The former, because it is unlikely, as he saith, if not impossible, that our Saviour writing to that third part of the world which was not much less than both the other, Africa and Europe, would write but to these 7. which were all together in one little corner of it. Here I appeal to my adversary, if he be a man of learning, whether he doth not cavil against the light of his conscience, seeing he could not be so ignorant▪ as to think, that by Asia mentioned in the Apocalypse, and else where in the Epistles and Acts of the Apostles, is not meant Asia the great, nor yet that which is called Asia minor, being the whole Chersonesus, now called Anatolia, bounded on the north with Pontus Euxinus, on the west with the Hellespont, & mare Aegaeum, on the south, with the Mediterranean sea, including▪ according to Ptolemey, eight countries, whereof Asia (so properly called) is one. And albeit he knoweth (as I am persuaded) that by Asia in the Apocalypse, is meant only that, which is so properly called; yet he maketh a great flourish, partly to show some small skill in Geography; but chiefly (that I may use his own term,) to dazzle the eyes of the simple; 
Ad pag. 56.  showing how unlikely it is, either that the great Kingdoms of Asia mayor should be Parishes under the seven Churches: or that those many famous Churches of Asia Minor, as the Churches of Derbe, Lystria, Iconium, Antioch in Pisidia, Pergain Pamphylia, of Galatia, which were many, were but dependents upon these seven. If he doth not know, that none of these Countries are contained in that Asia whereof the holy Ghost speaketh: let him compare but these few testimonies of Scripture. Act. 2.9.10. & 6.9. & 16.6.7. & 1. Pet. 1.1. and he shall find, that Cilicia, Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Bythinia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, and Mysia, (meaning Mysia mayor, or Olympina) being all parts of Asia minor, are reckoned as divers countries from that Asia, which is mentioned in the Scriptures. If the refuter would needs have shown his skill in Geography, he should have done well to have set down the bounds and limits of this Asia, whereof we speak. For the Authors that write thereof, whom I have seen, do not agree with the Scriptures. The Romans, when Attalus 
a Strabo Geograph. lib. 13.  Philomator the King of Pergamus, and the countries adjoining, had bequeathed his Kingdom to them, and they had recovered it from Aristonicus who claimed it as his inheritance, they reduced it into a Province, and by the name of the continent called it Asia, hoping it would be an introduction to the rest. Erasmus 
b Erasmus Annot, in Rom. 16.  saith, it is evident, that when Asia is named absolutely, that part of Asia minor is signified where Ephesus standeth. And 
c Erasm. in Act. 16.  on Act. 16. where Paul and his company were forbidden to preach the Word in Asia, the holy Ghost meaneth (saith he) that Asia, not which by the general name is called minor, environed on each side, but on the East, with the Sea, and which comprehendeth Phrygia, Pamphylia, Galatia, and some other Countries; but that which is near to Ephesus; for that properly is called Asia- minor. But he doth not tell us how much of the Country, which is not far from Ephesus, is contained within the circuit of Asia. Those which write of Geography, give a larger circuit unto it, then agreeth with the Scriptures, bounding it northward on Bythinia, westward on Propontis, Hellespont, and the Aegean sea, which in those places is called the Icarian sea: Southward, on the Rhodian sea: Eastward, on Lycia, Pamphylia, and Galatia. And by this means, they include within the limits of it. Phrygia, both the greater and the less (wherein Troy stood,) and Mysia, both the greater, which is called Olympina, and the less, which is called 
d Ptolem. calleth Mysia Pergamene, maior.  Pergamene. When as Phrygia is in the Scriptures distinguished from Asia, and only the borders or frontiers of it, where Laodicea (according to their opinion) standeth, are reckoned in it, and likewise Mysia, Olympina, and Phrygia minor, (which is also called Epictetus or Troas) are reckoned apart from Asia. So that according to the scriptures, Asia seemeth to include, jonia, Mysia▪ Pergamene, Lydia, or Maeonia, and perhaps Caria; for thereof is no mention. In jonia stood Ephesus, and from it northward, Smyrna. In Mysia Pergamene 
e Mysiae principatum Pergamum obtinuit. Aen. Sylu. in Asia minor. C 62. Acolis quondam Mysia appellata. Plin. l. 5. c 30. Ptolemy among the Cities of Lydia, and Maeonia reckoneth Thyatira, Sard●s and Philadelphia.  stood Pergamum northward from Smyrna: and southward from it Thy●tira, which Strabo calleth Mysorum ultimam. In Lydia (which Strabo, Ptolemy and Pliny, l. 5. c. 29. take to be all one with Maeonia) stood Sardo● (which Strabo calleth Lydorum caput) southward also from Pergamus. In the confines of Mysia and Lydia stood Philadelphia. The borders of Phrygia, Caria and Lydia are hardly distinguished, saith 
f Strabo l. 13.  Strabo, because they meet together, and are confounded in the midlands, (as Aeneas Silvius saith,) and this confusion is increased, saith Strabo, because the romans have divided these countries, not by the nations, but according to the administrations (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) that is, circuits of jurisdiction, wherein Courts are kept, and judgements exercised according to law. Now in these confines standeth Laodicea, which according to Ptolemey 
g Ptol. l. 5. c. 2.  is a City of Caria, and by the testimony of the holy Ghost in the Apocalypse is a part of Asia, though by the most Geographers it is said to stand in the borders of Phrygia. Eunapius 
h In Maximo.  speaking of Clearchus made proconsul of Asia, by Valens the Emperor, describeth the circuit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of that which now properly is called Asia, that it beginning at Pergamum, and comprehending the sea coasts, endeth in the continent at Caria, the mount Tmolus circumscribing the borders thereof on Lydia. So that according to this description the circuit of Asia is less than that which is limited in the Scriptures, Lydia, and Caria being excluded. And accordingly in the subscriptions 
i Subscript. Con. Nicen. , to the Council of Nice, not only Phrygia, but Lydia also and Caria are reckoned apart from Asia, that we should not marvel, that a less circuit is assigned unto it in the Scriptures, than the Geographers do describe, seeing within a less compass than that which the Scriptures assigned thereunto, it is circumscribed by others.  
Seeing therefore Asia is gathered into so small a compass, let us see what the refuter can object, why our Saviour writing to these seven Churches, should not under them comprise all the Churches in Asia. Because even there or near, saith he, we find divers other churches: as those of Colossa, Hierapolis, & Troas mentioned in the Scripture; to let pass Magnesia, and Trallis recorded in other writers. But none of the three former are mentioned in the scripture as parts of Asia: Troas being the same with phrygia minor, and Hierapolis, and Colossae, Cities of Phrygia mayor. It is recorded by Eusebius 
k In Chronico. , that in the year of Christ 66. and tenth of Nero 
l Tacitus saith in the 6. of Nero, and so as it is thought within two years after the Epistle to the Colossians was written. Tacit. l. 14 codem anno Scil. 6. Neronis exillustribus Asiae urbibus Laodicea tremore terrae prostrata, nullo a nobis remedio proprijs opibus revaluit.  these three cities Laodicea, Hierapolis, and Colossae, were overthrown with earthquakes. And although we read that Laodicea was quickly re-edified, and flourished again, when Saint john wrote the Revelation, and Hierapolis not long after, seeing we read that Papias Saint john's Scholar was by him made Bishop there▪ yet of Colossae, as 
m Cal. in argum. epis. ad Coloss.  Calvin observeth, that shortly after the Epistle was written to them, that Church with the rest perished; so that it stood in Saint john's time, I read not, neither do I remember any mention of it, or of the Bishops thereof, in, or near those times. Howbeit in process of time it was re-edified, and called Conae, or Chonae, whereof Nicetus the writer of the annals, because he was of that city is called Coniates. Oecumenius 
n In Coloss. 1.  saith that Colossae was a city of Phrygia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is now called Chona, and by that name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is reckoned among the Bishoprics as they are digested by Le● 
o jur. graecor●m. pag. ●8. num. 54.  the Emperor. That Colossae was no part of Asia Theodoret showeth: For being of opinion that Paul had been at Colossae, he proveth 
p Prefat. in Epist. ad Coloss.  it because it is said that he went through Phrygia. Neither saith he let any man object that Paul was forbidden 
q Act. 18.  of God. For Luke speaketh of Asia and Bythinia, not of Phrygia.  
As touching Magnesia, and Trallis; it appeareth not, that they were as yet converted unto the faith▪ when they were converted (as not long after I confess they were, seeing Ignatius a little before his death did write unto them) they were▪ inferior to those seven which Saint john nameth as the principal, and both of them subject to the Bishop of Ephesus; as appear by the subscriptions in the Council of Chalcedon 
r Action●.  where Eutropius the Bishop of Ephesus subscribing, as other metropolitans did, for himself and the Bishops which were under him being absent, among twenty others mentioneth Alexander of Magnesia, and Maximus of Trallis. Likewise in the distribution of the Churches made by Leo the Emperor 
s Iu●. graecevom. pag. 90.  among the Bishop's subject to the Bishop of Ephesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Bishop of Tralles, and of Magnesia, upon Maander are numbered. Upon these weak premises the Refuter inferreth a very confident conclusion. It is clear therefore, saith he, that our Saviour intended not to write to all the Churches of Asia, but only to those seven which he nameth; to no●e of which, so many and so famous Churches could belong. Whereto I answer, according to that which I have proved, that every Church that was in Asia in these times, was either one of these seven, or depending on them. As for those Churches which he mentioneth in Asia maior, or Asia minor, yea even those which were in Phrygia minor, or Troas, or in Phrygia maior, as Hierapolis, and Colossae, were not any of them in Asia so properly called: there remain only Magnesia, and Tralles to prove his conclusion. Which either he cannot prove to have been Churches at this time; or if they were, he cannot disprove, that they belonged to one of these seven. So that nothing, which he can object, doth hinder, but that under these seven, our Saviour did write to all the Churches in Asia.  

§. 12. That some of the seven Churches were mother Cities.  Thus the former part of the assumption remaineth true; and so will the latter, though he say it is utterly false: for his reason is no other, but that which I have already confu●ed, that they were neither mother cities, nor cities at all. And whereas he objecteth, that the Epistles were directed to the Angel of the Church in Ephesus, in Smyrna etc. and not of Ephesus the Church, Smyrna the Church, as of the whole cities were the Churches: I answer, that although the whole city of Ephesus meaning Civitas, was not the Church until it was wholly converted to the profession of Christianity: notwithstanding the whole city, meaning urbs, was contained within the circuit of the Church intended by the Apostles, and acknowledged by the judgement and practice of that Church, conformable to the judgement and practice of all other churches in christendom. Neither is that material that the church is said to have been in Ephesus (as it also was when the whole city was converted to christianity) seeing in urbe, in the city, the church was chiefly seated, as was said before.  
Now that some of these were Metropoleis, that is, as I said, not only mother cities, but also Metropolitan churches, I will briefly declare. Those cities which were capita 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the heads of the civil jurisdiction, where the precedents of the Roman provinces held their assemblies, & kept their courts, were mother cities to the rest, which were under the said jurisdiction. But such were five of these, as hath been heretofore noted out of Pliny: 
t Plin. l. 5. c. 29 et 30.  viz. Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Sardes, & Laodicca. Where also Philadelphia is noted as one of the cities subject to Sardes: and Thyatira to Pergamus. This distinction the Church followed in all, excepting Pergamus, which itself was subjecteth to Ephesus: and Thyatira, which had belonged to it, sometimes to Synada (for in the council of Chalcedon 
u Actio. 6.  Marmianu● the Bishop of Synada among the BB. which were under him, reckoneth Helladius of Thyatira) sometimes to Sardes, as in the Emperor Leo 
x jur. gracorom. pag. 90.  the Philosopher's time. The Bishops of the other 4. in the council of Chalcedon 
y Actio. 3.  in the condemnation of Dioscorus, are styled metropolitans; and in the divers subscriptions to that council, are placed among the Bishops of the mother cities. In the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
z jur. graecoran. 88  or distribution of the Churches by the Emperor Leo, Ephesus is a Metropolis 
a Page 90.  having 36. Bishoprics under it, among which Pergamum is the 19 Sardes likewise is a Metropolis, having under it 24 Bishoprics, whereof Philadelphia is the first and Thyatira the third; to Laodicea likewise 
b page 94.  21. bishoprics were subject, and to Smyrna, 
c page 100  7.  
And so much may suffice for the first argument grounded on the text.   

CHAP. 4. That Presbyters were appointed, not to parishes, but to dioceses.  
THe Analysis of the 2. argument is mistaken by him, to say no worse: for he should have looked to the end of that, which though he make the 3. section, should have been joined to the 2. Where he should have found this to be the main conclusion of all that which followeth the first argument (concerning the 7. churches), to that place. viz. That the Presbyteries in the Apostles times, were not appointed to parishes, but to dioceses. From whence the principal question of this part, is thus to be inferred. The Presbyteries ordained by the Apostles were appointed not to parishes, but Dioceses: therefore the churches endued with power of ecclesiastical government were not parishes, but dioceses. This consequence the refuter granteth, in granting the connexive proposition of the syllogism, which he frameth p. 58. l. 1. If he did not, it might easily be confirmed by adding the assumption, viz. to visible Churches endued with power of ecclesiastical government the Presbyters ordained by the Apostles were appointed.  
The antecedent (which is also the proposition of the syllogism if the assumption be added) I prove by 2. arguments. The first concluding thus: They who were appointed to whole cities and countries to labour so far as they were able, the conversion of all that belonged to God, were appointed to dioceses, and not to parishes.  

Ad pag. 54.  This proposition I omitted also, as taking it for granted. As for his cavils against his own proposition which he framed for the nonce to cavil withal, they are not worth the refuting. For besides that he absurdly cavilleth with me, as though I had said, that all in the city & country were in S. I●bus time converted: he allegeth that there is no necessity, that they which were converted, should be of the same church with them, who did convert them. As for example they of Ceuchrea received the gospel from Corinth, and yet were a distinct Church: For it is called the church of C●nchrea. Rom. 16. 1. But I spoke of them which did accidentally convert others, but of such as by whose means the conversion of the city and country was originally intended. And I say, that they whose ministry was intended for the conversion of the city and country; to their care or charge, both for the first converting of them, & government of them being converted, the city & country belonged. As for Cenchreae, though it be called a church, (as every company of christians may so be termed) yet it was not such a church as they speak of, endued with power of ecclesiastical government; but subject to the jurisdiction of the Church of Corinth.  
Now followeth the assumption: But the Presbyteries ordained by the Apostles were appointed for whole cities & countries thereto belonging, to labour so far as they were able the conversion of all that belonged to God.  
This assumption confirmed with 2. arguments, is set down p. 18. the one, the end intended by the Apostles in appointing presbyters in cities, which was the conversion of the nation, for which themselves first preached in the chief cities: the other, is the 〈◊〉, or as they call it causa 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, their hope, by the ministry of the Presbyters placed in the city, to convert them which belonged to God both in city & country, grounded on the force of the gospel testified by our Saviour. The words are these: for it is evident that the Apostles when they intended to convert any 〈◊〉, they first preached to the chief cities thereof▪ Wherein when through God's blessing they had converted some, their manner was to ordain Presbyters▪ hoping by their ministry to convert not only the rest of the city but also in the country's adjoining so many as did belong to God. 
Mat. 13.53.  The Kingdom of heaven being like a little leaven, which being put into any part of the 〈◊〉, seasoneth all.  
These words thus set down at large, be the assumption of the syllogism which he hath framed (for what cannot he bring within the compass of his syllogisms?) and thereof he maketh 3. parts. About the first, he saith, he will not strive, viz. the Apostles beginning to p●each in the chief cities of every nation, which (though he think I cannot prove) is most easy to be proved, because it was the most wise and likely course to be taken for the conversion of nations: as also because it is manifest both by the scriptures & other ancient records, that they took that course: As Paul intending the conversion of Asia, where he stayed three years, continued in Ephes●s all the time: 
Act. 20. 1●.31.  intending the conversion of Macedonia, went to Thessalonica & Philippi: of Achaia, to Corinth etc. The second also he frankly yieldeth, that the Apostles ordained Presbyters in cities where they had converted some to the truth. But the 3, which is indeed the assumption itself, and which is inferred on the former as I set them down (that if the Apostles intending the conversion of the nation, as they began themselves to preach in the chief cities, so they placed Presbyters to the same intent, hoping by them to convert both city and country: then were they appointed and it was their duty to labour the conversion of all belonging to God both in city and country) the assumption, I say, itself he doth deny, saying, it was the office of those Presbyters, to attend upon the flock, that is, the company already converted, but that it can never be showed, nor may reasonably be thought that it was any part of their proper duty to labour the conversion of the residue either in city or country. By which few words the deep wisdom of the parish-disciplinarians may easily be sounded. 1. They conceive that churches in the first constitution of them when there were but a few converted, and before parishes were distinguished, were in the same estate that now they are being fully constituted, all being converted to the profession of the faith, & parishes distinguished, pastors being severally assigned to certain particular ordinary set congregations. 2. That the flock over which they were set, was only that number of christians already converted, and not the whole number which in those parts pertained to God. But our Saviour calleth the elect not converted his sheep. 
john 10.  And the Lord in Corinth had much people, when but a few were as yet converted. 3. 
Acts 1●. 10.  That their proper office was to attend them only which were already converted, & not to labour the conversion of the rest. As though the Apostles intended by their ministry the conversion and salvation of no more, then of those few which at the first were converted. But for the better manifestation of their wisdom, they shall give me leave to appose them with a few questions. The Presbyters which the Apostles ordained, were they not ministers of the word? Calvin confesseth it; and if you should deny it, I have manifestly proved that they were not lay, nay that there were not any lay presbyters. Were not the presbyters many? in some places more, in some fewer, according to the proportion of the cities, or countries where they were placed? were these many Presbyters (who at the first were sometimes as many, as those who were beside converted, the Apostles conveying by imposition of hands the gifts of the spirit, on them whom they had first converted, who thereby were enabled for the ministry, as Acts 19.6.) Were they, I say, being many, intended only to attend that small number which at the first was converted? Did not the Apostles in ordaining many Presbyters, when few others were converted, intent the conversion of more than those few? and was it not their office the● to labour their conversion? If they were not to labour their conversion, how were they to be converted? Nay if they did not labour it, how were they converted? Were all these Presbyters pastors properly of that one flock, or was there but one who properly was the pastor or Bishop; the rest being his assistants, as the Presbytery? When therefore more were converted then could well assemble together in one ordinary congregation, were not the congregations divided? Upon this division was there a Bishop and presbytery assigned to every several congregation, or only a Presbyter; the Bishop assisted with his Presbytery having a general superintendency over all, not only to attend those who were already converted, but also to procure the conversion of the rest; and still as people in divers places were converted, to furnish them with a Presbyter, and to guide and govern both them and their Presbyter after their constitution to be a several Church, and his institution to be their Minister. To imagine therefore that the state of the Churches and charge of the Ministers was so the same before the division of parishes and after, that as either before there was over one congregation a Bishop and presbytery, so there should after to every particular congregation be assigned a Bishop and presbytery: or after, as the proper office of the ministers appointed to their several charges was to attend them; so before the Bishop and presbytery should have been provided properly for that number alone which was converted, and they should not have thought it to belong to their charge, to seek or to labour the conversion of the residue: I say, to think this, argueth the parish-disciplinarians to be of shallow judgement, and the parish-discipline to consist of undigested fancies.  
Upon the proposition therefore and the assumption before propounded, this conclusion notwithstanding all his cavils, doth follow: Therefore the Presbyteries ordained by the Apostles, 
Ad. Pag. 5●.  were appointed not to parishes but to Dioceses.  (Serm. sect. 3. page 18. Neither were the parishes distinguished &c. to page 19 l. 5) 
The second argument whereby the same assertion in these words is proved may thus be framed: 
When the Churches were not divided into several parishes nor Presbyters assigned to their several titles or cures, but werein common to attend the whole flock feeding them that were already converted, and labouring the conversion of the rest, so far as they were able both in city and country: then were not the Presbyteries appointed to parishes, but to dioceses.  
In the Apostles times the churches were not divided into several parishes, etc.  
Therefore in the Apostles times the Presbyteries were appointed not to parishes, but to dioceses.   
The proposition seemeth to be of necessary and evident truth: for when there were no parishes distinguished, how could the Presbyters be assigned to several parishes? And if they were appointed to labour the conversion of all which belonged to God, both in city and country, how were they not appointed to dioceses? For can he think, that all the people which belonged to God in the city and country, and which after also were converted, belonged to one parish? Is it not evident, that after their conversion they were divided into many both in city and country? And what though at the very first all the Christians in the city and country, if they had been assembled together, would have made but a small congregation? were they therefore of one parish before there was any parish at all? Was not the circuit of the Church, as before hath been proved, and of the Bishop and Presbyteries charge, the same in purpose and intention at the first, when they were but a few, which it was afterwards in execution, when all were converted?  
The assumption also is that which the Refuter himself holdeth, that there were not in any Church many parishes in the Apostles times. Howbeit, I except the Church of Alexandria, as after you shall hear. But though he know not how to answer directly to either of both, yet he wrangleth with both, and as a man confounded, yet resolved to contradict, though against the light of his conscience, he denieth the conclusion, and contradicteth himself.  
The proposition after his perpetual manner, he propoundeth connexively: If the parishes were not distinguished, etc. then were not the Presbyters appointed for parishes, etc. The force of the connexion, as it inferreth they were appointed to dioceses, he suppresseth, leaving out the words of greatest force, viz. that they were appointed to labour the conversion of those that belong to God, so far as they should be able, both in the city, and in the country's adjoining. And as it inferreth that they were not appointed to parishes, he answereth not: only he maketh a flourish with the show of regestion; which kind of answer best fitteth him that is at a Nonplus. Howsoever the world goeth, the consequence must be denied: that is resolved upon, though he have nothing to oppose against it. Yes he hath two things to oppose; the first a question, What if every one of the Churches than were but one parish? As if he should say, What if the main question between us be true, in that part which we hold, viz. that the Churches were parishes, and not dioceses? Where are you then? Why, but I prove they were not parishes, because the presbyteries were not appointed to parishes, but to dioceses. And come you now with this question, What if they were? Yea but I will prove they were. You will need your proofs in a fitter place. Yea but in the mean time I disprove your consequence. You will say something perhaps to blear the eyes of the simple: but you do not indeed deny, and much less do you disprove the consequence. The denial of the consequence were this: Though it be supposed that parishes were not distinguished, and that the Presbyteries were appointed for the conversion of all both in City and Country; yet it doth not follow, that they were appointed to dioceses, and not to several parishes: and not this, nay but the Churches were each of them but one parish. This is to deny the main conclusion which is already proved. Yea but the proof of this denial disprooueth your consequence. The consequent perhaps, which is the conclusion, but the consequence it cannot, without supposing as it doth not, those things which are supposed in the proposition, thus: Though there were no parishes, yet they were assigned to parishes: though they were appointed both for City and Country, yet they were not appointed for dioceses. You deny therefore, as a man amazed, the main conclusion: the consequence of the proposition you touch not.  
But let us see how he disproveth the conclusion, 
§. 4.  though his argument come out of time, and be here used only for a poor shift. It may thus be framed: Such as are the French and Dutch Churches here in England, such were the Churches in the Apostles times. But the French and Dutch Churches here in England are not diocesan, but distinct parishional assemblies. Therefore the Churches in the Apostles times were not diocesan, but distinct parishional assemblies. First, I deny the proposition, not only because the circuit of the Churches (in the Apostles intention) was not included within a City, as of the French and Dutch Churches with us; but chiefly because the French Church (for example) in London is but one Church, among many professing the same religion, being a certain and set number, having a Presbytery consisting for the most part of lay men, placed among us, not with purpose to convert either the City or Country to them, but to attend them of their own Church; whereas chose the Churches in the Apostles times, before the division of parishes, were not each of them one among many, but were planted among heathen people, having a Bishop and a Presbytery of learned men placed among them, as leaven is put into the lump, with purpose to convert the rest both in City and Country. The Church which had the Bishop and Presbytery first placed in it, was Matrix Ecclesia, as after it was called, begetting other Churches and spiritual Fathers for them; which being begotten in City and Country, were all (even when the whole City and Country were filled with her offspring) to be subordinate and subject to her, as their mother. But no such thing can be imagined of the Dutch and French Churches among us.  
As touching the assumption, I say, that the French and Dutch Churches with us are not properly parishes, nor such as the ancient parishes were, after the first division of them, seeing the members thereof dwell in many distinct parishes, either of them being endued with power of ecclesiastical government, and not subordinate to another Church as members thereof, but being entire bodies by themselves are models (as it were) of diocesan Churches, having a Presbytery (as the Church of Geneva hath) to supply the want of a Bishop, which once 
c Alasco.  they had, and still might have, in imitation of the ancient Christians, who when the City where they dwelled was replenished, and the Mother Church occupied with men of another faith, (as with Arians sometimes in Antioch and Alexandria) as ours be with men of another Language, had a Bishop of their own in all respects like other Bishops, saving that they held not the Mother Church, and therefore had neither the like Clergy, nor the like revenues to maintain them.  
The second thing which he opposeth, is (as I said) a show of regestion: which he propoundeth with great confidence, as if he had me at no small advantage saying, that I pull down with one hand that I set up with another. If there were at that time no parishes, how could there be dioceses, seeing every diocese consisteth of divers distinct parishes? Thus (saith he) the light will break out, though men shut their eyes against it. You see how brag he would seem to be. But good sir, what is this to my consequence? If there were no parishes in the Apostles times, than the Presbyteries were not appointed to parishes. You answer, If there were no parishes, than there were no dioceses. To what end is this spoken? To deny my consequence, or the main conclusion? Assume, But you say there were no parishes, therefore there were no dioceses; which is the contradictory to the main conclusion. But where do I say there were no parishes? Not in the proposition, where it is only supposed; but in the assumption: for that which is supposed in the antecedent of the proposition, is positively set down in the assumption. Therefore when he would seem to deny the consequence of the proposition, he doth not so much as touch it. But by taking a supposed advantage, against the Assumption, he denieth the principal conclusion.  
But let us examine his argument. If there were no parishes in the Apostles times, there were no Dioceses. This consequence I deny. For the Diocese was the same before the Parishes were divided and after. And the circuit of the spiritual jurisdiction intended the same before parishes were divided, with that it was after they were divided, that is answerable to the civil. The same circuit belonging to the Church both in the intention, before all were converted, and in execution after all were converted, which belonged to the civil state, Yea, but saith he; every Diocese consisteth of distinct Parishes. It is true after the distinction of Parishes, but not before, as a bach of bread consisteth of many distinct loaves after the distinction, which before it contained undistinguished in the lump. A man consisteth of many distinct members after they are distinguished, which at his first conception were not distinct.  
The Proposition being thus recovered out of his hands, I am now to rescue the Assumption. 
§. 6.  Which saith that the Churches in the Apostles times were not divided into parishes, etc. Which is to be understood, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as true of the most Churches. Here I expect a direct answer. were they divided into parishes, or were they not? If they were (as at Alexandria it seemeth to have been, even in the Apostles times) then was not every Church but one parish: if they were not, than the Presbyters were not assigned to several parishes, and so the assumption is true. Nay, rather than the assumption shall go for currant, we will deny each Church to have been but a parish. Is it credible that any man should be so transported with the spirit of contradiction, as that he should not care so he may gainsay his adversaries present assertion, how shamefully he contradicteth himself? yet thus it fareth with our refuter. In oppugning the proposition he said, and laboured to prove it, that each church was but one parish, the same he saith, and saith again, in defending their objections, & propounding his own only argument. And yet here, this assumption must be censured, as having no truth in it, for that it denieth Parishes to have been distinguished in the Apostles times, and the Presbyters to have been assigned to their several titles or cures. They be his words in the conclusion of his answer to the assumption. And the same he repeateth, pag. 71.  
But let us see what he objecteth against the assumption. First, 
Ad pag. 59  he findeth an error in it before noted, concerning the end of the Presbyters ordination, which he saith, is here repeated, and (therefore not of ignorance by him omitted in the proposition) the which though he call an error, yet I proved to be an evident truth, and discovered the shallowness of their judgement, which do deny it. Besides that error, he chargeth the main points in the assumption as altogether void of truth. The points are these: 1. that parishes were not distinguished in the apostles times 2. that Presbyters were not then assigned to their several titles or cures: 3. that they were in common to attend the whole flock converted. For that which is added of labouring the conversion of the residue, etc. is the error forsooth which before he noted. How proveth he these points to be false? Thus: whom can M.D. persuade that the Apostles would either appoint or allow of such confused assemblies, wherein the teachers and hearers should every day so disorderly be changed? And then putteth the like case of a school, himself being worthy to be put into a cloak-bag. For in which of these points doth this orderly & unconfounded man, note such disorder and confusion? or was not the confused conceit he speaketh of, in his own brain? Let him call to mind what even now he said in oppugning the proposition; that every one of the churches then, was but one parish, which by reason of the multitude of the people had many teachers. Do we not see the like, saith he, in the French & Dutch churches here in England? & concludeth, that such Parishes there were in the Apostles times, and none but such. Tell me then, is the French or Dutch Church in London distinguished either of them into several parishes, which is the first point? If they be, how are they but one Parish? Are their ministers, supposing them to be as he saith many, (as there were many Presbyters in the Apostles times in each Church before the division of the parishes) are they assigned to several titles, that is, parishes or cures? If their Church be not divided into divers parishes, how can their Presbyters be assigned to divers? which is the 2. point. Thirdly, do not their ministers communi consilio & mutuo auxilio, by common counsel and mutual help attend their whole flock, none of them being appointed to a several charge? And yet all this (I hope) without disorder or confusion. That therefore which he babbleth in the greatest part of the page, concerning disorder and confusion, is wholly to be ascribed to his own distemper and confusion.  
Yea, 
§ 7.  but M.D. telleth us that the Presbyters were to attend the whole flock. So saith S. Luke, Act. 20.28. What of that? if they were to attend the whole flock in common, then were they not assigned to several parishes, which were but parts of the flock, 
Act. 20.28.  to which purpose the place of the Acts was quoted. Doth either of them say, that a flock was any more than one ordinary assembly, and might not that be a Parish as well as a Diocese? Either of whom? he had mentioned none but S. Luke only. But let that pass. For to what purpose doth he ask, whether Luke said, that a flock was any more than one assembly? If the flock were but one assembly, that which I proposed is the more confirmed. For if they were to attend all one assembly, them were they not assigned to several parishes. But yet I would have him know, that the word flock, the word ecclesia or church which there, & the word people, which in other places is used as a word of the same signification, is of a larger extent then to signify only one assembly. The flock is that, for which Christ the good shepherd did give his life; 
joh. 10.16.  unto which appertained the sheep which his father gave him, not only among the jews, but the Gentiles also. And this flock is that Church which God (meaning Christ, 
Act. 20.28.  who is God) in that place of the Acts is said to have redeemed with his blood, & that people of his which he saveth from their sins. And as this is spoken of the Church in general; so the company of them that belong to Christ, 
Mat. 1.21.  in any Nation, Province, Diocese, City or Parish, may be called the Flock, the Church, the people of God. Neither do I doubt, for the reasons before alleged, but that the flock in which those Presbyters, Act. 20. were set as overseers, was the people belonging to God in the City of Ephesus, and the Country adjoining, where he saith, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is ordinarily used of beasts and fowls that heard and flock together. I confess it is beyond the compass of my reading, who never read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, applied to fowls, but have found the word used properly for a flock of sheep, and metaphorically for the flock of Christ's sheep; but that flock is not one only particular congregation. For Luke 12.32. john 10.16. as touching the word Ecclesia, which he denieth to signify any other outward company of men, than a particular congregation only, I have already said more to confute that ignorant conceit than will be answered in haste. But hear his conclusion: 
Sup. cap. 1.  if my, (that is, if the word Ecclesia doth not signify any other than a particular congregation) what truth is there in his assumption, 
Ad pag. 60.  that denieth parishes to be distinguished, (he would have said to have been distinguished,) in the Apostles times, and the Presbyters to have been assigned to their several titles or cures? This conclusion I desire may be kept in remembrance, until as you have seen him deny it before, so you shall see him again and again to deny it. In the mean time I beseech you how is it inferred? If the word Church signify only a particular congregation, (and such a one was that flock in which the Presbyters were set, Act. 20.28.) therefore there is no truth in the assumption which denieth the parishes to have been distinguished, and the Presbyters assigned to their several titles or cures. Who seeth not, that the contrary is to be inferred? If the word Church did signify one congregation, and was in every City but one, and if such was the flock which the Presbyters were appointed to attend wholly and in common, than it followeth that the flock was not divided into particular parishes, nor the Presbyters assigned to several cure●. And so the assumption by his own inference is proved to be true.  
This and thus weakly, saith the refuter, hath M.D. proved the point of so great importance: And thus and thus stongly, say I, hath our refuter disproved it. Now let the judicious Reader judge, whether my weakness hath not been of sufficient force to overthrow his strength.   

CHAP. V. Answering their objection, who say, that in the first two hundred years, all the Christians in each great City, were but one particular congregation, assembling in one place.  
NOw we are to examine their proofs. And first, that which I objected for them, and then that which the Refuter bringeth for himself.  (Serm. sect. 4. page 19 Against this which hath been said, they do object, that in the first two hundred years, etc. 16 lines▪) 
Here the refuter chargeth me, that I making show of taking away what ever can be said against my assertion, do propound but one only bare objection, whereas divers testimonies and reasons both from scriptures and fathers have been alleged by others, etc. Thus makes he no conscience, either of belying me, who only intended to answer that, which I took to be their chief objection, and had of late been most urged: or of outfacing the truth with vaunts of divers testimonies and reasons, which are scarce worth the answering; blaming also me for bringing but one reason for them, when himself after all his brags, bringeth but one, and that not so strong, though you add thereto the testimonies which he vaunteth of.  
In the objection, which I bring for them, he putteth such confidence, that if he can make it good against me (whereof he doubteth not, such is his tried valour) all my labour about my Sermon will prove nothing worth. No doubt he would appear to be some tall man, if he durst show his head. But let us hear his dispute: for he hath taken the objection out of my hands, because I did not urge it strongly for them, objecting no more than I knew myself able to answer: and yet all that he addeth is but loss of time in multiplying of words.  
First, he premiseth a syllogism concluding the main question, that the Churches in the Apostles times (he should have added as I did, and the age following, for themselves in their question include two hundred years) were not dioceses properly, but parishes.  
If the Presbyteries and precedents thereof in the great Cities ●ere assigned but to one particular ordinary congregation assembled together in one place: then the Churches in the Apostles times (and in the age following) were not dioceses properly, but parishes. But the Presbyteries and precedents thereof in the great Cities were assigned but to one particular ordinary congregation assembled together in one place.  
Therefore the Churches in the Apostles times (and in the age following) were not dioceses properly but parishes.  
The consequence of the proposition is clear by that I answered a little before, where I said that ad●cesse must needs consist of distinct congregations.  
But if this proposition have no better hypothesis to support it, I may deny it: seeing I have proved before, that there were dioceses in the first conception of the Churches before distinction of parishes. So that the addition of this syllogism hath made his cause somewhat worse than it was before.  
The assumption is th●●●r●●●d: 
If all the Christians in any one great City did make but one such congregation: 
Ad page ●●.  then both the Presbyteries and precedents thereof were assigned but to one congregation: he should say to one particular ordinary congregation assembled together in one place.  
But all the Christian● in any great City (understand in the first 200 years) did make but one such congregation.  
Therefore both the Presbyteries and precedents thereof of were assigned but to one congregation.   
The former syllogism for brevity I omitted, desiring in few words to bring their argument to the issue, presuming that any man might from my conclusion deduce the main question, after this manner: 
They were provided but for one particular ordinary congregation assembling together in one place.  
Therefore not for a diocese.   
The second which containeth the issue, I propounded as forcibly as he hath done. But my adversary is one of those disputers, who when the consequence of an Enthymeme is denied, make it good by a connexive syllogism. When as an Enthymeme, for disputation, is by somuch better than a connexive syllogism, by how much it is shorter: the consequence being the same with the connexion of the proposition, the antecedent all one with the assumption, and the consequent the very same with the conclusion of the connexive syllogism. Such disputers are good to waste paper, and spend time.  
But to the point. 
§. 2. His consequence denied.  I deny, as before, both the consequence and the antecedent of the Enthymeme; so now, both the proposition and the assumption of his syllogism. The proof of the consequence he slubbereth over, for his faculty is better in denying consequences, then in proving of them. For, saith he, seeing the denial is upon this ground, that the Prestbyters were appointed not only to take charge of them that were converted, but also to labour the conversion of the rest, which we have showed to be false, it will remain good notwithstanding.  
But I have proved that it is an undigested fancy & rare conceit of shallow (if not giddy) heads, which see no further than their nose end, to imagine that the Apostles intending (as they cannot deny) the conversion of the city and country, did place in the city a Bishop and Presbytery, to take charge only of that small number which at the first was converted; but chiefly from hence to infer, that every particular parish should have the like B●shop and Presbytery. The ancient Church of God in all places understood the Apostles intent as I expound the same. And therefore when all both in city and country, were converted to the profession of the faith, they acknowledged the general care and inspection over them all, to belong to that one B●shop of the city, and themselves as I said in the Sermon, to be part of that Church: and never did, unless it were in time of schism or heresy, set up another B. and Presbytery within the diocese: but every congregation contented itself with a learned Presbyter, if it could be so well provided for. And this is so manifest a truth, that I doubt not to pronounce him void either of a sound judgement, or good conscience, that shall deny it. This consequence therefore will never be made good. And therefore the Refuter might have saved his labour if it were aught worth, which he spendeth upon the assumption, until he had proved the proposition.  
Yea but this consequence belike might have been made stronger. For he did wisely, saith he, to dig the pit no deeper, but that he might be able to fill it again: so could he not have done, had ●e gone as low as we do, who thus frame our reason: 
All the Christians in any one great City and the towns about it (unless there were distinct Churches in those towns) did make but one particular ordinary congregation, assembled in one place.  
Therefore both the Presbyters and Precedents thereof, were assigned but to one congregation.   
I mislike not his addition of the towns about, so he will be pleased, as he addeth them to strengthen his consequence, so not to forget (as I doubt he will) to take them into the defence of his antecedent. But where he speaketh of his digging deeper; others as good pioneers as he, to undermine the state of our Church, went no deepeer: and I durst not add more to their antecedent, as he hath done, lest I should make it too absurd.  
But what meaneth that parenthesis, (unless there were distinct Churches in those towns?) I fear to be circumvented with this enclosure. Belike there were more congregations than one in the cities and towns (as he said before Cenchrea was a distinct Church from Corinth) and then, how shall all both in city and country, be said to be but one congregation? Tush, we have a bush for that gap. We will except all other congregations but that one, and so they being excepted, all will be but one. Ridiculum caput! As if you had said, all the congregations of Christians both in city and country were but one, unless there were more than one. I promise you you have digged well, and have hedged your ditch with a strong enclosure. But why had you not the like hedge or wall rather for the city? (unless there were distinct Churches in the city) for then all had been cockesure. This hedge for the towns, and this wall for the city, would have sufficiently fenced the antecedent. But then the consequence had been ridiculous: and as it is now propounded, (with this enclosure in the antecedent) is altogether as weak as it was before. For to what purpose are the towns added, if the parishes be excepted? And by this enclosure the antecedent itself is bewrayed of falsehood. For if there were in the city and country more distinct Churches, or parishes, (as here is supposed) and these all subordinate to one (as I have manifestly proved before) then all these will make a diocese. I say therefore again, that though their antecedent were true, yet the consequence were to be denied.  
§ 3. The Church of each city not one parishional congregation only.  (Serm. sect. 5. pag. 19 But the Antecedent is not only false, but also unreasonable, and uncredible, etc. 20. lines, to, one day.) 
The reason whereby I disprove the Antecedent, is by the Refuter framed after his fashion, and propounded at large. It shall suffice to turn his proposition into an Enthymeme; thus: 
He should have added, and the towns about. Ad. Pag. 62.  The number of the Christians in the greatest Cities was very great, (he should have said, greater than could ordinarily meet in one assembly) the times such for persecution, as would not permit them ordinarily to meet in great multitudes, and the places of their meeting private and uncapable of any great multitude, (I say such multitudes:)  
Therefore in the first two hundred years, all the Christians in any great City (and the towns about, which he should have added) did make more than one particular congregation ordinarily assembling in one place.  
Did not I tell you that he would forget to add to the Cities, the Towns about them, which he did add to his Antecedent to make the former consequence good, but dares not add it now for fear of marring all?  
But what doth he answer to it, as it is? First, he cavilleth, and merely cavilleth with the consequence, objecting such things as he is persuaded in his own conscience, neither were in the primitive Church, nor aught to have been. Themselves do teach, that parishes ought to be so well compact and trussed together, 
T. C. H.I.  as that all of the same Church may conveniently and ordinarily meet together; and also that where the multitude is greater, then that all can well meet together, they ought to divide themselves into divers congregations. And now he telleth us of great parishes, either in the suburbs of London, or in some parts of the land, which were at their setting out nothing so populous as now they are: both which sorts being so mightily increased in respect of the number of their parishioners, himself I dare say is of opinion that they ought to be divided. And therefore ought not (but that he meant to cavil) to have supposed the practice of the primitive Church (which he and his consorts do always urge as a precedent for imitation) to be suitable to those instances, which though he giveth, yet he and all his partners do utterly mislike, as swerving from the practice of the primitive Churches. And where he saith, M. D. doth mistake the matter, whiles he thinketh that we hold, that all and every of the Christians in the great Cities did, or could always meet in the same place: he utterly mistaketh me in so conceiving (though I am not ignorant they hold very strange things) but this I conceive you to hold, that each visible Church was, and still ought to be a particular ordinary constant congregation of Christians, which not only may conveniently, but also must necessarily, (if they be not by sufficient causes hindered) assemble together ordinarily to prayer, and to the ministry of the word and Sacraments. And I say, that in respect of the number, or rather innumerable company of Christians (which T. C. himself thinketh to have been greater in those times then now) in respect of the times wherein they lived, raging with persecution, and in regard of the places, uncapable of such multitudes, it is uncredible, yea impossible, that all the Christians in the greatest cities and countries about them, should make but one particular congregation, ordinarily and constantly meeting in one place. Neither doth that further his cause, which he professeth to be their assertion , that the Christians which dwelled in and about any great City, and were called the Church of the City, were members of one body: for not only they, but also those that dwelled in the remotest parts of the Country (though distinguished into many particular congregations) did not hold themselves to be entire bodies by themselves (unless they were schismatics or heretics) but all members of the same outward body and visible Church, whereof the mother Church in the city was the chief or head, by which they were denominated, and also distinguished (as now they are) from other Churches.  

§ 4. Of the number of Christians in one City. Ad pag. 63.  Having thus cavilled with the consequence, he proceedeth to the antecedent, (which is the assumption of his syllogism) denying every particular branch thereof. And first for the number: he would examine my proofs: but what should he speak of proofs, when all I say is but upon imagination? Verily, for aught I see, my imaginations are better reasons then your strongest proofs. And that here appeareth where you weaken my imagination, I will not say falsify it, by propounding it after your manner. But could a man professing sincerity, so cast off all shame, as to affirm that all I say, is but upon imagination, when of that which I say there are four proofs set down in the Sermon? first, by comparison of the less to the greater: secondly, an instance of Rome: thirdly, the testimony of Cornelius: fourthly, the testimony of Tertullian. The first he propundeth thus: If the multitude of Christians at jerusalem within a few weeks after Christ was very great, than was it great in such cities. But the former is true: Therefore the latter.  
It is your fashion to make my consequences not to exceed the proportion of your own imagined ability in answering them. My reason standeth thus: 
If the multitude of Christians at jerusalem was very great within a few weeks after the ascension of Christ; then in all likelihood the number of Christians in greater cities having the like (though not always so great) means, was within two hundred years increased so much, as to exceed the proportion of one particular assembly, ordinarily meeting in one place.  
But the former is true: 
Act. 2.41. Act 4 4. Act. 6.1.7.  (for at the Feast of Pentecost 3000. were converted in one day, and shortly after their number was grown to 5000. which afterwards daily and mightily increased) therefore the latter.   
In my argument (as you see) comparison is made not only between jerusalem and other greater Cities, but chiefly (which was omitted by the Refuter) between the short time of a few weeks, and the continuance of 200. years. If at jerusalem, within a few weeks, the Christians were become many thousands; how may we think they were increased before the end of 200. years, in Rome, Alexandria, Ephesus, Antioch, and such like Cities? So that I doubt not, but the consequence is strong enough (containing an argument from the less to the greater) though I prove none of those four things which he would have proved: as first, that all which were converted in jerusalem at that time, remained members of that Church. Which maketh not against the consequence, but rather for it, seeing those which remained not in jerusalem, were by persecution dispersed to other Cities, to help forward the plough of Christ there. Secondly, that all the great Cities had the like means to that of jerusalem: which needeth not to be proved, seeing the means which had been used, and the miracles which had been wrought at jerusalem, were also effectual in other places, and are at this day, besides the like means of their own. thirdly, though the means were alike, that yet the effects were answerable: which also needeth not to be proved, seeing we know by the report of the best Writers, how wonderfully and miraculously the Church was multiplied in the greatest Cities within that time. Fourthly, that there was never any apostasy in any of those Churches with which Paul (in his conceit) doth seem to charge them of Asia, 2. Tim. 1.15. Which exception also is frivolous, 
2. Tim. 1.15.  seeing not only the Churches of the greatest Cities, Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, but even these seven of Asia, were famous in those times for the profession of the faith. Thus you see, how he seeketh all the corners of his wit, to find, if it were possible, some starting hole, whereby to escape the force of this consequence. But these points are not worth the standing on.  

§. 5. Pag. 57 & 63. Whether all in Asia made an apostasy from the faith in Paul's time.  Only whereas now he chargeth, the second time, all them of Asia, with apostasy from the faith, because S. Paul saith, that all who are in Asia had forsaken him; he must be admonished to reform his judgement. For first, Paul speaketh not of all the Christians of Asia, but only of all those Asians of note, who had been in Rome since his imprisonment: of which number (saith he) are Phygellus and Hermogenes. Neither doth he speak of an apostasy from the faith, but of their forsaking him in his affliction, as the Disciples had shrunk from our Saviour Christ: for else, when he saith in the fourth chapter of the same epistle, In my first Apology no man stood with me, 
2. Tim. 4.16.  but all ●id forsake me, we might in like manner collect, that all were Apostares from the faith. But what kind of desertion Paul meaneth, whereinto those of Asia did fall, it appeareth by the contrary practice of Onesiphorus, whom he commendeth in the same place, who often refreshed Paul, and was not ashamed of his chain: but when he was at Rome, he was so far from shrinking from Paul, that he most diligently sought him out and found him. The others of Asia (of whom he complaineth) when they were in Rome, shrunk from him, as being ashamed or afraid of his chain. Thus chrysostom expoundeth it, that Paul when he was apprehended, 
Chrys. in 2. Tim. 1. hom. 3.  was forsaken of his friends: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: it is likely there were many then in Rome, from the parts of Asia; but none, saith he, stood to me, no man would know me, all were estranged from me. Theophylact likewise: When Paul was apprehended of Nero, he was forsaken of all the faithful in Asia. who from Asia had gone to Rome with him. O●cumenius in like manner: When Paul was apprehended of Nero, his friends of Asia did forsake him: for there were in Rome many of Asia which were followers of Paul, or otherwise faithful men; but all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, withdrew themselves, and as we say, drew their necks out of the collar, after Nero had laid hold on him. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (saith he) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: those in Asia, that is, those of Asia. It is likely (saith Theodoret) that some of those which in Asia had believed were at Rome, but avoided the company of Paul for fear of Nero.  
As for the assumption, 
§. 6. Of the number of Christians at jerusalem. Ad pag. 64.  viz. that the multitude of Christians at jerusalem within a few weeks was great, it maketh nothing (saith he) for him, or against us. Which is a strange speech, seeing it is one of the premises whereupon the conclusion is inferred, and which being granted, their assertion cannot be true. But here again he telleth us of the great parishes about London, saying, that they of jerusalem did all meet together as well as they. Which is spoken against reason, and against sense: for first, it was not intended, that they of jerusalem should meet, as those of London which be of one parish, after their multitude was increased. Secondly, neither might they (being under persecution) meet in great multitudes, as those of London, which through God's goodness enjoy peace and liberty. Thirdly, neither had they such places of meeting for great multitudes. But where I said, it was not intended, when their multitude should be great, that they of jerusalem should assemble together, as they who are of one parish about London; that needeth some explanation. The parishes about London, and every where from the beginning, are each of them one among many, severed from the rest, with purpose that all within that precinct should make an ordinary set congregation, having one Presbyter, and not a presbytery, much less a Bishop assigned to them: whereas chose, the Church of jerusalem, whereunto james was appointed Bishop, assisted with a presbytery of Ministers, was never intended to be one parish among many, but to be a mother Church, which should by God's blessing beget others to be severed from it in particular assemblies, and yet to remain subordinate and subject unto it, as children to the mother. It was never meant, neither in jerusalem, nor in any other City, that the Bishop and his presbytery should be set over no more but one particular congregation; or that as more congregations should be constituted, every one should have a Bishop and a presbytery. But they were provided for the people of God, that either than were in the City and Country, or after should be; which as it increased, was to be divided into several Congregations, whereunto Presbyters severally were to be assigned; all being members of one body, subjecteth to the Bishop and Presbytery of the mother Church, which was (as it were) the head of that body.  

§. 7. He retorteth my argument.  The Refuter not contented thus to have cavilled with my argument, doth also threaten (as though he had wrested my weapon out of my hands) to turn the poem of it (such is his cruelty) to the very heart of my cause. But his minaces are but words, and his words but wind: for this is all he can say or do: 
If the Christians in jerusalem were not so many but that still they continued one parishional assemblis, meeting together in one place; then the Christians of other Cities might be, and did so in like sort.  
But the antecedents is crew: therefore the consequent.   
Of the consequence (he saith) no reasonableman can make any doubt: and so taketh it for granted, wanting reason to prove it. Me thinks there is great reason, why I should not only doubt of it, but plainly deny it: for when he saith, At jerusalem they were not so many etc. he should have said when; and that still they continued, etc. he should have said how long; that being compared with other Cities at the same time, and of the like continuance, the reason of his consequence might appear. There be three reasons to be given, why the Church at jerusalem should not be at the end of one hundred or two hundred years, so great as in other Cities. First, the persecution begun with the martyrdom of Steven, and continued until the destruction of jerusalem: upon the beginning of which persecution, 
Act. ●. 1. Rom. 9.10.11.  all the faithful in jerusalem (except the Apostles) were dispersed into other parts. Secondly, ●he rejection of the jews, (for the generality of them) when the Gentiles were to be called. 3. The destruction of jerusalem by Titus, 
After which time the BB of jerusalem were of the Gentiles, who till then had been of the circumcision.  about the year 72. and final extirpation of the jews out of jerusalem by Aelius Hadrianus about the year 137. who called it Aelia after his own name, prohibiting any ●ew to come any more within that City. So that if it were true, that the number of the Christians in jerusalem within the first 200. years had never exceeded the proportion of a parishional assembly: yet hereof it would not follow, that the number of Christians in other Cities, should for 200. years continue so small. No reasonable man therefore would look to have that consequence granted him.  
The Assumption also is false. 
§ 8. The church of jerusalem not parishional.  The Church of jerusalem, whereof james was Bishop, never was a Parish; so far was it from continuing so still. But as the people both in the City and Country were under one high Priest; so was it intended, that all the Christians, both in the City and country should be under the Bishop of Jerusalem, and so continued until the destruction thereof. Afterwards, because that City being destroyed, Caesarea was made by the Romans the Metropolis of jewry; it came to pass (the church following the commonwealth) that the Bishop of Caesarea was the Metropolitan. The Bishop of jerusalem having the Bishopric of the City, & the places adjoining. Howbeit, in process of time, the Christians honouring the place, granted the prerogative of the 4. Patriarchship to the Bishop of jerusalem or Aelia, 
Conc. Nic. c. 7.  reserving to Caesarea the Metropolis, her own dignity.  
Nether is it probable, that the Church at jerusalem after they once came to the number of 5000 (as quickly it did, & continued with great increase until the death of Steven) did ordinarily meet all in one place. We read of some panegyrical meetings, as it were, in Salomon's porch, and in the temple, such as be the meetings at Paul's Cross, or at the spital; but their ordinary, & as it were parishional meetings, were by companies in more private places. Nay, I say further, that the meetings either of the 12. Apostles, (who never were intended to be members, either all, or any of them, of one parish) with the Disciples, Act. 6.1. or of some of them with the Presbyters, and whole assembly, Act. 15.22.26. (which places are by the refuter alleged) were not parishional, but rather Synodical.  
As for those other places in the Acts: some of them are ignorantly, some absurdly alleged. In the 2. of the Acts he quoteth three places, viz. the two first verses, 6. & 44. In the first, it is said, that when the day of Pentecost was come, they were all with one accord in the same place. All, that is, all the Apostles, whose mutual society, and conversing together is noted. So do some old Manuscrpts read, saith Beza, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all the Apostles. For to them alone had Christ promised, that they should be baptised, 
Act. 1.5.  after a few days, with the holy Ghost, and to that purpose he commanded them to stay at jerusalem, expecting the performance of this promise. Luke also showeth, who they were, verse 14. saying, that Peter stood with the eleven, and the people who wondered at them, seem to insinuate, saying, are not all these men of Galilee? Is it not strange then, that the conversing of the Apostles together in one house, should be alleged as an example, yea pattern of a parishional assembly? Or if by all, were meant the 120. Disciples assembled before the descending of the holy Ghost; how doth it prove, either that they were a parishional assembly, wherein the 12. patriarchs of Christendom were met; or that they continued for an 100 or 200. years, so small a company as a parishional assembly; seeing within a few days, yea the very same day, they grew to be many thousands?  
In the 6. verse it is said, that when this voice or rumour was spread in the streets concerning the Apostles, speaking with variety of tongues, great multitudes of people flocked together, not of Christians (to make a parishional assembly,) but of all sorts to behold this wonder: whereat when some had wondered, and some had scoffed, by Peter's sermon, 3000. of them were converted.  
In the 44. verse, Luke saith, that all they which believed, were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and had all things common, and sold their possessions, etc. Where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth either signify they conversed together in one place, and kept company one with another, and so speaketh not of their assemblies, for vers. 46. he speaketh of their meeting in the temple, (where they could not meet alone,) wherein national, rather than parishional meetings used to be assembled: or else it signifieth they were in one, that is, they were joined together in heart and affection, as it is said Act. 4.32. which sense Calvin preferreth. There remaineth Act. 21.22. where the Presbyters of jerusalem, who were with james their Bishop, when Paul came to him, tell Paul that it cannot be avoided, but the multitude would come together, hearing that he was come. Understanding by the multitude, either the multitude of the people of jerusalem, as well those which believed not, as those which did, (for they direct him to go into the temple, there to show himself to be an observer of the law) or the company of believers only, who when they would flock together to see him, should find him in the temple conforming himself to the law of Moses. But to the absurdity of alleging these places, this is added, that none of them reach any thing near the time which we speak of. For the 2. of the Acts speaketh of that which was done within a fortnight after Christ's Ascension. The 6. before the martyrdom of Steven: the 15. above 20. years, the 21. about 15. years before the destruction of jerusalem, that is, almost 150. years before the period of that time whereof we speak. And yet in Act. 21. there is mention of I know not how many ten thousands of believing jews; ver. 20. You see, say they to Paul, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, how many ten thousands there are of believing jews, etc.  
My second argument to prove, 
§. 9 My Instance from the City of Rome.  that in some Cities the multitude of Christians did not ordinarily assemble in one place, as one set particular congregation, is a particular instance of the City of Rome, in these words.  (Serm. Sect 6. Pag. 20. At Rome about the year 100 the Company of Christians being much increased etc. evaristus divided them into divers Parishes, etc. to Apolog. c. 37. pag. 21. 
To this instance his answer is twofold. First, that it is but a tale of no credit, nor truth. Of no credit; because, both the author deserveth no credit, and the matter reported by him, is unlikely and untrue. The Author, either because wrongfully he beareth the name of Damasus; or if it be Damasus himself, he is not to be credited in reporting a matter done 300. years before his time. So that we are resolved to deny it, let the author be who he will. Yea, but the Venetian Edition of the Counsels chargeth that Author (but he saith not where) with disagreement from other approved histories, (but he saith not wherein.) Doth he in this particular disagree from approved histories? Or is there any reason, why he should be suspected of forgery in this particular? In all writings of the Romanists, which are suspected of forgery, there is something contained which seemeth to be coined, or foisted in for an advantage. Now I would gladly know, to what end they should feign this particular? serveth it to magnify the Papal supremacy, or to maintain any of their corruptions, or to contradict their opposites in any thing which they held in former times? Nothing less. For to begin with the last; It could not be counterfeited with purpose to contradict any body; for, that one and the same Church, was and ought to be divided into Parishes, and that Presbyters were and aught to be severally appointed to them, never any man that I have read or heard of, denied before T. C. Not Calvin, nor Beza, nor any other favourer of the pretended Discipline before him. Likewise, that which is reported, was a godly and necessary act, which had been practised long before this in Alexandria (though I knew not so much when I made the Sermon, but you shall hear of it in due place) which also was practised upon the like occasion in all the Churches of the world: that is to say, when the number of Christians was so increased, that they could not all conveniently meet in one place; they were by their B. divided into divers assemblies. Was not this done in all Churches whatsoever yea ought it not to have been done? In Rome it was done, long before the time of Damasus (for before his time there were above 40. parish Churches built in Rome) and no doubt but it had a beginning, and a beginner; which, if it were not evaristus, let it be showed who it was. It was done, as I will strait ways note, before Tertullia's time, who flourished about the year 180. And therefore if not by evaristus, them by one of the other ancient BB. within the compass of the limited time, who were godly BB. & famous Martyrs.  
That it was evaristus his act (to let pass Damasus, and the volumes of the councils which report it out of him, Platina, Onuphrius before cited, and Sabelliciu testifying the same: 
Ennead. 7. l. 4. ) others as opposite to Popery as our refuter, have believed, & accordingly reported. john Bale reporteth of evaristus, that he shining with the grace of God, even in the time of persecution increased the number of the sacred assemblies of Christians. 
De viti● R. pontiff. in Euaristo.  Likewise Robert Barnes that famous Martyr saith, Presbyteris Rome, titulos distribuit: He distributed the titles or parishes to the Presbyters. To these I might add the testimony of a Protestant writer, who for 30. 
De vitis pontiff.  years together studiously laboured in penning a Chronologie (though it be not printed) wherein among other things he reporteth of evaristus (who as he noteth was made Bishop of Rome in the year 99 
Will. Harison Prebendary of Windsor. ) that he brought the places of the assemblies of the Christian brethren in Rome unto 7▪ congregations▪ & appointed to each of them several pastors & teachers, that they might by such means remain more secret, live in better security, and hear the word with more ease and profit, than otherwise they could (considering the iniquity of the time) if they did meet in greater numbers.  
As touching the matter, he saith. 1. it is unlikely that the Presbyters attended the flock promiscuously, 
§. 10.  and the people met in divers places uncertainly: and yet that which he excepteth against as the matter, is not so much as material. The question is, whether evaristus divided the Church of Rome into divers several congregations, and assigned several Presbyters to them, as Damasus reporteth. But whether the Presbyters before attended them promiscuously, or the people met uncertainly, that is not the question. But seeing he is pleased to except against those words which are not in Damasus, but Onuphrius & myself added as a reason of evaristus his act; let him also be pleased to answer me, whether the whole Christian people of Rome in the city, suburbs & country adjoining, did usually & ordinarily meet together in one assembly throughout the whole term of 200. years; or in divers assemblies, as they could most conveniently. If they always or most usually met together; then, whether always in one certain place, or in divers uncertainly & occasionally. The former himself denieth. If the latter, than the Presbyters had not charge of them severally, but of them all promiscuously: then also the people met uncertainly. If they did not ordinarily meet all together, but in divers assemblies (which is the truth) then, whether were the several meetings set and certain, and several Presbyters appointed to them: or were the meetings and Presbyters for the instructing of those assemblies, appointed uncertainly, as occasion and opportunity served. If the latter, which seemeth to have been the use before evaristus his time: then that is true, which he excepteth against. If the former, which was brought to pass by evaristus, than the main assertion which he oppugneth, is true.  
Secondly, he would prove it to be false, and that by 2. testimonies, the former of justin Martyr, an. 142. Who directly affirmeth of the Church of Rome in special (as in general of all other Churches) that they used upon the sabbath day all to assemble together in one place. 
Ad. Pag. 65. Iust. Mar●. Apolog. 2.  His words are these: On the sunday as it is called, all the Christians dwelling in the cities, or abroad in the countries, do come together in the same place. He speaketh not of the Church of Rome in special, but of the practice of all Christians in general. Is therefore the word all to be taken collectiuè, or distributiuè? if in the former sense, than his meaning should be that all Christians in the world, whether they dwelled in cities or countries, did on the Lord's day meet in one place; which is absurd. If the latter, than he meaneth all them distributively, who, whether they lived in the cities or countries, belonged to one congregation. As if one of us speaking of the custom of our times should say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, on Sunday so called, there is a coming together of all into one place who do dwell in the cities or the countries: that is, all in every place that belong to the same congregations. And that it is so to be understood, it appeareth by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cities, propounded in the plural number. For his meaning never was, that the people of divers cities did meet ordinarily together: & the note of disjunction ● or, added to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 country, doth signify that those of the country did not all meet with them of the City; for than he would have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: but that all did meet in their several congregations, whether they lived in the cities or countries.  
His other testimony is of Platina, 
§. 11. Plat. de vit. pontiff. in Dionysio.  affirming that Dionysius about 160. years after evaristus, did first divide and set (out) parishes, and therefore he referreth him & Damasus to Onuphrius to be reconciled. But well may this refuter with shame enough hide his head, who shameth not so oft to falsify the authors which he quoteth. This is that which Platina reporteth of Dionysius, that he being made B. straightways divided the Churches and coemiteries (which were the places of christian meetings) in the city of Rome to the presbyters: 
Presbyteris ecclesi● et coemiteria in urbe Roma statim divisit.  but he saith not that he first did it; neither was it his meaning: for he had said the same before of evaristus. Abroad also, saith he, in the country, he distributed parishes & dioceses (so country parishes are called) to the end that every one should be content with his bounds & limits. Agreeable hereunto is the report of Dionysius himself (if it be himself) in his epistle to Seueru● the B. of Corduba. 
Dionys. epist. ad Severin.  For whereas Severus had asked his direction, what course was to be taken concerning parish churches throughout the province of Corduba: he wisheth him to follow that, which he had lately done in the church of Rome, ecclesias vero singulas, singulis presbyteris dedimus, several Churches we assigned to several presbyters, & divided to them the churches & coemiteries, & ordained that every one should have his proper right, in such sort as that none may invade the lands, bounds or right of another parish, but that every one should be content with his own bounds, and so keep his church and people committed to him, that before the tribunal of the eternal judge he may give an account of all committed to him, and may receive glory and not judgement for his deeds.  

De episcopat. et titul. etc.  Now these reports are easily reconciled, with the afore cited testimony of Damasus. For, as Onuphrius also hath observed, evaristus first divided the parishes to the presbyters, the number whereof by Hyginus not long after was augmented an. 138 After whom nothing was altered until the time of Dionysius: an. 260. who increased the number of the parishes, which afterwards were multiplied by Marcellus, about the year 305 etc. Besides, though evaristus first divided the parishes in Rome; yet Dionysius might be the first that set out the country parishes. Which distinction, if it will salve their credits, who have said that Dionysius first divided parishes, I will not be against it. His 2. answer is, that if evaristus did any such thing, he divided the titles to only governing elders etc. A likely matter. For the titles were the sacrae aedes, the places of metings unto God's worship, in which the Presbyters, or as Dionysius calleth them, sacerdotes the Priests, were ordained to feed the people committed to them, with the ministry of the word & sacraments, and go before them in the worship of God. But of lay elders I have sufficiently spoken before, if any thing will suffice, to persuade men, that there never were any such in the church of God.  


§. 12. The testimony of Cornelius.  
Euseb. l. 6. c. 43   My 3. proof, is the testimony of Cornelius the B. of Rome: who, as he saith, there were 46. Presbyters at that time in the Church of Rome, & 108 others of the clergy, & 1500. poor people maintained all of them by the contribution of christians: so he calleth the Christian people in Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a very great & innumerable people. Did the B. and 154. clergy men attend one parishional assembly only? was there 1500. poor christians, besides 154 of the clergy, together with the B. maintained of one parishional congregation? was an innumerable people, the people of one particular ordinary congregation assembling in one place? This testimony, saith our refuter, is quite besides the purpose, a fifth part (meaning 50. years beyond the time we speak of. The limitation of the time, whereto they have confined the primitive church was devised for a poor shift, because they knew there was not the like evidence for the 2. century, as for the 3. Otherwise, what reason can be rendered, why there should be divers parishes under one B. in the year 250. if it were not so in the year 200? especially, seeing they, which of purpose have written of these things, do profess that there was no difference in the number of the parishes in that time, & 10. years after. What reason can be given, why the christian people which was innumerable in the year 250. should have been in the year 200. the people of one particular parish? especially, seeing good authors before the year 200, do acknowledge as much as if they had said, that then they were innumerable.  
To which purpose in the 4 place I quoted Tertullian, 
The testimony of Tertullian.  whom I needed not, if we will believe the refuter, to have cited, seeing (saith he) he speaketh unlimitedly of the christians in the Roman Empire, & saith nothing herein that w●e deny, nor ought for M.D. profit. By his good leave therefore, I will recite the words. For after that he had professed that christians then (contrary to the judgement and practice of the Papists now) thought it unlawful for them to avenge themselves on their persecutors, 
Tertul. apol. c. 37.  he saith: For if we should show ourselves to be open enemies & not secret avengers', should we want either number or strength? we are aliens from you, et vestra omnia implenimus, and we have filled all places that are yours, cities, Islands, Castles, towns, assemblies etc. only your temples we leave unto you. If we should but depart away from you, the loss of so many citizens would amaze you. Without doubt you would be astonished ad solitudinem nostram at the solitariness which our absence would make, you would seek the relics of a dead city, wherein you might rule, more enemies than citizens would remain unto you; but now you have the fewer enemies by reason of the multitude of Christians, penè 〈◊〉 ci●ium, being almost all citizens, penè omnes cives Christianos habendo, by having almost all your Citizens Christians. Let the Reader judge what the number of Christians were in those times, & whether Tertullian doth not speak chiefly of the city of Rome; & let him consider whether almost all the citizens of Rome (of whom ordinarily there were divers hundred thousands) besides christian strangers, servants, and the female sex, were like to be the people of one parish.  

Ad Scapulam.  The same author speaking to the same purpose in another place, saith, it may be sufficiently manifest unto you that we deal according to the doctrine of divine patience Seing we being so great a multitude of men, even the greatest part almost of every city, do carry ourselves in silence & modesty.  
And so much concerning the multitude of the people.  
§ 13: The time and place.  (Serm sect. 7. p. 21. Ad to the multitude of the people, the consideration of the times, raging for the most part with persecution etc. to the end of the 2. point.) 
As touching the times, the refuter answereth, that how furiously soever the times raged with persecution: yet the christian people did usually assemble together. Whereof I doubt not But the question is, whether in divers congregations, as I say, & as it is most evident; or altogether in one place, which is altogether uncredible. As for the places, wherein the christians in the first 200. years used to assemble, especially in time of persecution; whereas I say they were private houses, vaults and secret places not capable of such multitudes, as have been spoken of; for refuge he flieth to the v●lts & holes, as he calleth them, which he supposeth were capable of great multitudes, but omitteth private houses, and other small rooms turned to this use. And whereas I say they were not capable of such multitudes, as were th● whole companies of Christians in the greatest cities, proved before to have been in a manner innumerable, he only saith great multitudes. But what we are to conceive of this point, let us inquire of Hospinian a Protestant writer, 
De origin. templor. c. 6.  who hath traveled in this argument. He therefore saith, in the time of the Apostles, and some while after, the places of meetings which Christians had, were simple houses, neither were they permitted by the cruelty of tyrants, and rage of the people, to build, I say not magnificent, but not mean Temples. The places therefore of public meetings in those times were base, more like dens and secret corners, then magnifical Temples, as Eusebius●estifieth ●estifieth. And Tertullian plainly affirmeth, that in his time the Christians had no other temples but simple houses. 
Lib. 5. the invent. c. 6.  Polydor Virgil testifieth, that the Christians were so far from having any temple built in these times, that all was secret, & their places of meeting were chapels, and those hidden and for the most part under the ground, rather than in open and public places. 
De orig. err●rum. lib. 1. c. 21.  Bullinger likewise saith, that the ancient Christians under Constantine the Great, were wont under the choir of the temples to build cryptal, vaults, in memory of the persecutions, whereby the Christians under the Emperors before Constantine, were not suffered sometimes to come abroad; and therefore they were forced to hold their assemblies, and perform the sacred exercises in secret, sometimes in dens and other privy places.  
But, saith the Refuter , Let them be as little as he would make them, yet it doth not follow hereof, that the Churches in the Cities alone, contained many particular congregations or parishes. 
Ad pag. 66.  To which purpose again, he allegeth his chapels of ease for a mere evasion, seeing himself is persuaded there was none such in those times. And where he saith, that although there were divers places of meeting in those times, yet all appertained to one congregation; I confess it to be true: for even after the distinction of parishes both in city and country, all of them belonged to one Church, as members of the same body. Yea but, saith he, if there were many particular congregations in every city, how chanceth it, he told us before, that the parishes were not distinguished? Distinguish the times, and the answer is easy. In the first hundred years, though Christians met in divers places, as they could; yet neither, were there in the most cities certain set places of meeting, nor certain Presbyters assigned to them, as to their perpetual and peculiar charge. But at the end of the first hundred years, evaristus divided to several Presbyters in Rome, titles, that is, the set places of meetings, which we call parish Churches, whereof they were entitled, and called the Presbyters of such and such a title or parish.  
And thus have I maintained my arguments and answers against his cavils. Now am I to defend my assertion against his proofs.   

CHAP. VI Answering the Refuters arguments.  
ANd first, because you shall know what he meaneth to conclude, he propoundeth the question; which is, saith he, whether in the Apostles times and the age following, that is, the first two hundred years, the visible Churches endued with power of ecclesiastical government, were parishes or no. In which question, seeing he & his consorts restrain the times of the primitive Church to the first two hundred years; the Reader will I hope expect, that he should conclude, that fo● this whole term at the least, the churches were each of them but a parish, and that in all this time there were no dioceses.  
His argumentation containeth two ranks of instances: the former taken out of the scriptures; the latter out of the Fathers. The former he concludeth thus: 

The Refuters first argument.  If the Churches of Corinth, Ephesus and Antioch (being visible Churches endued with power of ecclesiastical government) were each of them but one parish (understand for the whole term of 200. years) than the other visible Church's 〈◊〉 with the like power, were also each of them (during the same term) but one parish.  
But the Churches of Corinth, Ephesus and Antioch, (being visible Churches endued with power of ecclesiastical government) were each of them but one parish (for the first 200. years.  
Therefore the other visible Churches endued with the like power, were also (for the like term) each of them but one parish.   
The proposition I will be content to yield to my adversary, so it may be lawful for me to use the like: for than I would conclude thus: 
If the Churches of Alexandria and Rome were not parishional Churches in the first 200. years, neither were the Churches of other Cities.  
But the antecedent is true: therefore the consequent.  The consequence is the same with his, and grounded on the same hypothesis: viz. that all Churches endued with power of ecclesiastical government, were at the first of the same nature and constitution.  
The former part of the assumption, concerning Alexandria, I will manifestly prove when I come to the third point, concerning Diocesans: viz. that it was not one parish, but contained divers parishes, even in the first 100 years. Concerning Rome, I have proved already, that within the first 200. years it was divided into many parishes: and therefore although there be not so good evidence for other Cities in particular, yet the like is to be concluded of them, seeing they were all of the same constitution.  
Passing by therefore his proposition, I take hold of his assumption, and do plainly deny, the Churches he speaketh of, or any other, which had a Bishop and Presbytery, to have been for the first two hundred years, no more but parishes: for I doubt not, but it is easier to prove that within this term, not only the Presbyters and people in the said dioceses, but also the Bishops in the same Provinces, were subject to the Bishops of these three Cities. For as it is evident of Antioch, by the testimony of Ignatius, who calleth himself the Bishop of Syria; so no reason can be alleged why the Bishops of Ephesus and Corinth, who in the third century, and in the ages following, were Metropolitans, were not so in the second; or if they were Metropolitans in the third, and in the ages following, (as most certainly they were) why they should not have been Diocesans at the least in the second.  
The assumption (he saith) appeareth plain by the proof of the particulars. 
§ 2. Whether the Churches of Corinth, Ephesus, and Antioch were each of them but a parish.  But what doth he prove of the particulars? Are his syllogisms so soon come to an end? His chief proofs be, that in the Apostle Paul's time each of them used to assemble in one Congregation. Was this your assumption? You that are so strict in exacting syllogisms and direct proofs, should not have sought to carry away the matter, as it were, in the clouds. Yea but that which he proveth, doth prove the assumption. That shall thus be tried by his own form of argumentation: 
If those Churches of Corinth, Ephesus, and Antioch, in the Apostle Paul's time, were each of them no more then ordinarily assembled in one place, than were they for the first 200. years each of them but one parish.  
But the Churches of Corinth, Ephesus, and Antioch, in the Apostle Paul's time, were each of them no more then ordinarily assembled in one place. Therefore for the first 200. years they were each of them but one parish.   
The proposition is omitted by the disputer, as taken for granted: but therein he hath played the sophister; for he that meaneth truly, doth not use to omit any part of his argument, but that which is certain, or confessed. But the consequence of this proposition is worse than nought: for if he had only said thus, If in the Apostles times they were each of them but one Congregation, therefore for 200. years they were so; the consequence had been stark nought: or if he had only said, If in the Apostles time they were each but one Congregation, than were they each one parish; that consequence also had been nought: but when he saith, If in the Apostles times each was but one Congregation, therefore for 200. years each of them was but a parish; that consequence is, as I said, worse than nought.  
That the first of the two consequences is nought, it is evident: for though at the first conversion of any great City, and for a while after, the number usually was so small, that they might have assembled in one place; yet it is certain, that within 200. years, their number was grown to be almost innumerable, as hath been showed, and therefore too great to make one ordinary congregation. This one exception (if no more should be added) overturneth all his dispute.  
As touching the second: though it should be granted, that each of these Churches in the Apostles time, did ordinarily assemble together in one place; yet would it not follow, that therefore each of them was but a parish; and much less (which is the end of all this disputation) that all Churches endued with ecclesiastical power should be but parishes; and consequently, that every parish should have a Bishop and presbytery. The reasons of my denial of these consequences I have before set down at large, Chap. 3. § 5. and 6. and therefore this disputation I have sufficiently overthrown already. For a surplusage I add these two reasons:  
First, If these Churches, because they were each of them but one Congregation, were parishes before the division of parishes; then were they such Churches, as after the division, parishes were. This consequence may not be denied, especially by them who would have all parishes framed to the constitution of the first Churches. But they were not such: for the parishes, after their division, had not a Bishop and presbytery, but only a Presbyter assigned to them: neither was the Pastor thereof superintendant over others, neither was any of them intended to be a mother Church. Secondly, if that assumption was false which denied parishes to have been distinguished in the Apostles times, than these Churches were not only many congregations, but many parishes also. 
Page 60.  But he said before, that that assumption had no truth in it. These two just exceptions I have against his consequence. If against the former it be objected, that some of his testimonies do seem to prove, that after the Apostles times these Churches were each of them but one congregation: I answer, that his main argument and proofs thereof, do speak of the Apostles time. Those which are extended further, shall be further examined.  

§ 3. Whether the Churches of Corinth, Ephesus, and Antioch, were each but one congregation. His proof out of Scripture.  Now I come to his assumption; for though I do not deny, but that at the first, and namely in the time of the Apostle Paul, the most of the Churches so soon after their conversion, did not each of them exceed the proportion of a populous congregation; yet I cannot yield to all his proofs. His proofs be either allegation of Scriptures, or other testimonies.  
His Scriptures for Corinth, are out of the first epistle to the Corinthians, and Rom. ●6. 1. for Ephesus, Act. 20.28. for Antioch, Act. 14.27. Now let us consider the date of his testimonies, and then what is testified in them.  
The date of them is ancienter than Paul his going to Rome, which was in the year 5●. or ●6. Which I do note, to show to what time his proposition is to be restrained: as if he had said, 
In respect of Antioch he might have said 45.  If before the year 55. or ●6. they were but one congregation, than they were no more until the year 200.  
The thing that is testified for Corinth, 1. Cor 11. is such, as might be written to the Church of England, as verse 18. 
Corinth was situated in Isthmo, between two seas, having on either side a port, the one Cenchreae, serving more properly for Asia; the other Lechaeum, serving for Italy and other parts of Europe: Strab. l. 8. Ad pag. 67.  When you come into the Church, I bear there be schisms among you: vers. 20. When you come together in the same place, this is not to eat the Supper of the Lord: vers. 33. When you come together to eat, expect one another. Rom. 16. There is mention of the Church of Cenchreae, whereof mention hath been made now thrice, to no purpose, unless it be against himself: for if C●nchreae were a parish subordinate to the Church of Corinth, as most certainly it was, itself having not a Bishop or presbytery, but a Presbyter assigned to it; this will proole, that the mother Church of Corinth was diocesan, (as all Cathedral Churches be) and that parishes distinguished from the Cathedral, as children from the mother, were such as that of Cenchreae.  
That which is testified for Ephesus, Act. 20.28. is such as upon like occasion might by all. in his visitation be applied to a●● the ministers of a diocese; that they should attend the stock, etc. For must the word stock, which may be extended, either to the universal, or national, or provincial, or diocesan Church; must it needs signify only the congregation of a Parish? & yet he, that breathes nothing but novelties, saith it is a new conceit, to suppose a Diocesan flock. But this calumny of novelty I have by plentiful testimonies of antiquity (before cited) wiped clean away.  
As touching Act. 14.27. cited for Antioch; where it is said, that Paul and Barnabas gathered together the Church, to relate unto them, what God had done by them, since they had laid their hands upon them, and had commended them to the grace of God: it is apparent; that not all the Church consisting of husbands, and wives, their children and servants, but some of the chief and principal, perhaps not many, perhaps not any, besides those of the Clergy, were called to that meeting.  
These were his proofs out of the Scripture. 
§ 4. His testimonies out of human writings.  His other testimonies are out of Eusebius, Ignatius, and some of our own Writers, all which testimonies are scarce worth the mentioning. Eusebius calleth the Churches of Corinth, Ephesus and Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Of the ancient use of this word, sometimes signifying the whole Diocese, sometimes the whole City and Suburbs, I have spoken sufficiently heretofore, as also of that which he objecteth, concerning the Parish in Ephesus. Whereto I add, that Eusebius, as he used the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the same purpose.  
Ignatius writing to the Church of Ephesus 
a Ignat. ad Eph. , the multitude whereof he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as if he had of purpose noted it to be a Church consisting of many multitudes or congregations) exhorteth them, as one might in like manner the faithful in London, (though divided into many congregations) to come oft together to 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  give thanks and glory to God: for when you come oft together into one place, the power of Satan is weakened, etc.  
His other testimony out of Ignatius, is out of his Epistle to Hero, where he calleth the Church of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Synagogue, that is, the church or congregation of the Lord. The word being used in the same signification with Ecclesia, whereof I spoke before. But whether Ignatius were Bishop only of one Congregation, or parish, let his own words testify. Remember me saith he, 
c Epist. ad Magnes.  (in his Epistle to the Magnesians) in your prayers, and the Church which is in Syria, whereof I am not worthy to be called the Bishop. And in the Epistle to the Romans towards the latter end 
d Igna. ad Ro. , Remember in your prayer the Church in Syria, the which, in stead of me, hath the Lord to be her pastor, who saith I am the good shepherd. Or, if these words be not plain enough, he calleth himself in the 
e Ad Rom.  same Epistle, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Bishop of Syria. Now let my adversary tell me, what manner of Parish Syria was. And let me hear also, what he can object against these two Epistles of Ignatius to the Magnesians, and Romans. For even they 
f P●rk. problem. , which suspect his Epistle to Her●, which the refuter citeth, and four others, acknowledge these two to be no bastards Eusebius 
g Euseb. l. 3. c. 35.36.  mentioneth both. And that to the Romans, he not only mentioneth, but also citeth a good part thereof.  
Thus leaving that most pregnant, and authentic evidence of Ignatius to my adversary to muse upon; I come to his testimonies of our new writers, all which (excepting two testimonies of tindal) he most childishly allegeth, to prove, that the Churches of Ephesus, and of other the like Cities, were each of them but a Parish; because they call a Church a Congregation; using the word Congregation in as ample sense, as before I proved the word Ecclesia (whereof that is the English) to be used. The ancient English Bibles, never almost use the word church; but in stead thereof do use the word congregation, not only where is mention of particular Churches, but of the universal or catholic Church. As Mat. 16. Upon this rock I will build my congregation. Eph. 1. He hath made him head of the Congregation, which is his body. Eph. 5. Ye husbands love your wives as Christ loved the congregation. And so in the Communion Book, both in the Prayers & translation there used. As in the Prayer for the King, before the Epistle; have mercy on the whole congregation. In the solemnisation of Matrimony, out of Ephes. 5. I speak of Christ and the Congregation.  
But you shall hear his particulars; First tindal translateth the word Ecclesia by congregation: thus, to the angel of the congregation of Ephesus, etc. 2. john Bale translateth and expoundeth the word Candlestick and Church, by Congregation.  
The reasons why the first translator of the Bible into English in these latter times did avoid the name Church, and instead thereof used Congregation, do seem to have been these two. The first, because Church or Kyrk, being derived from the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth more properly signify the place of meeting, than the congregation itself, which is meant by ecclesia: and therefore the word Congregation thought to be the fitter translation. The second, because the Papists had abused the word Church, whether it were generally used, to signify the Romish Church; or particularly, to import the Romish clergy. So saith Tindal; Because the clergy had appropriated to themselves the name Church, 
Tindal. pag. 250.  therefore I translated the word Ecclesia, by this word Congregation. For when the people understood, that by Church was meant the company of men professing the faith of Christ, the name Church is every where used, as the translation of ecclesia.  
Thirdly, Yea, but D. Fulke justifying the translation of Ecclesia, Eph. 5.23. by congregation, argueth plainly, that he held the Church of Ephesus to consist but of one particular congregation only. Which allegation showeth extreme want, either of judgement, or honesty: for what church or congregation is there mentioned? the Church of Ephesus, or the universal Church of Christ? when it is said, as Christ is the head of the Church? Upon which words, when the Rhemists had noted it as a corruption of the first English Bibles, which did not use the word Church, but congregation in stead thereof. D. Fulke answereth; 
D. Fulk. in Eph. 5. ●. 2.  that the Translator rather used the word Congregation than Church, to avoid ambiguity, because this word Church is commonly taken for the house of the assembly of Christians: and that the people might know, that the Church is a gathering together of all the members into one body, which in the name of church doth not appear. But after the people were taught to distinguish of the word Church, and to understand it for the mystical body of Christ, the latter translations used that term; not that the other was any corruption; or the latter, any correction; but to declare, that both is one. Is it not plain, that he by congregation understandeth the universal Church, which is a gathering together of all the members into one body, but of the Church of Ephesus speaketh never a word?  

Ad pag. 68  In the 4. place the notes of M. Perkins sermons on the Apocalypse, taken from his mouth, are alleged▪ wherein it is said, that the seven Churches were particular congregations, meaning thereby (that which I do not deny) particular churches, and that every particular congregation is a Church, and hath privileges of a Church belonging to it, which is also true.  
Fiftly, the great Church Bible readeth thus; john to the seven Congregations. Lastly, D. Bilson saith, that the church is never taken in the old or new Testament for the Priests alone, but for the congregation of the faithful. From which allegations to infer, that each church is but one particular congregation, is (as I said) most childish.  
But those 2. out of tindal, the one, that a Bishop was the governor but of one congregation: 
Tindal. pag. 135.250.  the other, that he was the overseer but of a Parish, to preach the word to a parish: was not a childish mistaking, but a wilful misalleadging of the Author, who in the former place hath no such thing. Or if he have any where, he useth the word Congregation in as large a sense as Ecclesia, whereof it is the translation. In the latter, speaking of such a Bishop as is described, 1. Tim. 3. that is, of such a one as (in his conceit) was but a Presbyter; he saith, by the authority of the gospel, they that preach the word of God in every Parish, and (perform) other necessary ministries, have right to challenge an honest living: 
Vid. infr lib. 4. c. 7. § 9  Neither is the Refuter content once to have falsified the testimony of this holy Martyr; but again in the end of his book he allegeth him to the same purpose.  
After he hath thus doughtily proved his Assumption concerning these 3. Churches, 
§ 5. His second rank of instances.  he bringeth a new supply of testimonies out of Ignatius, Tertullian, and Eusebius concerning others. Ignatius exhorteth the Magnesians, 
Ignat. ad Magnes.  that they would all come together into one place to prayer; all, as with us, that belonged to the same congregation. And persuading the Philadelphians to unity, 
Ad Philadelph.  exhorteth them, that they would use one faith, one preaching, one eucharist, because the body of Christ is one, and his blood one, one cup, and one bread, one Altar for the whole Church, and one Bishop with the Presbytery and Deacons: for there is but one God the Father, etc. one faith, one baptism, and one Church, which the Apostles have founded from one end of the world to another, etc. In which words, none favoureth the Refuters' conceit, but that of one altar serving for the whole Church: the word Altar being expounded for the Communion Table, which is not likely, and too much savoureth of popery. But by one altar, is meant Christ, who sanctifieth all our sacrifices or oblations, and maketh them acceptable to God: as Ignatius expoundeth himself in his Epistle to the Magnesians; all as one, run together into the Temple of God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unto one jesus Christ as it were unto one altar. 
Ignat. ad Magnes.  But that which he allegeth out of the same Epistle, that they were to gather themselves together into one place to choose their Bishop: 
Ad Philadelph.  if it were rightly alleged, would prove, not their ordinary and parishional, but extraordinary and panegyrical meeting to such an end: but this needed not: their Bishop at this time was come to Ignatius in his journey towards Rome, as appeareth by the beginning of the Epistle, as it were upon an honourable embassage from the Church, as were the BB. of other Churches. But he saith, it becometh you as being a Church of God, to do as other Churches have done; that is, as he showeth in the words following, to appoint a Bishop, that he may 〈◊〉 Antioch perform the ●mbassage of God, that it may be granted to them being gathered together into one place, to glorify the name of God From whence also the Refuter gathereth, that a Bishop is God's Ambassador to a people that are together in one place. Which is true, so oft as he preacheth. But Ignatius meaneth nothing less, then that they should appoint the Bishop of Antioch; but only willeth them to send a Bishop, as it were upon embassage thither. 
Ignat. ad S●yrn.  His meaning is more plainly expressed in his Epistle to the S●yrneans, where he writeth to the same purpose, that seeing the Church of Antioch after his departure had some peace, (the persecutors contenting themselves to have taken him who was their ringleader from among them) he exhorteth them to ordain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a sacred Ambassador, who when he should come into Syria, should rejoice with them, because they had peace.  

Tertull. apolog. c. 39  Tertull●●● also is made to speak for them, as though he said the Christian Churches were all one body, and came all together into a company and congregation. By which testimony, if it were truly alleged, all Christian Churches, as they are one body of Christ, so all should meet together to make one parish. His words be these: I will now set forth the practices of the Christian party: That having refuted the evils (objected) I may declare the good. We are a body consenting in the knowledge of religion, in the truth of discipline or doctrine, and the covenant of hope: We come together into a company and congregation. Which words may be verified of the Christians of these times, which in every Church are divided into several congregations.  

Eusebius.  Out of Eusebius he hath nothing to allege, but that which before I came to his arguments I sufficiently answered; that he calleth the Church of jerusalem the parish of jerusalem, the Church of Alexandria, the parish of Alexandria, etc.  
To which I answer, that Eusebius indeed calleth each of the Churches by the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but he calleth none of them a parish, as we understand the word parish. In the place which he quoteth concerning jerusalem, Eusebius saith, 
Eus. l. 3. c. 11.  that after the martyrdom of james (who no doubt from an Apostle, had been preferred to be a parish Bishop, because he was Christ's kinsman) the Apostles and disciples of Christ, which yet remained, did from all places come together, with those who were of Christ's kindred, to consult, whom they might think worthy to be james his successor; and that with one consent they made chuce of Simeon the son of Cleophas, as worthy the throne of that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, Church, because he also was our saviours kinsman. All this was done (no doubt) in a parish meeting, to set a parish B. in his throne. In which throne of james, reserved, as Eusebius saith, till his time, the BB. of jerusalem, having the honour of patriarchs, did succeed.  
As touching Alexandria, it is evident by that which before hath been showed, that Eusebius speaking of the Bishop there, calleth him sometime the Bishop of the Church or paroecia, sometimes of the Churches or paroeciae, belonging to Alexandria, and all in one and the same sense: which plainly showeth, that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he doth not mean that which we call a parish. Which will then better appear, when I shall prove that from Saint Marks time, there were more Churches or parishes there, and yet but one Church and one Bishop.  
But suppose it were granted him, that each of the Churches for a time did not exceed for their number, the proportion of an ordinary congregation; yet this would not prove them to have been parishes, as hath been showed.  
Thus and thus weakly, to use his own words, the Disputer having proved his cause, notwithstanding concludeth with a stout brag. Now let any man, judge whether M.D. hath better proved, that the Churches in those times were dioceses, or I, that they were parishes. So say I, let any man now judge, who is of judgement; and if there be any comparison between the plain evidence which I have brought, and his slender proofs, let me be taken for a man of no judgement.  

§ 6. The Refuter objecteth that we have no diocesan, because we have two provincial Churches.  Yea but (saith he) the worst is still behind: for his cause indeed, but to mine, advantage. For if there were not only diocesan, but also provincial Churches, and that within the first two hundred years; then is it absurd to imagine, that there were no Churches, but parishional. Neither did, or doth the being of provincial Churches, hinder dioceses, or diocesan BB. These be the shallow conceits of this disputer, and his fellow challengers of disputation: First, that every visible Church hath a sufficient and independent authority, immediately derived from Christ, for the government of itself in all causes ecclesiastical. Secondly, that every parish is or aught to be such a Church. From the former of these, this disputer seemeth to infer, that if diocesan Churches and BB. be subordinate to the provincial Churches, and BB: that then the provincial be the only Churches. And by the same reason when the provinces were subject to the patriarchs, none but patriarchal Chuches, (as that of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and jerusalem) were to be esteemed Churches. But let us hear the disputer. 
Ad page 69.  Admit the Churches were then diocesan, what is that to us, who have none such in these days, if G.P. say true? And how is this proved? because he saith the BB. of either province in England are Suffragans, or rather Curates to the two Archishops in their several provinces, even their deputies exercising ecclesiastical jurisdiction, from and under them. It shall not be amiss therefore for M.D. to confute him the next time he writeth. In the mean time you should have answered for yourselves, and not put off the confutation of his rejoinder to others. But though you cannot confute him, yet you can abuse him, as by reviling and scornful terms in other places of your book; so here by notorious falsifying of his words▪ For where doth he say that our Bishops be but Suffragans or Curates to the two Archishops, as you without shame or conscience do bely him? saith he, or meaneth he any more but this, that during the time of the Archiepiscopal visitation, whereby the jurisdiction of the Ordinary is suspended, that ecclesiastical jurisdiction which he practiseth, he doth exercise from and under the Archbishop as his deputy? And what is this to our purpose? Yea but, If we may judge (saith our Disputer) by the outward practice, we have only two Churches, and they are provincial, the one of Canterbury, the other of York, unsubordinate either to other, or to any other ecclesiastical power, and so entire Churches (such as he would have every parish to be.) here by the way let the Reader judge, with what conscience the Refuter hath so oft objected against our Bishops, that they be petite pope's, having sole and supreme authority, seeing now himself confesseth, that according to the order and discipline of our Church, they are subject to the metropolitans. But to the point: none of these things which he objecteth, do hinder the being of dioceses, or diocesan Bishops; no not though they had been by G.P. called the archbishops Suffragans. For whereas the Bishops have been by authors which have written within these nine hundred years, called Suffragans to the archbishops, they mean thereby comprovincial Bishops▪ who in the election of the metropolitans, and in the provincial synods held by the metropolitans, did give their suffrages with them: not that they be such as commonly we call Suffragans, but are as absolute Bishops as have been since the first appointment of metropolitans; and they were actually acknowledged, as they were at the first intended, so soon as the divers cities of one province had their Bishops. In all which, as there was consociation among themselves, as being all of one body; so also subordination to the Bishop of the Metropolis, or mother City, as being their head. Thus was it provided in the canons, which for their antiquity, are called the Apostles canons, that the Bishops of every nation must acknowledge him that in the first or primate among them, and esteem him as the head, and that they should do nothing exceeding the bounds of their own jurisdiction, without his consent. And that every one may do those things alone which belong to his own Church and the Countries which be under it. Neither may he (meaning the Primate) do any thing without the consent of all. The same is repeated and explained, as ye heard before in the Council of Antioch; 
C. Antioch. c. 10. The council of Sardica calleth the metropolitan the governor of the province. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  calling the Primate, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Bishop which governeth in the mother City, appointing him to have the care of the whole province, because there is concourse of men, who have business from all parts of the country to the mother City. And although they forbade Bishops to attempt any thing beyond their compass, without his consent, according to the ancient canon, yet they say, Every Bishop hath power or authority of his own diocese, to administer or govern the same according to his conscience, and to have provident care of the whole Country subject to his City, and to ordain Presbyters and Deacons, and to dispose of all things with judgement.  

§ 7. Of metropolitans, when they began.  It is apparent then, that the being of provincial Churches doth not hinder the diocesan, nor the authority of metropolitans take away the jurisdiction of diocesan Bishops. Neither is any Church in the world, more agreeable to the form and government of the most ancient and Apostolical Churches, than this of England. For at the first, metropolitans were not subordinate to any superior Bishops, but were, 
In Conc. Constant. 1. c. 2.  as Balsa●● saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, heads by themselves of their provinces, being Bishops of their own peculiar dioceses, and yet having a general superintendency over the whole province. I cannot deny, but that long before the Council of Nice, there were patriarchs above metropolitans, whose original, as it seemeth, proceeded from human policy; 
Conc. Nic. c. 6.  as the cause of their ratification and continuance is ascribed to ancient custom. But the superiority of metropolitans was either intended by the Apostles, as I think, when they appointed Bishops over mother Cities, who though at the first actually were but Bishops of their own diocese, yet upon the conversion of other Cities in the province, were to be ackowledged the chief; 
De gradib. c. 24.  or at least, as Beza supposeth, they were ordained, not by authority of Counsels, but s●●dente natura, & necessitate flagitante; nature advising, and necessity requiring it. For it was convenient, or rather necessary, that there should be consociation of Churches within the same province; and that the governors of the several dioceses, should meet for the common good; as also that the wrongs offered to any by the Bishops within their dioceses, might be remedied. By consequent therefore it was necessary, especially before there were Christian magistrates, that one in every province should be held as chief, or primate, who should assemble the synods, moderate them being assembled, see the decrees executed, and have a general superintendency over the whole province. Beza therefore speaking of the aforesaid Canon of the Apostles, 
De. grad. c. 20.  saith, quid aliud hic statuitu● quam ordo ille, quem in omnibus ecclesiis restitutum cupi●●●? What other thing is here ordained, but that order, which in all Churches we desire may be restored?  
That there were Metropolitan Bishops within the first 200 years, it is evident by those provincial counsels, which in the second Century were held concerning the feast of Easter, 
Euseb. l. 5. c. 23  being assembled and guided by metropolitans. As the precedent of the provincial synod held at Rome, was Victor the Metropolitan Bishop of Rome; of those in Palestina, Theophilus the Metropolitan of Caesarea, and Narcissus Bishop of jerusalem; of that in France, Irenaeus the Bishop of Lions; of that in Achaia, Bacchylus the Bishop of Corinth; of that in Asia, Polycrates the Bishop of Ephesus. And so of that in Osroene and of divers others. Now it is to be noted, that Eusebius speaking of the synod held in France, saith, there was a meeting of the Churches in France, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of which Churches Irenaeus was B. Such a parish B. was he. 
Ex Balsam. in Conc. Ephes. c 8. & exemplar. suggest. de Cypri. Episcopis & ex Decreto Conc. Ephes. post adventum Episcoporum Cypri.   
That there have been metropolitans, and provincial Churches ever since the Apostles times, this one evidence among many, which might be alleged, may sufficiently evince. In the time, of the first Ephesine Council, Dionysius the governor of the East, whose chief seat was Antioch, having appointed Theodorus to be the Lieutenant of the Isle of Cyprus, the Patriarch of Antioch, because the ecclesiastical jurisdiction for the most part followed the civil, challenged authority over the Isle of Cyprus, and power of ordaining the Metropolitan Bishop of Constantia, the mother city of Cyprus. To which end, the clergy of Antioch procured from Dionysius letters, both to the clergy of Constantia, and to the Lieutenant of Cyprus, to interdict them from choosing their Metropolitan, the See being then void: or if they had already chosen their Bishop, that both he and they should repair to the Council at Ephesus, hoping that by the Council they should be overruled, according to the Bishop of Antioch his desire. Reginus therefore, who was chosen Bishop, with other Bishops of Cyprus, 
Can. Apost. 35.  put up a Supplication to the Council, complaining that the Bishop and clergy of Antioch had sought, contrary to the Apostles Canons, and contrary to the determination of the Council of Nice, 
Conc. N●c. c. 5.6 Constant. 1. c. 2  to bring them in subjection to them: and therefore requested, that as ever since the Apostles times, 
Trodus, Sabinus, Epiphanius, & qui ante Illos sanctissimi Episcopi, & quia sanctis Apostolis erant omnes orthodoxi ab his qui in Cypro Constituti sunt.  the provincial synod had ordained their Metropolitan; so their ancient right might not now be infringed. Whereupon the Council having censured the attempt of the Bishop of Antioch, as 〈◊〉 innovation, contrary to the laws ecclesiastical, and ca●●●s of the holy Apostles, decreed, not only that the Bishops of Cyprus, but also of all other dioceses and provinces, should retain their ancient right; and that no Bishop should challenge unto himself any province, which had not been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in former times from the beginning, under his predecessors jurisdiction. It hath seemed good therefore to the sacred and economical synod, that to every province her right, which ●●er from the beginning it hath had, shall be kept pure and inviolable, according to the ancient received custom. Every Metropolitan having good l●a●● to take a copy of this Act for his own security. Whereby it appeareth, that the Isle of Cyprus had a Metropolitan from the Apostles time. And that no Metropolitan had, or aught to have, the government of any province, which had not always from the beginning been subject to his Se●.  
And that metropolitans were either actually appointed, or at the least intended by the Apostles, appeareth hereby: That ever since their times, in all provinces, throughout the Christian world, there have been metropolitans, never misliked or contradicted by any, until this our age.  
And whereas the Refuter objecteth, 
§ 8. Metropolitan Churches are proofs rather than disproofs of Diocesan.  that this maketh against Diocesan Bishops, I say it maketh for them. For every Metropolitan is also a diocesan Bishop: having a peculiar diocese of his own, whereof he is Bishop; as the Archbishop of Canterbury, hath Canterbury, and part of Kent, besides some other peculiar Churches; the Archbishop of York, hath Yorkshire (excepting the County of Richmond, which belongeth to the Bishop of Chester) and the County of Nottingham.  
To his question therefore demanding, where then are our Diocesan Churches become? I answer, there remain 24 of them, where they were wont to be, for any thing that he can say to the contrary, besides the Churches of Canterbury and York; which, as they be provincial Churches in respect of the 2. provinces; so are they Diocesan in respect of the peculiar dioceses belonging unto them. And where he saith, the Cathedral Churches are as it were parishes, he saith he knows not what. For Cathedral Churches, which are the mother Churches of every diocese, neither are, nor ever were parishes; nor the Bishop, nor Presbyteries of them, ever intended to one parish. And if it so fall out, that to some part of the Cathedral Church a particular parish belong; thereto a several Presbyter is appointed as to other Parishes. The meetings in Cathedral Churches whereof the Bishops have been precedents, were never Parishional, but rather panegyrical, even in the most ancient and purest Churches, under the best and most renowned Bishops since the Apostles times.  
In the conclusion the Refuter pusheth at me with a Dilemma, as it were with a pair of rams horns. For such is his wisdom, that he thinketh diocesan & provincial Churches (which are subordinate one to the other) to be so opposite, as that to hold the one, is to deny the other. And therefore if I yield there be provincial Churches, than I must confess there be no diocesan: or if I will needs hold there be diocesan Churches, than I overthrow the provincial. So that what may soever we look, saith he, I see nothing against us, but all for us. Thus hath he brought himself into a fools paradise, where I leave him to feed upon his own fancies, and to solace himself with the conceit of his imagined conquest.   

CHAP. VII. Proving the third point of the Sermon, that the Bishops of the primitive Church were Diocesan Bishops.  (Serm. sect. 1. Now these Presbyteries in the Apostles times, as the Presbyterians confess, had, etc. ad lin. a fine 4.) 
THe Refuter hath acquitted himself, in his own conceit, so valiantly and victoriously in subverting my former assertion concerning dioceses, which he supposeth to be the foundation of my building; that as he looks for no strength in the rest of the building to resist his forces, (the foundation itself being so weak and tottering) so he promiseth to himself assured success in overthrowing the rest. But if my building be founded, as it were, on a rock, against which his main forces could not prevail at all, but like the waves and billows of the sea, though they beat against it with great noise, return back with froth and foam, (as I hope it appeareth to every indifferent and judicious Reader) then may I promise to myself the like success in withstanding his future assaults. And the better hope I do conceive hereof, 
Ad page 70.  because he seemeth to confess that if I can demonstrate that the ancient Churches, were dioceses, that then the other points will follow of their own accord. But, that I have so demonstrated, that I never expect any sound answer thereto. As for this point which now I have in hand, it is not only demonstrated already, in the proof of the former, but is also by necessary consequence deduced therefrom. My purpose therefore is to be as brief in propugning this truth, as he is in oppugning the same.  
I will therefore omit his frivolous cavil, which now the fourth time he repeateth for my not concluding, what he, according to his forced Analysis, would have concluded: because the Reader cannot but discern, that I directly conclude what before was propounded, viz. that the Angels or Pastors of the primitive Church were diocesan Bishops, which I prove in the Sermon by degrees: first severally, before the division of parishes, and after the distribution of them, both in the city and in the country: then jointly, both before and after. For having concluded the former point with these words, that the Churches contained many particular congregations, unto all which there was but one Presbytery, or College of Presbyters assigned: and having here signified, that by the confession of the most learned Disciplinarians, each Presbytery had a Precedent, which S. john calleth the Angel of the Church, and the Fathers, a Bishop; I prove from that which hath already been proved, that the Precedent of the Presbytery, the Angel, of the B. of the Church, was not a parishional, but a diocesan Bishop.  
But before I come to the proof contained in this section, I am to note, how those last words of the former part, which are very material, are by this refuter passed over in silence. For it would be known, whether there were in Cities (where were many congregations) yea in whole dioceses, any more Presbyteries or Colleges of Presbyters, then that one belonging to the mother Church in the City. If to show either his ignorance, or want of good conscience, he shall say there were (as indeed that is their assersion, that in every parish both in city and country, there ought to be a Presbytery or senate of ruling Elders) let him give but one approved instance to prove his assertion in the first four hundred years, and I will yield, 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 judgement, they would not have appointed one only Presbytery for many parishes. If he shall confess that in a whole circuit, which we call a diocese, there was but one college or senate of Presbyters, consisting of those who were called the Presbyters of the city, (which is a most certain and undeniable truth) then must he confess his platform of parish discipline to be a mere novelty, and an undigested fancy, having no warrant of scriptures, nor testimony of antiquity; and contrary wise, that there was but one Presbytery, and one Bishop set over a whole diocese. He that catcheth at every word, yea at the least letter whereat he hopeth to have the least advantage, (as at the term pagani in this passage, and at the little letters, in the word Cretians) would not swallow up in silence such pregnant arguments, if silence were not his best answer.  

§. 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 be concluded, he hath spied a syllogism, which I did not intend, out of that which I propounded in axiomatical disposition, as taking it for granted. But the Refuter maketh me reason thus: 
The precedents of the Presbyteries were diocesan BB. The Angels of the seven Churches were precedents of the Presbyteries.  
Therefore the Angels of the seven Churches were diocesan BB.   
Which is the handsomest syllogism he hath bestowed on me as yet, neither will I refuse to maintain any one part of it, if he will be pleased to take notice of that, which even now was proved; that there was but one Presbytery for a whole diocese. So the proposition will be manifest, that the precedents of Presbyteries (which were provided for whole dioceses) whom the fathers call BB. were diocesan BB. for so much might have been added to the proposition out of my words.  
The assumption I have made good before by the confessions of Calvin and Beza. But he beginneth with the assumption, saying that he hath good cause to doubt of it, and that I do but threapen kindness on them when I talk of their Confessions. For plentiful proof whereof I refer you to that which before hath been alleged out of Calvin and Beza. 
Lib. 1. cap. 2. §. 16.  But what will not this Refuter quarrel with? for if the Churches had been such as he conceipteth, that is to say parishes, having every one a Bishop and a Presbytery of governing Elders; would any man doubt, either that the Bishop was called the Angel of the Church, or that he was precedent of the Presbytery?  
Now to the proposition (saith the Refuter) for answer whereto in one word, 
Ad pag. 71.  I say it is false: let us examine the proof of it, and then frameth a syllogism, the conclusion whereof is this; therefore the Bishop who was set over a whole diocese, and who was Precedent of the Presbytery, allotted to a whole diocese, was undoubtedly a diocesan Bishop. Was this the proposition which he denied? or was he so unreasonable to deny it? What can be more evident? But he seeth by this time what a goodly analysis he hath here made.  
To return therefore to mine own analysis. In this section I prove, that the ancient Bishops were diocesan Bishops, even before the division of parishes, by three arguments, which for brevity sake I joined together.  
The first. If the Churches whereof they were BB. were dioceses, and not parishes, than were they diocesan BB. But the Antecedent is true, as hath already been proved 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 several cures, than there could be no Parishional Bishops in that time.  
But the former hath already been proved; Therefore the latter is true.  
The assumption is to be understood, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 have been distinguished in the Apostles times; but so, as several Presbyters being assigned to them, there remained one Bishop over all.  
The third. If the Presbyteries were allotted to whole dioceses, and not to several parishes, than the Bishops who were Precedents of those Presbyteries, were not parishional, but diocesan.  
But the first is true, as hath been already proved: Therefore the second.  
To all three, he answereth by denying the assumption: the truth whereof dependeth upon the proofs of the second point, which have been so many, and so manifest, as I hope to hear no more of the newfound 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, etc. to page 24. line 3.) 

The analysis of this section and that which followeth.  Here I prove, that after the division of parishes, the Bishops were diocesan: albeit in this section is contained but part of my argument, which standeth thus: 
Those Bishops who were over all the parishes both in the city and country, were diocesan, and not parishional Bishops.  
The ancient Bishops in the first two hundred years, were over all the parishes both in the city and country, viz. after they were distinguished:  
Therefore the ancient Bishops in the first two hundred years were diocesan, and not parishional Bishops.   
The proposition is most evident. The assumption standeth on two parts: first, that the Bishops were over all the parishes in the city, after they were divided. The second, that the Bishops were over all the parishes in the country, after their division. The former I prove in this section by induction of particulars: the latter in the next.  
The Analysis being here mistaken by him, 
Ad pag. 72. & 73.  I will not meddle with that, which he hath thereby taken occasion to speak beside the purpose: because here I find him more modest, then hitherto he hath showed himself: neither will I shame him with his own friends, when for an evasion he supposeth, that in the primitive Church, some Ministers might have more Churches under them, like our double beneficed men and pluralists, even those that have tot quot, and yet be no Bishops. Only I will touch those things, which contradict that which I have delivered. And first, he observeth 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 year one hundred, they began to be distinguished at Rome, by evaristus the Bishop there. A shrewd contradiction I promise you, especially if you consider, that all the Apostles, but S. john, were dead before this time, and that this was in the very end of S. john's time. Yea but after I say, 
Tit. 1.12.  that Titus was Bishop of the Cretians, (I cry you mercy, I should have said Cretans, and yet by his leave, the Geneva 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 Crect; yet it followeth not, that the parishes in the Churches of Asia or Crect, were distinguished. They were both by Paul's direction, as well by letter as example, to ordain Presbyters in the several cities; but that they placed any in the country, or assigned the Presbyters to several cures in the Cities, we read not.  

That the Bishops had the charge of all the parishes in the city after they were divided or set out.  To return therefore to my proofs: The induction standeth thus: 
In Rome, and Alexandria, and so in other cities, the parishes being once divided, were assigned to several Presbyters, the Bishop remaining superintendant over them all:  
Therefore the Bishops were over all the parishes in the cities, after they were once divided.   
As touching Rome, I show that the parishes were first distinguished by evaristus, about the 100 year; and not a Presbytery, but several Presbyters assigned to them, as hath been proved heretofore. At Alexandria I prove, that the Bishop had the charge of many Churches, within the first 200. years.  
But what I say concerning Alexandria, 
Ad page 74.  might well have been spared (for that is his usual censure of such proofs as he knows not how to answer) because that Church is excepted against 
a By T. C. pa. nusquam. , as the beginner, and breeder of diocesan government. Excepted against? why? what was done in Alexandria, which all the Churches in the world did not practise, so soon as the parishes were divided? But what if this order began in S. john's time? what if by S. Mark, who died five or six years before Peter and Paul? let Eusebius, alleging the reports of them that went before him, be witness; viz, 
Euse. l. 2. c. 15  that Mark being sent into Egypt did preach the Gospel there, and was the first which did constitute 
c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the Churches in Alexandria itself. Then ever since S. Marks time, there have been Churches in Alexandria, which all from the beginning were subject to the B. Of these Churches 
d Euse. l. 5. c. 9 , as I alleged in the sermon, was julianus Bishop in the first year of Commodus, viz. 180. In the 10 of Commodus, Demetrius was 
e Lib. 5. c. 2●.  Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the Churches in Alexandria. And again more fully, that in the 10. year of Severus, Lae●us was precedent of Alexandria, and the rest of Egypt 
f Lib. 6. c. 1. : 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but of the Churches there, Demetrius had lately received the Bishopric after julianus. In the third year of Philippus, after Heraclas had been sixteen years Bishop, Dionysius received 
g Lib. 6. c. 35.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Bishopric of ruling the Churches in or about Alexandria. So it is said of Peter 
h Socra. l. 2. c. 6  the famous B. of the Curches of Alexandria. 
i Euseb. l 9 c. 6  of Alexander, that he was Bishop of the Churches belonging to that City. Constantius requested of Athanasius the Bishop 
k Ruf. 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 retain the government 
l Socr. l. 4 c. 13.  of the Churches. What these Churches were, Epiphanius before in part declared, 
m Epiphan. haeres. 69.  signifying that they were of ancient assigned to several Presbyters; all of them which were Catholic, or orthodoxal, being under the Bishop.  
Neither should this seem strange, that the Churches in Alexandria were subject to the Bishop, seeing the rest in Egypt were under his jurisdiction. Neither was this a thing peculiar to the Bishop of Alexandria, but common to others, especially who were Bishops of mother Cities. Ignatius was Bishop not only of Antioch, 
n Epist. ad R●  but of Syria, as you heard testified by himself. Irenaeus the Bishop of Lions, was Bishop of the 
o Eus. l. 5. c. 23  Churches in France. And to omit others, as Diodorus the Bishop of Tarsus, to whose charge was committed the 
p Theo. l. 5. c. 4.  nation of the Cilicians, Amphilochius, who governed the whole 
q Li 4. c. 11.  nation of the Lycaonians, Photinus' Bishop of the 
r Socr. l. 2 c 18  Churches in Illyricum, Agapetus Bishop of the 
s Soc. l. 7. c. 3.  Churches which were under Synada &c: Eusebius testifieth of 
t Euseb. l. 3. c 4  Titus, and in the next age after of Philippe 
u Lib. 4. c. 21. , that he was B. of the Churches in Crect. Theodoret saith the like, 
* Theodor. in 1. Tim. 3.  and of Timothe that he was Bishop of the Asians, whose metropolis was Ephesus. It is manifest, saith Chrysostom 
x in 1. Tim. 5.19.  that to Timothy was committed the rest of the Church, or 
y 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ad pag. 75. The refuters answer 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 lived 230. years, after Timothy and Titus; and Theodoret 330. What then? the question is not whether the witnesses lived in the first 200. years, but whether within that time, there were diocesan Bishops? It is a very uncharitable and unlearned part, that I say no worse, to imagine that Eusebius and Theodoret would, of their own heads, testify these things, and not by the relation of those which lived in former ages: especially, seeing Eusebius saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it is recorded in histories. But suppose the testimonies of these 2. were not sufficient; what will he say to that cloud of the ancient & most authentic witnesses, which with one consent do testify, that Timothy was B. of Ephesus, & those parts of Asia; and that Titus was B. of Crect? But of this more hereafter. In the mean time, let it be acknowledged, as a point of intolerable impudence, that in a matter of fact, so agreeable with the scriptures (I mean especially the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, written to them, as to Bishops) any of us should deny credit to the constant, general and perpetual consent of the ancient writers, whereof some lived 13 or 1400 years before us.  
2. Yea but if these testimonies be true, Titus and Timothy were Archbishops. So is Titus called in the subscription of that Epistle. And that they were metropolitans, appeareth by all their successors, who were Bishops of Gortynae and Ephesiu●: the one, Metropolis of Crect, the other of Asia. How D. Bilson denieth this, let the reader see page. 409. of his book, (the other which the refuter citeth being misalledged) where he citeth chrysostom 
a H●mil. 1. in. Tit.  and Jerome 
b De script. ec●les. in Tit●.  testifying that to Titus was committed a whole Island, and the judgement of so many Bishops; 
c Praefat. 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 diocese, had the oversight also of other Dioceses & Bishops; it should not seem strange, that there were Diocesan Bishops, who besides their cathedral churches, had many parishes and Presbyters subordinate to them. To which purpose Epiphanius 
d Epist. ad Io●n. Hieros'. apud Hierony●. ●. 2.  also was alleged, who saith that each Bishop had divers churches under them: to whom many other might be added; as that of Optat●●, 
e Lib. 2. cover. Par●en.  that in the city of Rome (where was but one only Bishop) were above forty Churches: the Epistle of Constantine 
f Euseb. in vita Const. Theod. l. 1. c. 19  to Eusebius, mentioning those divers Churches which were under him, and signifying as the multitude of Christians did increase, so the number of Churches was to be multiplied: the testimony of Theodoret 
g In epist. ad Leon. M.  the Bishop of Cyrus, who affirmeth, that it was his lot to be pastor of 800. Churches: for so many parishes, saith he, hath Cyrus. Yea but Epiphanius was 390. years after Christ. Will any wise man therefore infer that in the first two hundred years it was so? Good sir, saving your wisdom, you shall seldom read in ancient records of enlarging of dioceses: but of the contracting of them, by erecting new Bishoprics, very oft. It was testified before, 
h Ex Cont. Ephesin. Et Asrit. etc.  that the circuits of dioceses were from the beginning of the Churches: and therefore what circuit was of any Bishopric in Epiphanius his time, the same ordinarily, if not greater, was in the first 200. years.  Serm. sect. 3. page 24. As touching country towns, 
§. 6. That the B. had the charge of the parishes in the country.  they were indeed converted after the cities etc. to page 25. add lin. 8. 
In this section I prove the latter part of the former assumption, concerning country parishes. viz. that the Bishop of the city was over them also: which I prove 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 over them, as being part of his Diocese.  
The antecedent I prove by their care over them, both before they were converted, and after. Before, because they laboured their conversion; after, because the Bishop out of his Presbytery assigned to each of them a Presbyter, not a Presbytery, or a B. 2. Where the diocese was large, he substituted a Chorepiscopus, or country B. Of these points, the last, our refuter weary 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 been proved before: so would it have been most precious to the church of God, if the BB. and Presbyof those times, had so conceived. Now that both they and the country churches so conceived, as I said, the universal & perpetual practice of the church of Christ, subjecting in all places the country parishes to the Bishop of the city, doth inevitably prove. 2. That they did not labour their conversion by virtue of their office, but were to attend those who were converted. As if the Bishop, and presbytery had been ordained only for those few, that were at the first converted; and were not rather, as leaven put into the meal, to season the whole lump. I would gladly know therefore, who after the death of the Apostles and apostolical men (which laboured in the cities) were appointed or provided for the conversion of the country towns? If it were not the office of the Bishop and Presbytery of the city, to which they were subject; much less was it the office of others, who being neither Apostles, nor Evangelists, were tied to their own charges, & might not by the most ancient canons of the church, exercise any mysterial function out of their own bounds. Besides the bounds of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction followed the civil ordinarily; so that those countries were subject to the Bishop of the City in respect of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, which were subject to the city itself. And therefore as they were actually under the Bishop's charge, after their conversion; so were they intentionally, before. This is a point clearly confessed by Calvin, as you shall hear. 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 ministry for the whole diocese. Neither was there any other ordinary means to supply the Churches which wanted. Scholars of their own, fit ●o be ministers, country parishes had not: universities there were none: learned men from other dioceses were not to be expected, unless the Bishop of the city were not able out of his clergy to furnish them. But hereof I have spoken before:  
As touching the last, that where the diocese was large, the Bishop in certain places appointed Chorepiscopos, as his substitutes, who together with their charge remained subject to the Bishop of the city (which is a thing most notorious, and confessed by Calvin and Beza, being also a most evident proof, that the churches were dioceses, and the Bishop's diocesan, as I have showed before) our refuter passeth it over in silence; with what conscience, let the refuter judge.  
Passing therefore by this, which in no wise he was able to answer, 
§. 7. That the B. of the city assigned several Presbyters to the country parishes. Ad pag. 77.  he oppugneth the 3. point, bringing an instance of his own, and taking exception against my proof. We have, saith he, a plain instance to the contrary in the churches of Cenchrea and Corinth. A plain instance? to what purpose? that Cenchrea had a Bishop and a presbytery, and not a several presbyter assigned to it? that when it wanted a presbyter, it was not furnished from the clergy of Corinth? It is evident that Cenchrea was a village belonging to Corinth and subject unto it, as were all other towns and villages in those parts: and as the rest, so it (even by his 
a Page 57  own confession) received the gospel from Corinth. That it ever had a Bishop it is incredible: for by the laws of the church, those churches which at the first had Bishops, were to have them stil. Let him show, that ever it had a Bishop or a presbytery, or that it was not subject to the Bishop of Corinth, as well as other towns and villages of Achaia; that ordinarily it received not their presbyter from Corinth, from whence, by his own confession, it received the Gospel; and I will yield to him. If none of these things can be necessarily proved; nay if none of them be probable or likely, how could he say that this was a plain instance to the contrary. And yet this is the fourth time that the church of Cenchreae hath been objected to no purpose, unless it be to confute himself.  
Against my allegation of the council of Sardica, he taketh great exception, objecting two contrary things unto me: whereof, if either were true, the one would take away the other. The former, is subtlety and craft, as though I went about to delude my auditors at Lambeth, and readers every where. For, saith he, when was this Council held? was it not about the year 347. almost 150. years after the time in question? If I had alleged that canon, only to testify the practice of the Church at that time, not permitting Bishops in country towns and villages, there had been some small colour for this objection: and yet but a colour, seeing they do not (as you shall hear) prohibit the ordaining of Bishops in any Church where they had formerly been. And therefore the practice of the Church for multitude of Bishops now, was as it had been before; saving that by this canon order was taken for erecting bishoprics, where none had been, but not for dissolving of Bishoprics, where any were. But it was the judgement and determination of that Council, which chiefly I alleged; which was, that one Presbyter is sufficient for a village or town. And therefore nothing was in this respect to be innovated, but as they had hitherto no Bishops or Presbyteries, but Presbyters severally assigned to them, so they should continue. The judgement of these men (I hope) was not much inferior to theirs, who lived in the first two hundred years. This being a council of three hundred orthodoxal Bishops who confirmed the decrees of the council of Nice, among whom was Osius the famous confessor, 
Theod. l. 2. c. 15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and Athanasius (than whom there hath not been a more famous Bishop for piety, wisdom, learning and soundness in religion since the Apostles times) whose judgement also in this particular was approved, as hath been showed, by the decrees of other councils, by the judgement of other fathers, by the practice of all churches, and never gain 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 judgement, or testimonies to overweigh their authority. There was therefore no subtle purpose in me to delude any in this allegation, but an evil conscience in him that sought with so frivolous an evasion to elude so plain and pregnant evidence.  
The other thing which he objecteth is simple folly, in alleging a Canon, which, as he saith, maketh so much against me. For, saith he, what greater proof can there be, that villages or little cities or towns usually had BB. over them even till that time, viz. the year 347, then that the council of Sardica was feign to make such a decree against it? For the untruth of which objection, his ignorance must be his best excuse. It is plain, that in that canon direction is given chiefly for erecting of new Bishoprics; authorizing the Metropolitan and the other Bishops of the province, if the people of cities and populous places desired a Bishop, to erect a new Bishopric: but forbidding this to be done in villages or petite cities or towns, for which they judged the ministry of one Presbyter to be sufficient. Besides, the council of Nice had decreed, that the privileges of all churches should be preserved; and the councils of Africa more than once determined, that what Church soever had in former times had a Bishop, should still have a B. and the ancient custom of the church was ever held as a law among them, in this behalf. So that I hold it for a certain truth, that what Church in the end of the first 400 years had not a Bishop, the same had none in the beginning: and what Church soever had in the first 200. years a B. was at the end of 400. years acknowledged to have right to a B.  
Indeed I do confess that the people of country towns sometimes being vainglorious, 
Balsans.  have desired a Bishop of their own, and the ministers being ambitious, and as it is said in the council of Carthage, 
c. 54. graec.  lifting up their necks against their Bishops, have inflamed their desires: but these attempts were esteemed unlawful, and therefore as in counsels they were prohibited, so in well ordered Churches they were not allowed. But hereof also I have spoken before.  
Yea but, 
§. 8. The refuters instances of parish Bishops answered.  saith he, this canon was not universally observed, as may appear by the oft renewing of it, in other councils, and the practice of the Churches to the contrary afterward. Here I ask him, first, when this was done? for will he prove, that the irregular and unlawful practices of vainglorious people, and ambitious ministers in the fourth or fifth century after Christ, were the lawful and ordinary practices of the purest churches in the first two hundred years? Secondly, whether it were lawfully done, or not? if yea, then doth he contradict the judgement of approved councils, the authority of orthodoxal Fathers, the general consent of the ancient churches of Christ, having nothing to oppose thereto but vain surmises, & unlikely likelihoods. If not, why are they alleged? shall irregular & unlawful practices be commended as patterns for imitation?  
But let us hear his instances, which T. C. with great labour and long study gathered. The 1. Was not Zoticus Bishop of a small village, called Coman? If I say no, how will he prove it? Eusebius is alleged 
h Eus. l. 5 c. 16.  lib. 5. c. 16. where Apollinarius speaking of certain approved men, & BB. who came to try the spirit of Maximilla (one of Montanus his trulls) mentioneth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Zoticus of (or from) the village Comana, whose mouth Themiso stopped: noting the place, not whereof he was Bishop, but whence he came or where he was borne, for he was Episcopus Otrenus in Armenia, saith Caesar 
i An. 205.27.  Baronius, ex vic● Comana in Armenia ori●ndus, Bishop of Otrea in Armenia, borne at the village Comana in Armenia. In the eighteenth chapter of the same book of Eusebius 
k Euseb. l. 5. c. 18.  Apollonius reporteth the same story; which Nicephorus 
l Lib. 4. c. 25.  also reciting, useth these words: Apollonius reporteth that Zoticus Ostrenus when Maximilla begun to prophecy at Pepuza (a place which Montanus called jerusalem) endeavoured to convince her evil spirit, but was hindered of those which were her fauourits, meaning Themiso. Indeed Apollinarius calleth him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; whereupon Nicephorus supposed him to be but a Presbyter: but though Apollinarius being B. of Hierapolis calleth him in one place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as 
m 1. Pet. 5.1.  Peter calls himself, being more than a Presbyter, & as BB. usually call one another Consacerdotes: yet afterwards he expressly calleth him a Bishop. And thus the village, the little village Coman hath lost her Bishop. For little the Refuter added of his own, to make his instance the greater. The second: Was not Mares (he should have said, Maris) Bishop of Solica? Of Solica? Truly I cannot but smile that so great a clerk hath learned his letters no better; for though the first letter be not unlike an S. yet is it the D. used in that print, as he might have learned of a 
n T.C. l. 2. pag. 519.  Deacon in the same page. But this showeth that our refuter taketh his allegations at the second hand, not consulting with the author. Theodoret 
o L. 5. c. 4.  saith, that Eusebius Vercellensis ordained Maris Bishop in Dolicha, which he saith was but a small town, using the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which I will speak of, when I come to Nazianzum, which also is termed so. For, saith Theodoret, Eusebius being desirous to install Maris, a man worthy commendation and shining with many sorts of virtues 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the Episcopal throne, he came to Dolicha, by which phrase it appeareth, he did not ordain 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 far hath our refuter also overshot his mark. For though Dolicha were but a small city or town, as some of our Bishops Sees in England and Wales be: yet that hindereth not, but that it might have a diocese belonging thereto, as well as ours have, though perhaps not so great.  
The third, 
Apud Hier. tom. 1. Fortè Baiensit.  Asclepius of a small town in Africa. For this, T. C. quoteth Jerome tom. 1. catalogue. Gennadij vir. illustr. Gennadius indeed saith, that he was vici non grandis episcopus. But joannes de Trittenhem in his book the scriptorib. ecclesiast. saith that he was Vagensis teritorij episcopus; so that although his seat was no great town, yet his diocese was that whole territory. But when was this? about the year 440. so far doth my adversary, who complaineth of my overshooting my mark when I alleged the council of Sardica, overshoot me: for when he will scarce suffer me to shoot tenscore: he, as if he▪ were shooting for the flight, shoots 22, even tweluescore beyond the mark. I say unto him, it was not so from the beginning. But by counsels of afric 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 diocese belonging to the B. of a city, new bishoprics might be erected, if the people of those parts being populous desiring so much, and the Bishop of the city consenting thereto, it were agreed upon by the provincial Synod. But the Bishops of the fifth century so much exceeded in their indulgence that way, in granting popular requests, against the canons of other received counsels, and ancient practice of the Church: that Leo the great Bishop of Rome, 
Leo epist. 87. ad Episcopos Afric. c. 2.  was feign to write unto the Bishops of Africa to stay that excess.  
The fourth: What was Nazianzum, but a small town where that famous Gregory the Divine was B? For which T. C quoteth Socrat. l. 4. c. 20. But what if Nazianzum were a City? what if Gregory the Divine were not B. of Nazianzum? Nazianzum, 
Socrat. l. 4. c. 26.  though Socrates make mention of it as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a mean city, yet he calleth it a city: and though somewhere it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, a little city or town, yet was it such a city, that the Emperor Leo the Philosopher, reckoneth it among the seats of the Metropolitan BB. not that I think it had any other cities or Bishoprics subject unto it. 
jur. graecorom. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. pag 88  I will not stand to argue that question, whether Gregory the Divine were Bishop of Nazianzum. For although divers good Authors affirm it; 
Greg. epist. 42. et 65 Caes. Baron. an. 366. num. 10.  yet I believe Gregory himself, who saith, he was not B. but only coadjutor to his Father there. He was by his dear friend Basil the great, made Bishop of Sa●●●●, partly against his will, and af●er was made Bishop of Constantinople; but leaving both the former, being seized upon by Anthimu● the Bishop of Tyana, who placed another there; the latter, resigning it into the hands of the council of Constantinople, which preferred Nectarius to be his successor; he returned unto Nazianzum, where finding the See void, obtained of Helladius, who was the Bishop of Caesarea after Basil, that Eulalius might be ordained Bishop there. But I will not dispute this question; seeing it is confessed, that Nazianzens' father was B. of that diocese.  
These be 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 objecting. But his inference hereupon is worth the observing. All 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 he did D. Bilson. Whereto I answer: that I read with resolution to yield to the truth wheresoever I find it. But God hath given me so much judgement, as not to be persuaded by mere colours, such as I signified in my preface T. C. arguments in this cause to be, and such as in this treatise I have proved many of them to be, and so will the rest, if the Refuter shall urge them, or take upon him to maintain them.  
Having so substantially answered the substance of my argument, 
§ 9 Why the heathen are called Pagani.  he taketh occasion to show his learning, in giving a more learned reason why the heathen are of Christians called Pagani, than I did. I said, and, I am sure, have read it in some learned author, 
Master Hooker is of the same judgement, l. 5. Pagani quasi ex eodem font bib●ntes.  that they are so called, because the people who lived in the country villages (which are properly called pagani, a pag●, and that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Pomp. Festus saith, quia eadem aqua uterentur) remained for the most part heathenish, after the cities, for the most part, were converted to Christianity. He thinketh the heathen were called pagani, because they are not Christ's Soldiers; induced so to think, because Tertullian saith, Apud hunc, tam miles est paganus fidelis, quam paganus est miles infidelis. 
De Corona militis.  Which he englisheth thus, as well a faithful Soldier as an unbelieving soldier is a pagan. Which if it were Tertullia's meaning, as well Christians, as infidels should be called Pagans. But Tertullian is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dark, and writeth (as it seemeth) above some men's capacity. With Christ, saith Tertullian, as well a believing pagan is a soldier, as an unbelieving soldier, is a pagan; meaning by Pagan, according to the use of the Romans, him that is not a Soldier. Whereas therefore among the Romans, and all warlike nations, those who were Soldiers, were greatly honoured (as the use of the word miles and armiger with us doth show) and chose those who were not Soldiers; were of base esteem, called Pagani, perhaps in some such sense as Villani with us, that is to say, villains, clowns, boors: Tertullian dissuading Christians from going to war under infidels, persuadeth them not to be moved with this respect, of being honoured, if they be soldiers; and dishonoured, if they be not: for, saith he, with Christ, a faithful man, though despised in the world as a pagan, is highly esteemed and honoured; and also an unfaithful man, though honoured as a soldier, or chevallier in the world, is of base account with Christ. But how heathen people should from hence be called Pagani, I know not, unless christians were also called milites or chevaliers: for Pagani here, as a base term signifying villains or clowns or boors, is opposed to milites, as a name of honour.  
§. 10. Ad. Pag. 78. BB. both before, & after the division of Parishes were diocesans.  (Serm. sect. 4. pag. 25. Thus then parishes were distinguished both in the cities & countries, and several presbyters particularly assigned &c. to, promiscuously, pag. 26.) 
In this section, I prove that the BB. both before & after the division of parishes, were diocesan: and first I answer an objection: for whereas some might imagine, that Bishops before the division of parishes were parishional, after, diocesan, as being set over many churches: I show (which before hath been proved) that the circuit of the Bishop's charge, or diocese, was the same before the division of parishes, which it was after, etc. And to this purpose I declare, that the circuit of the B. charge from the beginning, contained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, meaning thereby the City whence he hath his denomination, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is the country subject unto it. And whereas some understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify a parish, according to the vulgar use of the English word, I showed that in the best authors, even after the division of parishes, it signifieth the whole city with the suburbs. My reason standeth thus: 
To whose jurisdiction both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (that is, the city & suburbs, though containing many parishes) and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (that is, the whole country belonging to the same city) is subject, he is over the Churches both in city and country, and consequently a diocesan.  
But to the jurisdiction of the ancient Bishops, both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the city and suburbs, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the country thereto belonging, were subject.  
Therefore the ancient BB. were over the Churches both in the city and country, and consequently were diocesans.   
The proposition is of undeniable truth, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, being so understood, as I proved before.  
The assumption I prove by two most pregnant testimonies; 
Can. Apost. 34. Conc. Antioch. c. 9 C. 35.  the one, being one of the ancient canons called the Apostles; the other a canon of the council of Antioch, whereof I have also spoken before. But to them we may add the next canon called the Apostles, 
C. Antioch. c. 22.  which is also recited in the council of Antioch: That a Bishop may not presume out of his own limits, to exercise ordinations, to Cities and Countries not subject to him. And if he shall be convinced to have 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 syllogism being too strong to be refuted, his best course was not to see it. Notwithstanding he cavilleth with some points therein. For whereas his chief proof before, was, that the Church of Antioch, of Ephesus, of jerusalem, of Alexandria etc. were each of them but one particular congregation etc. because Eusebius calleth each of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, thereby abusing the Reader, as if Eusebius had by that name meant that which we call a parish; here he disavoweth the authority of Eusebius alleged according to his true meaning, unless 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 years, even 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 have been instituted by Saint Mark, and yet he comprehendeth them all afterwards, yea after the number of them was increased, under the name of the paroecia in Alexandria, as I have showed before. And where besides Eusebius, I quote Epiphanius, and the Council of Antioch, he saith, It is to no purpose to cloy the Reader with multitude of allegations, concerning the decrees or practices of latter ages. Which also is a very frivolous exception, seeing it is easy to show, that the dioceses or circuits of Churches were usually lessened: but that they were any where's enlarged, he will hardly show. Therefore, look what the circuits of the Churches or Bishop's charges were in Eusebius or Epiphanius his time, the same, at the least, they were in the first two hundred years.  

§. 11. Of the Canons called the Apostles.  And whereas I allege one of the ancient canons called the Apostles, nor that I think they were of the Apostles own penning, but that for their antientnesse and authority they are so called, and by all sorts of writers so alleged, he chargeth me with seeking to blear men's 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, show my meaning. But let us hear what he can say against them, for my mind giveth me, he will leave them in better credit than he found them. If we 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 herself saw too much in them, to acknowledge them for the Apostles: See Gratian'ss decree dist. 15. c. sancta Romana, & dist. 16. cap. canon's. In both places it is said, that they are apohryphall (as we call the books of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom) not because they are either false or counterfeit, but because they are not acknowledged to be of the Apostles own writing: for if they were, they ought to be esteemed of canonical authority, like the other scriptures. Notwithstanding they are ecclesiastical canons, which for their great antiquity and authentic authority, are commonly called Apostolical, received of ancient Fathers, and approved by Counsels. And although some of them may be suspected, 
* As the last of all which leaveth out the Apocalypse, and reckoneth Clement's Epistles and Constitutions as canonical. For the Council in Trullo which receiveth the 85 Canons, notwithstanding rejecteth Clement's constitutions.  as foisted in, or depraved by heretics, yet those which are specially cited by Fathers and Counsels as authentic, are without exception; being of as great credit as any other ecclesiastical writings whatsoever. Such is the canon we speak of, the words whereof which I cited being verbatim, recited in the Council of Antioch. I will not discuss this controversy, wherein much may be said on both sides. Only this I will say, that as Damascen 
a de orthod. fid. l. 4. c. 18. in fine. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  exceeded the truth, in reckoning them with the canonical scriptures: so some learned and judicious men have been much overseen in too much censuring of them: as first, that they are condemned in the canon law, when indeed the very scope 
b vid gloss.  of the 16. distinction is to authorize them, and to acknowledge them, though not as canonical scriptures, yet as authentical canons.  
Secondly, that Isidor condemneth them: Whereas indeed the words of Isidor 
c Praefat. in con. cil. vid. dist. 16. c. 4. , in the true copy are these. That by reason of their authority, we prefix before the other counsels, the canons called the Apostles (although of some they are called apocryphal) because the greater part receive them; and the holy fathers have by synodal authority ratified them, and placed them among canonical constitutions.  
Thirdly, that they are condemned by the Council in Trullo 
d Conc. Const. in Trullo. c. 2. : when as indeed that Council rejecting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the constitutions of Clement, (which also were called Apostolical) because they were depraved by heretics, authorised the canons, decreeing that the 85. canons shall remain firm and sure, which of their 
e Tilius his Edition being here defective, is out of the manuscript copies thus to be supplied, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  holy and blessed forefathers were received, and confirmed, and delivered unto them in the name of the holy and glorious Apostles. And whereas some think, that Epiphanius is the first that mentioneth them; I find it to be otherwise. For divers of them are cited before his time, being sometimes called absolutely the canons, sometimes the ecclesiastical canons, sometimes the ancient received canons of our Fathers, sometimes Apostolical canons, as I have partly noted before 
f Ex Conc. Nic. c. 15 & 16. C. Antioch. c. 9 & ex ep. Const. . Neither is the authority of the general Council held at Ephesus, though after Epiphanius his time, to be neglected, which calleth them 
g Conc. Ephes. post advent. Episcoporum Cypr.  the canons of the holy Apostles. So much of those canons, and also of this section, which though it do most directly and necessarily conclude, 
Ad page 79.  that Bishops were set over dioceses, yet he calleth it a needless discourse, which, because he knew not how to answer, he taketh leave to pass by it.  
§. 12.  (Serm. sect. 5. pag. 26. These three points whereof hitherto I have entreated, are of such evident, etc. to page 28. line 6.) 

Calvin's testimony consenting with us in the three first points handled in the Sermon.  In this section I conclude the three first points with the testimony of Calvin, whom I produce, not as this sophister cavilleth, as a captive by way of triumph, but as one that taketh part with us, against our new sect of Disciplinarians, especially in the second and third point, (which their dissenting from Calvin, Beza, and other learned Authors of discipline, he always cunningly dissembleth.) And that his authority may be of more weight, as I confess him to have been a worthy servant of Christ, whose memory with me is blessed; so I profess him to have been the first or chief founder of the Presbyterian or Genevian discipline: in setting up whereof, the Bishopric being dissolved, and the common weal reduced to a popular State, I acknowledge him to have dealt very wisely, his project of discipline being the best, that that City did seem 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 endure to hear, that Calvin should be esteemed the first founder of this discipline. For confutation whereof, he telleth us (what we have heard an hundred times, but never shall see proved) that this discipline was both practised in the Apostles times, and primitive Church, and hath testimony from many learned men, Ignatius, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, etc. Wickliff, the Waldenses, Luther and divers others hereafter to be named, that lived before Calvin writ: he should have said, that writ before Calvin lived, and then not one word of all this goodly speech had been true; which as I have manifested already in respect of Ignatius, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Luther, so far as they have been alleged: so shall I in respect of Wickliff and the Waldenses, whonever once dreamt of their lay presbyteries, and much less of their newfound parish discipline.  
Neither can he abide that Calvin should be said to agree with us in these three points; but he must abide it, for truth will prevail. But that were exceeding strange, saith he, that he should overthrow that discipline which he was so careful to establish. Let him not abuse the Reader; his agreeing with us in the second and third point, overthroweth the newfound parish discipline, but agreeth with the doctrine of the learned Reformers, and with the practice of Geneva, understanding by B. (as they do) the Precedent of their Presbytery: their Church being a diocese consisting of many parishes, over which one Presbytery only is appointed. Of which Presbytery, if the Precedent were perpetual, ●as he was in Calvin's time, and (as always he was in the primitive Church, there being not one instance to be given to the contrary; which order Beza misliketh not, but sometimes wisheth it were restored) then should they come nearer the practice of the Apostolical Churches, than now they do. In the mean time, as their Church is a diocese, and their Presbytery serving for the whole diocese; so the Precedent for the time being, is diocesan. But whether that be so or not; once, Calvin's judgement agreeth with mine in these three points: 
Ad pag. 80.  It may be, saith he, for the latter end of the first two hundred years. But the conscience must ground itself upon the commandment and example of the Apostles in the word of God. As though we were destitute thereof, and they chose, for their discipline, had the precept and practice of the Apostles. Which well may they take for granted, but never will be able to prove: and as though the universal and perpetual practice of all the Churches in Christendom, and consent of all the Fathers in the first three hundred years, were not a sufficient demonstration to persuade a man that hath a sound judgement, joined with a good conscience, what was the doctrine and practice of the Apostles. For if any man shall say, that all the Apostolical Churches, and all the godly Fathers, and glorious Martyrs, did ever from the Apostles times observe a discipline and government of the Church, repugnant to that which the Apostles had prescribed; I doubt not to say of such a man, that as he is void of modesty, so hath he no great store either of judgement or honesty.  

§. 13. Calu. in tit. l. 4. c. 4. sect. 1. Let these words, before the papacy, be observed of them who say we have received our government from the Papists.  But how far forth Calvin agreeth with us, will appear by that chapter which I alleged, the title whereof is this; Concerning the state of the ancient Church and the manner of governing which was in use before the papacy. The which, as he saith in the beginning, will represent unto our eyes a certain image of the divine institution. For although the Bishops of those times made many canons, whereby they might seem to express more than was expressed in the holy scriptures, notwithstanding with so good caution they framed their whole administration according to that only rule of God's word, that you may easily perceive, that they had almost nothing in this behalf, dissonant from the word of God. This is a good testimony, you will say, given to the discipline of the primitive Church: but doth he testify, that the three points you speak of are agreeable thereunto? that shall you now hear. And first, concerning the Presbyteries he saith, as before I alleged, every City had their College of Presbyters, who were Pastors and Teachers, etc. The Refuter repeateth the words, which I cited out of Calvin thus: that the Presbyteries consisted of Ministers. Thereof giving this censure: Craftily, or carelessly is this spoken. The former, if wittingly he left out, only; the latter, if he did not heed it. Who denieth that the Presbyteries consisted of ministers? Will it follow thence that therefore there were no other governing-elders? No man can be so ignorant, or so shameless, as to say, that Calvin was of opinion, that the Presbyteries consisted of Ministers only, either in the Apostles times, or in the age following. What shall become of m●● now, no man being so ignorant and shameless? I hope to salve both presently. I confess, good sir, that Calvin collecteth two sorts of Elders out of 1. Tim. 5.17. I confess also, that speaking in general of the practice of the Church, he saith coldly and in few words, the rest of the Presbyters were set over the censure of manners and corrections. But when he cometh more particularly to relate the practice of the ancient Church, he giveth full testimony to the truth. For can any man understand Calvin, as saying, they had any other Presbyery, besides the college of Presbyters in every Church? Doth not Calvin plainly say, every city had their college of Presbyters, who were Pastors and Teachers? Yes that he doth: but the word only was either craftily, or carelessly omitted. Hear then the words of Calvin: Habebant ergo singulae civitates Presbyterorum collegium, qui pastores erant ac Doctores. Name & apud populum munus docendi, exhortandi & corrigendi, quod Paulus episcopis iniungit, omnes obibant: & quo semen post se relinquerent, iunioribus, qui sacra militae nomen dederant, crudiendis, nanabant operam: Every city therefore had a college of Presbyters, who were Pastors and Teachers. For both they exercised all of them the function of teaching, exhorting, and correcting, which Paul enjoineth to Bishops, and also that they might leave a seed behind them, they employed their labour in teaching the younger sort, who had given their names, to serve in the sacred warfare, that is, the younger sort of the Clergy. Thus therefore I reason: 
The College of Presbyters, according to Calvin's judgement, consisted only of Ministers;  
The Presbytery of each City was the college of the Presbyters:  
Therefore the Presbytery of each City, according to Calvin's judgement, consisted only of Ministers.   
The assumption is evident: The proposition himself proveth, when he saith omnes, all of them exercised the offic● of teaching, etc. which Paul prescribeth to BB. etc. What can be more plain? 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 enjoined Bishops; and instructing the younger sort of the clergy, there are none but Ministers. Therefore where all exercise the function of teaching and preaching, etc. there are Ministers only.  

§ 14. Calvin's testimony that the Churches were dioceses.  As touching the second, Calvin most plainly giveth testimony to it in the next words following: unicuique ciuita●i erat attributa certa regio, qua Presbyteros Jude sumeret, & velut corpori ecclesiae illius accenseretur: To every City was attributed a certain region or country, which from thence should receive their Presbyters, and be reckoned as being of the body of that Church. What can be more plain, that each Church contained the city and country adjoining, that both city and country made but one Church, as it were one body, whereof the head was the city, the other members the parishes in the country: that the Presbyteries were only in cities, and that the country parishes received each of them their Presbyter, when they wanted, from thence? Who therefore (to use his own words) could be either so ignorant as not to see, or so shameless as not to acknowledge, that the Churches in Calvin's judgement were dioceses? How doth he avoid this? Forsooth Calvin doth not name dioceses. But doth he not mean dioceses, when he speaketh of Churches containing each of them a city and country adjoining? Yea but he doth not tie the power of ecclesiastical government to the Bishop's Church. No doth? he acknowledgeth no Presbytery but in the cities, of which the Bishops were Precedents. As for country parishes, they had not Presbyteries, but several Presbyters: and those they had, as Calvin saith, from the Presbytery of the city. Besides, when he maketh the city and country to be but one body, it cannot be doubted, but that he meant the Church in the city was the head of this body, and the rest of the parts subject unto it. Whereto you may add that which after he saith of chorepiscopi placed in the diocese, where it was large, as the Bishop's deputy, in the country subject to him. But what Calvin's judgement was in this behalf. let the Church of Geneva, framed thereby, testify. Which is as much a diocese now, as when it was under a Bishop, there being but one Presbytery, unto which all the parishes are subject. But let us hear what this Refuter doth confess Calvin to have acknowledged in this behalf: He neither nameth dioceses, nortieth power of ecclesiastical government to the Bishop's Church, but only acknowledgeth that for order's 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 convicted with evidence of truth; but desirous to make a show of opposition, when they know not what to say against it. Doth not Calvin plainly say, that to each citte was attributed a certain 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 order's sake, etc. Is not his answer in effect this, Calvin doth confess that the Churches indeed were dioceses, and that the Bishops had under their charge both the city and country adjoining, (for that also he confesseth in the next point) but they were not Bishops having such authority as you speak of? that is, I confess he 〈◊〉 with you in the second and third point, as you say; but yet in the fourth (which also you confess) he dissenteth from you. Howbeit he 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 diocese? if he had under his charge both the city and country adjoining? Yea but he was not a diocesan, but a titular Bishop. Though Calvin acknowledgeth the Bishop to have been only Precedent of the Presbytery, like to the Consul in the senate of Rome (which you call a titular B.) wherein (being the fourth point) he dissenteth from us; yet doth he acknowledge, that under his Bishopric, was contained both the city and country, and consequently that he was a diocesan Bishop, unless he that is Bishop of a diocese, be not a diocesan Bishop.  
His testimony therefore to the third is clear, 
§ 15.  especially if you add that which followeth, concerning the Chorepiscopis, or country Bishops. 
Calums testimony that the Bishops were diocesan BB.  For Calvin saith, If the country which was under his Bishopric, were larger than he could sufficiently discharge all the offices of a Bishop in every place, rural 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 every parish had sufficient authority within themselves, what needed rural Bishops to overlook them? If the Bishop of the City had been Bishop but of one parish, why doth Calvin say the Country was under his Bishopric? Why doth he say, that the Bishopric was sometimes so large, that there was need of Country Bishops as his deputies, to represent the Bishop in the province or country? But what saith the Refuter to this? he confesseth (not ingenuously, but as it were 〈◊〉 Minerva, as if it stuck in his teeth) that Calvin saith somewhat to that purpose. But that somewhat is as good as nothing: for he doth not say they were diocesan Bishops: (O impudence!) neither doth he speak of the Apostles 〈◊〉, of which all the question is, for the feeling of a Christian conscience in the 〈◊〉 of government. All the question concerning the Apostles times? do not yourselves extend your assertion to 200. years? And if nothing will settle the conscience but what is alleged from the Apostles times, what have you to settle your conscience for your opinion, who can allege no sound proof neither from the Apostles times, nor afterwards? But to what purpose should I spend more words in this matter, seeing I have heretofore proved, that the circuit of every Bishop's charge, was from the beginning as great, if not greater, than 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 converted to the profession of Christianity, because none was then: and as well might they allege, that no whole country ought to be converted 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 have I manifestly proved, that Calu●● giveth testimony to the first point; and in the two latter, that he wholly agreeth with us. So doth ●eza, as I have showed before, testifying the Churches were dioceses, 
Bez. de grad. min. c. 24.  and that in the chief town of every diocese, the first Presbyter, who afterwards began to be called a Bishop, (he speaketh therefore of the Apostles times) was set over his fellow Presbyters, both of the City and country, that is the whole diocese. And because sometimes the country was of larger extent then that all upon every occasion could conveniently meet in the City; and forasmuch as all other small Cities and towns did need common inspection, or over sight, they had also their Chorepiscopi, that is, country or vice-Bishops.  
Yea but (saith he, 
Ad Pag 81.  being guilty to himself of untruth in denying Calvin's consent with us) it had been nothing to the purpose if Calvin had agreed with him in all, seeing he affirmeth withal, that they were but human ordinances, and aberrations from the word of God. That which Calvin speaketh of the superiority of Bishops in degree (which is the fourth point, wherein I confess he dissenteth from us, and from the truth, supposing it to be of custom, and human constitution) that the refuter extendeth to all his reports concerning the ancient Church government; when as he plainly testifies, that with so great 〈◊〉 they had composed the government, that there 〈…〉 it almost dissonant from the word of God. Do●● 〈◊〉 where say or insinuate, that it is an aberration from the word of God, either that their college of Presbyters did consist wholly of Pastors and Teachers? 
See Calu. in Act. 20.17.28. & in Act. 14.23.  Or that to each City was attributed a certain region, being portion of the same Church? Or that the Bishop had the superintendency over the City and country? It will never be showed.  
And now are we come to his conclusion, containing a most vain brag, proceeding either from pitiful ignorance, or extreme unconscionablenes: That having answered my arguments (in such sort as you have heard) and wanting indeed proofs, worth the producing, he shall not need (the untruth of this third point is so evident) to bring any proof for the maintenance of the contrary assertion. And so I leave him, conceiving hope of victory, like the King of A●, between these old forces, which I have made to retire upon him, and the new supplies marching towards him.  
FINIS.    

THE THIRD BOOK, proving the superiority of Bishops above other Ministers.  

CHAP. 1. Confuting the refuters' preamble to the fourth point, and defending mine own entrance thereinto.  (Serm. sect. 1. pag. 28. In the fourth place therefore we are to entreat of the superiority of BB. over other Ministers: for although the Presbyterians and we agree in this etc. almost to the end of the pag. 29.) 
OF the five points which I propounded, three have already been handled: the first concerning Lay Elders, against both sorts of Disciplinarians, aswell the elder, as the younger; though between their opinions there is this difference, that the elder require such a presbytery in each City or Diocese; the younger, in each Parish. In the second and third concerning Dioceses, and Diocesans, I had to deal only with our new sect of Disciplinarians, who urge the newfound parish-discipline. In the fourth and fifth which remain, I propounded to myself the confutation of the elder and more learned sort of disciplinarians, not greatly regarding, what our innovatours in these 2. points do hold, or deny; their proper opinions concerning the parish discipline, being in the three former points sufficiently confuted. The which I do the rather note, for 2. causes. The one, that the reader may understand the refuters evasions, in disavowing such assertions as I ascribe unto the disciplinarians, to be to no purpose; seeing they are held by men more learned and judicious, with whom principally I had to deal. The other that he may discern the poverty and weakness of their cause; the chief, and almost only strength thereof, being the allegation of divers protestant writers, (whom I called the learneder sort of Disciplinarians) who are parties in the cause.  
As touching the fourth point; the refuter, before he come to my words, maketh an idle flourish: the sum whereof is this; that were it not, that by confuting the superiority of Bishops, he should overthrow the Supremacy of the Pope, he would scarce have vouchsafed an answer to my discourse. Here therefore he showeth two things; first, that by confuting the superiority of Bishops, he shall withal refute the supremacy of the Pope. 2. that otherwise, an answer to me in this fourth point were needless.  
In the former, he seemeth ignorantly, and yet maliciously to presuppose, that the superiority of Bishops, and the supremacy of the Pope, hang as it were upon one pin; and that he which granteth the one, must needs hold the other. For the Basis or ground of his dispute, is this, such as is, and aught to be the government of the whole Church, such is, and aught to be the government of the parts or several Churches; and chose. from hence he hath two inferences: the first thus: 
Such as is, and aught to be the government of the whole Church, such is, and aught to be the government of the parts or several Churches.  
But the government of the whole Church is Aristocratical, and not Monarchical: therefore the government of the parts or several Churches is, and aught to be Aristocratical, and not Monarchical.  
The proposition he taketh for granted, 
§ 2. Whether the government of the whole Church, and of the parts, must be of one form.  noting it as an absurdity in me, To fight for that in the particulars, which in the general I wish overthrown.   
But it would be known, what he meaneth by the particulars, or parts of the Church, whose government he would have answerable to the universal or whole Church. If he mean only parishional Churches (as he needs must): For, there is no other visible Church endued with power of Ecclesiastical government in his conceit but a Parish; Parishes (no doubt) may be proud of the comparison: for then, as some of them have written in stately manner, as Rome had her Senate, Lacedaemon her Signiory, Athens her Areopage, jerusalem her Synedrion, Venice (which our Refuter addeth) her council of State; and lastly, (which exceedeth all) as the universal Church hath her Ecumenical synod, so the Church of every Parish, in every street, and in every hamlet, must have an Ecclesiastical senate. But what parts soever he understand, whether Parishional, national, or Diocesan Churches, the proposition is untrue: for of Provincial, or national Churches, the Metropolitans, and Bishops of dioceses, are, and aught to be the governors. But howsoever, in that respect the form of government may seem to be Monarchical; yet in respect of the manner of governing, the Metropolis using the advise of the national, or Provincial synods, the Bishop of his Presbytery, they may be Aristocratical. Who knoweth not that the common wealth of Rome sometimes was popular, and likewise that of Athens (for it is an error of the Refuter to reckon Athens with Venice, as an example of Aristocracy;) yet the several provinces were ruled by several governors, as Propraetors, and Proconsul's. The government of this whole Island (blessed be God, for uniting the two Kingdoms in the person of our Sovereign) is Monarchical: yet the government of several parts by Counsels, and Precedents thereof, may seem so far Aristocratical. The government of the whole Church in Heaven and earth is Monarchical under one head and Monarch, which is Christ our King. And for the government of the whole Church upon earth, he hath no Vicar general, but the holy Ghost, who appointeth governors under him, which may govern the several parts of the Church in some respect monarchically, though the whole Church, by the mutual consociation of her governors for the common good, and by the concurrence of them to an Occumenicall synod, is governed Aristocratically: for the whole Church being but one body, there ought to be a Christian consociation of the governors thereof for the common good of the whole body. If among the Princes of the whole world, there were the like consociation, the universal world should be governed in that respect Aristocratically, though the several parts for the most part Monarchically. So much of the proposition.  
The assumption he proveth by the testimonies of our writers against the Papists, 
§. 3. The government of the whole Church Aristocratical.  with whom himself, and his copartners do not agree. For, first, when they say that the regiment of the whole Church is Aristocratical; they mean in respect of the governors of the several Churches, who as being severed rule their Churches severally, there being no one visible Monarch over all; so being congregated in an Ecumenical Synod, do make one Ecclesiastical Senate. But our new Disciplinarians do hold, that every parish is an entire body by itself, having within itself, for the government of itself, sufficient authority unsubordinate and independent: and therefore do not acknowledge any lawful authority in Synods to define, determine, or command, but only to deliberat, and advise, as H. I. in his book urging reformation, and other the Christian and modest challengers of disputation, together with the humble 
n An. 1609.  petitioners suing for a toleration, do teach.  
Secondly, Our writers hold the government of the Church universal to be Aristocratical, because as our Saviour Christ ascending into Heaven, left his twelve Apostles, as it were twelve patriarchs, answerable to the Princes of the twelve tribes 
a Cypr. de Simplic praelatorum: Hoc erant utique caeteri Apostoli quod suit Petrus, pari consorrio prae●liti & honoris & pot●statis. , furnished with equal authority and power, whose college was the supreme Senate of the universal church: so they committed the Churches to Bishops, as their successors, being equal in degree; 
b Eiusdem sacerdotij. Hier. ad evagr.  who as they govern the Churches severally, so jointly (with other governors) are the highest Senate of the universal Church. But it was never practised in the Church of God, that any presbyters or pastors of parishes should be called to general councils, to have right of suffrage and authority to judge and determine those matters which were debated in those councils; but both they and Deacons (I mean some of them) were to attend their Bishop, to assist him with their private counsel and advice: which one argument (by the way) doth notably set forth the superiority of Bishops over other ministers.  
But as his assumption crosseth the conceits of our new Disciplinarians, so is his conclusion repugnant to their assertion, who ascribing the supreme authority in their several Churches to the whole congregation, stand for a popular state, rather than Aristocratical. Whereas indeed the government of Churches, as they are provincial, are according to the ancient Canons which are in use with us, governed by provincial synods, and therefore by a regiment Aristocratical.  
So that of this syllogism, the proposition is false, the assumption is gainsaid by themselves, and the conclusion, confuting their own assertion, agreeth with the practice of provincial churches with us. 
Though the government of several Churches be monarchical, yet it followeth not that therefore the government of the Universal Church should be monarchical.   
§. 4. His other inference is this: If the government of the several Churches may be monarchical, then by the same reason the government of the whole Church may be monarchical. But the government of the whole Church may not be monarchical: therefore the government of the several Churches may not.  
This consequence is unsound, there being not the like reason of the whole Church and of the parts. And that is the answer, which ou● men do make to the papists, when they urge this reason; as there was but one high priest, for the government of the Church under the Law, so there should be, but one chief Bishop for the government of the whole Church. They answer, there is not the like reason between the Church of one nation, and of the whole world. Cal. Inst. li. 4. ca 6. s. 2. Gentis unius & totius orbis longè diversa est ratio, perinde est, ac siquis contendat totum mundum a praefecto uno debere regi, quia ager unus non plures praefectos habeat. For of the universal Church, Christ only is the head; which supreme and universal government, if any man shall assume to himself, as the Pope of Rome doth; thereby he declareth himself to be Antichrist, or emulus Christi, sitting in the Church of God, as God, and lifting up himself above all that is called God. But as touching the several Churches, those who be the lieutenants of Christ, may be called the heads or governors thereof, as sovereign princes of all states and persons within their dominions, Metropolitans of provincial Churches, Bishops of their diocese, and Pastors of their several flocks.  
Secondly, whereas particular men are enabled by God to govern several churches; no mortal man is able to wield the government of the whole Church: which is one of the main arguments, which our writers use against the monarchical government of the whole Church: which this refuter seeketh in vain to infringe. The Roman Emperors, when their Empire was at the largest, and they esteemed themselves Lords of the world, enjoying indeed not one third part of the whole, yet finding themselves unable to wield so great a burden, were feign to assume colleagues unto them with whom they parted the Empire, when they might have retained the whole.  
Thirdly, the monarchical government of the whole Church would prove dangerous and pernicious to the same, if that one head or Monarch thereof should fall into error or idolatry; especially, he being so above the whole Church as that he should not be subject to a general Council.  
But the heads of several Churches, if they err or fall, may by the Synods of other Bishops be brought into order, or deposed. Examples whereof we have in all, even the chief seats of Bishops, as of Marcellinus at Rome, Paulus Samosatenus at Antioch, Dioscorus at Alexandria, Nestorius and Macedonius at Constantinople. etc. Cyprian writing to Stephanus Bishop of Rome about the deposing of Martianus Bishop of Arles saith, 
Lib. 3. Epist. 13.  Idcirco copiosum corpus est Sacerdotal concordi● mu●na glutino atque unitatis vinculo copulatum, ut si quis ex collegio nostro haeresim facere, & greg●m Christi l●cerare & vastare tentaverit, subveniant cateri, etc.  
Fourthly, to the head of several Churches the members may have easy and speedy recourse, for clearing of doubts, and deciding of controversies etc. But from all parts of the world men could not without infinite trouble, besides manifold inconveniences, repair to one place. These reasons may suffice for the confutation of the proposition.  
The assumption is false in respect of Christ, who is the Monarch of the Church; otherwise I acknowledge it to be true, 
Ad pag. 82.  but without any disadvantage to my cause: the odious consequence of the proposition (which is so oft urged) being unsound.  
If therefore he can no better disprove the Supremacy of the Pope, than he doth the superiority of Bishops, it were better he should be silent, then busy himself in matters above his reach.  
The other part of his idle flourish is a vain brag, that were it not for that cause, he should not need to busy himself in answering, or examining this point. For if neither the Churches were dioceses, nor the Bishop's Diocesan, to what end should we inquire what power or jurisdiction they had? But the Churches were dioceses and the BB. diocesan, as I have manifestly proved before, and as those Disciplinarians do confess, with whom chiefly I deal in this point: who granting that the Churches were dioceses, 
Wherein the Disciplinarians do agree, and wherein they descent from us.  and the Bishop's diocesan, do notwithstanding deny the superiority of Bishops in degree etc.  
§. 5. Now that the state of the controversy betwixt us and them may appear, I show wherein the Presbyterians agree with us, and wherein they descent from us. But first he findeth fault that I call them Presbyterians, as sometimes I do also Disciplinarians; though thereby I mean no other, but such as do stand for the Presbytery, and for that discipline, being loath either to call them adversaries (whom I acknowledge to be brethren) or to offend them with the title of Puritans, wherewith others do upbraid them. And howsoever he in bitter scorn doth say, that of my charity I do in scorn so call them: I do profess unfeignedly, that out of a charitable mind, I did term them Presbyterians, not knowing how to speak of them, as dissenting from us, more charitably. And whereas I say they agree with us in this, that by divine institution there was in the primitive Church, and still ought to be, one set over the Presbyters, he saith; I had need to be as mighty in eloquence as Pericles, if I would persuade that. But small eloquence may serve, where there is such evidence to prove the truth. Only the Reader must remember, that I speak not of my adversary, and other new fangled disciplinarians, who are not to have the credit of coming so near the truth; but of men of greater learning, and better desert in God's Church: who as they agree with us, that the Churches were dioceses, and the Presbyteries with the Precedents thereof provided for dioceses, (which ● have showed before) so they consent in this, that the Presbyteries had by divine ordinance a Precedent set over them: the which I will prove straightways, after I have noted his censure concerning the three points wherein I said they differ from us. The first, that they make the Bishop superior in order only, and not in degree. 2. That they assign a superiority or presidentship unto him for a short time, and that by course. 3. That granting unto him a priority of order, they deny unto him a majority of rule or power.  
To the first he saith, If by degree I mean dignity only (as never any man did) they do not deny the Precedent to be superior indignity and honour, during the time of his presidentship: which is nothing else but to grant unto him a priority of order, which Beza calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the prerogative or precedence, 
Ad pag. 33.  and to go before in honour. But if I understand degree, of office and ministry distinct from Presbyters, as theirs is from deacons, than he professeth themselves to dissent from us. And so let them: for he cannot be ignorant, that I maintain the ancient distinction of the ecclesiastical Ministers into three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 degrees, Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons. As for those Precedents of Presbyteries, which were superior to the other Presbyters, in order and not in degree; such were they whom they were wont to call, sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sometimes archipresbyteri, sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is to say, Deans, and not Bishops. And it was a great oversight in these learned men, under the name and title of the ancient Bishops, to describe unto us Deans.  
To the second, he saith; It is manifestly false: for we tie not the presidentshippe to any short or long time, nor give it to all presbyters by course, as if it were a matter of divine institution: howsoever, where all are fit for that service, (as no doubt but in Utopia they all are) we think it perhaps (for he doth but guess at things which he knoweth not) in discretion (he might have said, indiscretion) confirmed by experience, not amiss to have the business so carried.  
To the third he saith; That it also is untrue: for we give (saith he) the Precedent, during the time of his presidentship, as priority of order, so majority of rule; though not supreme and sole authority, as none but Papists do, and they to none but to the Pope.  
As touching their agreement with us, 
§. 6. They hold that there must be a Precedent of the Presbytery. lib. 1. cap. 2. § 16. & 17.  and the second point wherein they differ from us (for of the first I have spoken at large before, showing the judgements of Calvin and Beza therein) you shall hear the opinion of a chief patron of the discipline, in a treatise, which he hath written in defence thereof. Beza therefore teacheth, that it is a divine ordinance, both that there should be a precedent of each presbytery, and also that his presidentshippe should be but for a short time, and by course. The former, which is the order itself, he saith 
a De grad. Minist. cap. 23. , is not only an ordinance divine, but also essential and immutable. The latter, which is ordinis modus, though it were of divine institution, yet it is but accidental, and so mutable. And when he distinguisheth Bishops into three sorts 
b De grad. Minist. c. 24. p. 177 , he calleth them only divine, which have a priority of order only, and that for a time and by course. As for those which had a perpetual presidentship, whereunto they were preferred by election, by whom the priority of order (as he imagineth) was changed into a superiority of degree, and were such as he will not absolutely 
c Ibid. c. 23. p. 144. 156.  condemn: yet such (in his opinion) are but human: and to these he supposeth the name Bishop first to have been appropriated. Such divine Precedents he acknowledgeth these seven Angels to have been, and before them Timothy at Ephesus. And whereas jerom saith, at the first the Churches were governed 〈◊〉 Presbyterorum consili●; by the common counsel of Presbyters: N●● confuso, saith he, & perturbate? What 
d Pag. 139.140 , saith he, confsed and disordered: so as when the Presbyters did meet, none should be Precedent among them? That is not likely: therefore even then the Presbytery had a Precedent. And where it was objected by D. Saravia, against that opinion of Jerome, that these seven Churches had each of them an Angel by divine ordinance set over them, to whom a more eminent authority belonged in the regiment of the Church; to what purpose, saith Beza 
e Pag. 159.160 , do you urge this against Jerome? For when he said, the Churches were governed at the first by the common counsel of Presbyters, we may not think, that he so doted, as to dream that none of the Presbyters was Precedent over that assembly.  
As for the third and the last, nothing is more evident 
f Vide supr. l. 1. c. 2 §. 16. , then that Calvin and Beza, 
They deny to the Precedent majority of rule.  as they deny the Bishop to be superior to other Ministers in degree, so also in rule and dominion. For he was not so superior in honour and dignity (saith Calvin 
g Calu. Instit. l. 4. c. 4 s. 2. ) as to have dominion over his Colleagues. And again; that he did go so before others in dignity, that himself was subject to the assembly of his brethren. Beza 
h Beza de grad. p. 156 157.  acknowledgeth their superiority to have been the dignity or honour of the first place, but no degree of rule over their compresbyters. And is not this part of H. I. his second main assertion, that the ancient Bishops in the first two hundred years differed from other pastors only in priority of order, and not in majority of rule? T. C. 
i T. C. l●. 110.  likewise speaking of him that was chosen to moderate the meeting of Ministers, saith, If any man will call him a Precedent, or Moderator, or a Governor, we will not strive, so that it be with these cautions; that he be not called simply Governor, or Moderator, but Governor or Moderator of that action, and for that time, and subject to the orders that others be, and to be censured by the company of the Brethren, as well as others, if he be judged anyway fault●. And that after that action ended, and meeting dissolved, he sit him down in his old place, and set himself in equal state with the rest of the Ministers. Thirdly, that this government or presidentship be not so tied to that Minister, but that at the next meeting it shall be lawful to take another. The untruths therefore which the Refuter hath bestowed upon me here, he must be entreated to take to himself.  
To prove their dissent from us in this fourth point, 
§. 7. Beza dissenting from us in this fourth point, but with more moderation than our Disciplinarians use.  I alleged Beza his distinction of Bishops into three sorts: and because it is an odious distinction, I concealed his name, and to salve his credit, I showed, that although he came far short of Calvin's moderation, yet he is more moderately affected towards our Bishops, than the Disciplinarians among us usually be: who, as they speak despitefully of them, calling them Antichristian, pettite Popes, etc. so do they wish and labour for the extirpation of them, whereas Beza speaking reverently of them, prayeth for their continuance.  
But both his distinction and his wish, by the Refuter are perverted, expounding him as though he had accounted for human, those which had only a priority of order: whereas indeed he acknowledgeth such a presidentship as you have heard, to be a divine ordinance; and understandeth his prayer, where he wisheth the continuance of the Bishops, as if he had wished that so long as England hath Bishops, they may be such as may give their lives for the truth, as they did. Where, whiles he understandeth Beza as wishing our Bishops to be Martyrs, he indiscreetly maketh him to wish that our Princes may be persecutors, which God forbid. That which he addeth concerning my saying Am●● to the like wish for the Churches of France and Scotland, and yet be no maintainer of their presbyteries, is merely idle; for I did not bring in Beza as a maintainer of Bishops, but rather did note him as one of their chief opposites, citing his differences from us, and mentioning that distinction of Bishops: howbeit I acknowledge his proposition to be with more moderation, then is commonly to be found in the Disciplinarians among us.  

§. 8. The refuter seeketh starting holes.  Now I am to descend with him into the particulars which I propounded to be handled: first to show, that the Bishops or Angels of the primiti●e Church, were as well as ours, superior to other Ministers in degree: and secondly, to declare more particularly, wherein their superiority did consist.  

Ad pag. 84.  But before he entereth the combat, distrusting himself and his cause, he seeketh (as such champions use to do) which way (if need be) he may make an escape: and having to this purpose looked well about him, he hath found out two starting holes, whereby he hopeth to find some evasion. The former hath these windings and turnings in it: 
He would restrain the Primitive church unto the Apostles times.  1. That the primiti●e church is to be confined to the Apostles times, and not extended to the whole 200 years. 2. That the question is ●● be ●nderstood of the Angels of the 7. Churches. 3. That I must p●●●●e these Angels to have had sole power of ordination and jurisdiction. The first of these argueth extreme diffidence: for Calvin, and others, in this question, within the limits of the primitive Church, include the times of Constanti●e, at the least; yea Calvin includeth all the time 
k Iust. l. 4. c. 4.  a●tepapa●●m, before the Papacy; in which time he acknowledgeth the form of Church government, to have had nothing in it almost dissonant from the word of God. And whereas, saith he 
l Parag. 4.  every province had among their Bishops an Archbishop; and whereas also in the Council of Nice, there were established Patriarches, who in order and dignity were superior to the Archbishops, that appertained to the preservation of discipline. And although he misliketh that the government so established, was called Hiera: ●hy; notwithstanding, if omitting the name, saith he, we look into the thing, we shall find that the ancient Bishops would not frame a form of Church government differing from that which God prescribed in his word. And Beza 
m Confess c. 5. § 29.  confesseth, that those things which were ordained of the ancient Fathers, concerning the seats of Bishops, metropolitans, and patriarchs, assigning their limits▪ and attributing unto them certain authority, were appointed optimo zelo, out of a very good zeal. And therefore (no doubt) out of such zeal, as was according to knowledge; otherwise it would have been far from being optimus, the best.  
Zanchius 
n De relig. c. 25. § 11.  entreating of the divers orders of Ministers in the primitive Church, as Presbyters, Bishops, Archbishops, etc. faith, they may be defended. Against which, some learned man (I will not say Beza) having taken exception, Zanchius maketh this apology. 
o observ in cap. 25. aphor. 10.11.  When I wrote this confession of the faith, I did write all things out of a good conscience, and as I believed, so I freely spoke. Now my faith is grounded chiefly and simply on the word of God: Something also in the next place on the common consent of the whole ancient Catholic Church, if that be not repugnant to the Scriptures. I do also believe, that what things were defined and received by the godly Fathers, being gathered together in the name of the Lord, by the common consent of all, without any gainsaying of the holy scriptures, that those things also (though they be not of the same authority with the holy Scriptures) proceeded from the holy Ghost. Hence it is, that those things that be of this kind, I neither will, nor dare with good conscience mislike. But what is more certain out of histories, Counsels, and writings of all the Fathers, then that those orders of Ministers, whereof I spoke, were established, and received by the common consent of all Christendom? Quis a●tem ego sim, qui quod tota Ecclesia approbaui●, improbem? And who am I that I should disallow that which the whole Church allowed? etc.  
Neither do I see any reason, 
§. 9 The Church under Constantine to be imitated of us.  why the Church in Constantine's time should not rather be propounded as a pate●●e for imitation, to Churches that live under Christian princes, and flourish through God's blessing in peace and prosperity; then the Churches of former times, which were not in all things established and settled according to their desires, but were hindered by persecution. For in time of persecution, their government was not always such as they would, but such as they could attain unto. And unless we would have the Churches to live always under persecution, it is madness to require them to be imitated in all things. But what was by general consent received, and practised in the time of peace and prosperity, was that which in their judgements ought to be done, and is of us being in the like case, to be imitated. Now that in Constantine's time the Bishops had superiority over other Ministers in degree, and a singular pre-eminence of power and authority, it is most evident. Neither was their superiority and authority increased by the accession of the Christian Magistrate, as their wealth was, but rather diminished, seeing while there was not a Christian Magistrate, they were feign to supply that defect, and by their own authority did many things, which afterward were done or assisted by the Magistrate. 
The same form of government, and the like authority of diocesan B.B. throughout all the times of the primitive Church.  But though there can no colour of a good reason be given, why the superiority and authority of Bishops, as they were diocesan, should have been greater in the fourth century, then in the third; or in the third, then in the second; or in the second, than the first; the first Bishops in all likelihood, having had rather a more eminent than less authority, yet our new Disciplinarians, for a poor shift and evasion, deny this superiority of Bishops in degree and majority in power to have been in the first two hundred years, because they conceive there is not the like evidence for the second, as for the third. Now our Refuter perceiving there is better evidence than he imagined for the second century, will needs have the times of the primitive Church restrained to the time of the Apostles. And when they are driven from that, they were best to fly to the time of Christ's conversation upon the earth.  
For my part, I make no doubt, but that Anianus, who succeeded S. Mark at Alexandria, being a man 
p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. l. 2. c. 24  beloved of God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, every way admirable, had the same episcopal authority which S. Mark had before him, and that he, and those which succeeded him, even in the Apostles times, viz. Abilius and Cerd● had no less authority as diocesan Bishops, than those which came two hundred years after them. Indeed, when the Churches multiplying, there was a consociation of dioceses in the province, the Bishop of Alexandria became actually a Metropolitan Bishop, which from the first might be intended: and when there was a consociation of provinces subjecteth to him, he became a Patriarch, the ancient Fathers in godly policy so thinking it necessary. Now if any man shall think, that the Bishop of Alexandria was but a parish Bishop at the first, and upon consociation of parishes subjecteth to him, became a diocesan, he is to understand, that the diocese, and the mother Church of the diocese, was before any parish; that parishes arise out of the distribution of the diocese; that th● Bishop and his Presbytery of the mother Church were appointed not for one parish, but for the whole diocese; that at Alexandria, in, and from S. Marks time, who constituted the Churches there, there have been more Churches than one subjecteth to the Bishop of Alexandria.  
Unlearned therefore and ungrounded is that distinction of Bishops into six sorts, 
§. 10. Of H.I. (pag. 7.) his distinction of BB. into 6. sorts.  viz. 1. Parishional: 2. Diocesan titular Bishop, being the Precedent or Moderator over the Pastors of a diocese: 3. Diocesan ruling Bishop, though not solely: 4. Diocesan L. Bishop: 5. A patriarchal Bishop: 6. An universal Bishop. Of the first sort, it is said, all were in the first two hundred years. Of the second, there began to be some in the end of the second century. The third began about the year 260. The fourth shortly after Augustine's time. The fifth (for he knew not how to distinguish betwixt Metropolitans, whom he outskippeth, and patriarchs) sometimes before the Council of Nice. And how is all this proved? It is strange to see, how strong some men's conceits can be, when their reasons are full weak. The proofs for the parish Bishop, I have before disproved. How is the second proved? Such perhaps first of all was julianus the tenth Bishop of Alexandria. Perhaps! But why he rather then S. Mark, or Anianus, or any other of his predecessors? Because in his time first mention is made by 
q Lib. 5. c. 9  Eusebius, that there were divers Churches in that City, and he Bishop of them. This would have gone for a stout reason, no doubt, had not Eusebius 
r Lib. 2. cap. 15  himself testified, that Saint Mark constituted the Churches in Alexandria itself: which ever from S. Marks time had but one Bishop at once. How is the third demonstrated? It may be this began at Alexandria with Dionysius 
s Anno 260. , the thirteenth Bishop of that place. Very well; perhaps, it may be; these are very good proofs. But why may it be? It seemeth to be Ieromes meaning, where he saith, that some priority in Bishops continued there from Mark to Heraclas and Dionysius. Hear Ieromes words 
t Ad Euagrium. : Even at Alexandria from Mark the Evangelist, unto the Bishops Heraclas and Dionysius, the Presbyters always having chosen one from among themselves, and placed him in a higher degree, called him Bishop; even as an army chooseth a General. Which words Jerome wrote to magnify the calling of Presbyters, and to prefer them before Deacons; both because they chose their Bishop, as also because they did elect him from among themselves, until Heraclas and Dionysius. But it is a world to see what is collected from these words, both by that Author, and also T. C. By that Author, first, That some priority in Bishops continued there from Mark to Heraclas and Dionysius. As if Jerome had given any the least signification of the less authority of Bishops before Heraclas, then after, and had not signified some difference only in their election. For Heraclas and Dionysius, who had been origen's scholars, and succeeded him one after the other in his office of Catechist, or Teacher in Alexandria, in respect whereof, they were no more Presbyters, than Origen 
u Vide supr. l. 1. c. 11. §. 4.  himself had been; notwithstanding for their excellent learning, the Presbyters (who till then had ever chosen one out of their own number to be Bishop) made choice of these two, one after the other, although at the time of their election, they were not Presbyters. But what followeth? At Heraclas (it is probable) was a period of one sort, viz. of titular diocesan Bishops: and with Dionysius began another, viz. of ruling diocesan BB. Priority of order in one Bishop 
x Had the Bishop priority of order only in respect of his parishioners?  over a parish, seemeth to have continued exclusively, from Mark to julianas (for he was ashamed to say, that Saint Mark, who, as the same Jerome testifieth, was the Bishop of Alexandria, was but a parish Bishop:) over a diocese, from Iulian●● to Heraclas 〈◊〉, and the majority of ruling in the diocese, to have 〈◊〉 with Dionysius. O acumen! But the proof is admirable, and the conclusion passeth all. The proof is this: Nothing lifts us, but that thus we may probably think. More is the pity. For true learning and a sound judgement, would have let you from entertaining, and much more from broaching such unlearned and ungrounded fancies. Yea but, by this means, Eusebius and Ieromes relation shall well agree. I answer, though these fancies had never been heard of, there had not been so much as any show of disagreement betwixt them.  
The conclusion: Howsoever it is, this is certain, that neither the one, nor the other, was known before these times. As if he had said; Perhaps julianus was the first titular Bishop. It may be the ruling diocesan Bishops began at Alexandria with Dionysius. At Heraclas, it is probable, was a period of one sort, etc. Nothing letteth us but that thus we may probably think. But how soever uncertain our premises be, we are resolved upon a certain conclusion, it is certain, etc. Is it not strange that so certain a conclusion should be inferred upon so uncertain premises? especialle seeing it is most certain that before Dionysius his time, there were not only diocesan, but also Metropolitan BB.  
But will you also hear what T. C. gathereth out of these words of Jerome? 
§ 11. T. C. his collection out of Ierom● words.  Godly 〈◊〉 misliked this order of giving the name Bishop to one in a Church, and by all likelihood broke it: which Ieromes words 
y Ad evagr.  do apparently import. This custom was in the Church of Alexandria, from Saint Mark, until Heraclas and Dionysius: for unless there were some change then, why should he not rather have said, From Saint Mark to his time? First, to his assertion, I say it is untrue, that godly men misliked the giving of the name Bishop to one in Church, neither was there any reason why they should mislike it. For first, as the name of Angels, being common to all Ministers, is by the holy Ghost appropriated to Bishops, in such sort, as though every Minister be an Angel, yet only one is the Angel of the Church: so by the same reason, Episcopi being in the scriptures a title common to all Ministers, is so appropriated to one in every Church, that whereas all Ministers are Bishops in a general sense, one only is the Bishop of that Church: neither was it arrogancy, but modesty rather in Bishops, who assumed this name. For whereas in the Scriptures they are called sometimes the Angels of the Churches, sometimes the Apostles of the Churches, sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rulers, sometime 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sometimes episcopi, they contented themselves with the title of least honour, and left the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, importing the honour of the Ministry in general, to other Ministers. Neither is there any more reason (as D Raynolds 
a Conf. p. 462.  also saith) why the appropriating of the name Bishop to the Angels of the Churches, should be misliked, then of giving the name Minister to Presbyters, which is common to Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons. Besides, it is most certain, that in the writings of Ignatius, and others, who lived in, or near the Apostles times, the name episcopus was appropriated to the Angel of each Church. Jerome plainly testifieth, that from S. Mark● time, who was the first Bishop, whom three other succeeded in the Apostles times; one, who was set in a superior degree, was called Bishop. But that the custom of giving this name to one, in the Church, (which from S. Marks time had continued) should begin to be misliked in the time of Heraclus and Dionysius, is against reason; unless it may be thought, that the estimation of Bishops then decreased; which ill agreeth with H I. conceit. What ancient Writer mentioning Dionysius, doth not call him Bishop of Alexandria? Eusebius so termeth him. Athanasius, 

Chron. ●n. 251. & hist. l. 6.35. etc.  
Athanas. de sentent. Dionysij Episcopi Alexandrini.   who was one of his successors, doth not only call him Bishop oftentimes, but also acknowledgeth him to have been a Metropolitan B. or rather Patriarch. For when as the Bishops of Pentapolis began to favour the heresy of Sab●llicus, Dionysius to whose charge those Churches did appertain, sought to reform them, You have heard T. C. assertion.  
His reason is this, some change there was therefore in the name Bishop. How weak a reason this is I shall not need to note, seeing I have showed wherein the change was, there being less likelihood of alceration in this kind, then in any other. For could any man at that time mislike, that the Bishop of Alexandria should be called a Bishop, seeing at that time he was without the mislike of any a Metropolitan Bishop, yea a Patriarch?  
But to return to H. I. who saith his Diocesan L. Bishop ruling alone, 
§ 12. H. I. diocesan BB. when they began,  who was not established in Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine's time, took place soon after. And how is this proved? He saith, he doubts not of it: though he be not able to show, neither where, nor when, nor by whom, nor how the Bishop's authority was increased after Augustine's times. What if in Augustine's time the authority and pre-eminence of Bishops was abated and restrained, namely in the fourth Council of Carthage, more than ever before? For whereas the ancient Canons refer the power both of ordination and jurisdiction to the Bishop, without mentioning the assistance of the Presbytery: And whereas Bishops before, such as were peaceable and well disposed, did voluntarily use the advice and assistance of their clergy: by that Council the assistance of the clergy, both in ordination and jurisdiction in the Churches of afric, became necessary. Neither do I know any reason, why the authority of diocesan Bishops after Augustine's time should be thought to have increased. For as by the lawful authority of Christian Kings & Princes, to whom they were subordinate, in regard of the common good of the kingdom, whereof they were members: so much more by the usurped supremacy of the B. of Rome, after the year 607. the authority of bishops was lessened & impaired.  
We are to come to his fifth step, 
Of Patriarches, and when they began.  which is of patriarchal BB. but he hath clean marred the stairs that the refuter and his consorts use to talk of, whereby the Bishops of Rome, from being as they say a parish Bishop, did arise to the papacy; partly by denying such BB. as he esteemeth ours to be, to have been till after Augustine's time; and partly, by out-skipping the metropolitans. For it cannot be denied, but that there were diocesan Bishops, such as ours be, before there were metropolitans, or Primates actually; and there were metropolitans before there were patriarchs. Now it would be known, 
Conc. Nic. can. 6.  when patriarchs begun. In the Council of Nice (held about the year three hundred twenty four) it is acknowledged to have been an ancient custom, which there was ratified, that the Bishop of Alexandria should have authority of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis: and the like custom for the Bishop of Rome in the West, and of Antioch in the East is mentioned; and the ancient privileges to each Church, espcially to each Metropolis reserved. To say nothing of Rome, whereof the Papists say too much: it is plain by that testimony of the Nicene Council, of Epiphanius before alleged, of Athanasius even now cited, that the Bishops of Alexandria had of old, long before their time, patriarchal authority. For that of Antioch, the testimony of Ignatius added to the authority of the Nicene Council, 
Ignat. Epist. ad Rom.  is sufficient, calling himself the Bishop of Syria; whereby we cannot conceive him to have been less than an Archbishop. Now if I should ask H.I. or this Refuter, when metropolitans first began; they would not be able truly to assign their original after the Apostles times. And therefore cunningly were they omitted by H. I. though I cannot accuse him of any great skill in making a doubt, whether Caesarea in the Council of Nice, be reckoned as one of the four seats of the patriarchs. For express mention is made of Aeli●, which was the new name given by Adrian to jerusalem; 
Conc. Nic. c. 7.  to which, according to ancient custom, the next place of honour after Antioch was granted; the proper dignity notwithstanding to the Metropolis (which indeed was Caesarea) being reserved. But if metropolitans had not their beginning after the Apostles times, as no man is able to show they had, then can it not be doubted, but that diocesan Bishops, much more were in the Apostles times: for every Metropolitan was originally B. of his peculiar diocese, being not actually a Metropolitan, until divers Churches in the same province, being constituted, there was a consociation among themselves, and subordination of them to him, as their primate.  
There was therefore no such difference between the first two ages of the Churches, and those which followed, as that either H. I. or the Refuter should restrain the times of the primitive Church, either to the end of the second century, or of the first, with hope to escape that way. Wherefore what proofs I bring from the third or fourth, yea or fifth century, for the superiority of Bishops, they are to be esteemed such as do directly and sufficiently prove the question, unless they shall be able to show, not only that no such thing was in use, but also that it was not intended in the Apostles time, and the age following: for what was received and practised by general consent in all Christendom, so soon as God gave peace unto his Church, was undoubtedly desired and intended from the beginning.  
The second corner of his first starting hole, 
§ 13. The Refuter would restrain the question to the seven Angels only.  wherewith the second also meeteth, is, that the question is of the seven Angels. And what, of no other? Is it not lawful to ascend from the hypothesis, to the thesis? especially when it is confessed by the Refuter, that the primitive Churches were all of the like constitution? And therefore what may be said either of the seven Angels, in respect of the substance of their calling, may be concluded of other Bishops: and what may be said of the office of other Bishops in the primitive Church, may be verified of these Angels.  
The third, that I must prove these Angels to have had sole power of ordination and jurisdiction: which also is repeated in his second evasion. But where do I say in all the sermon, that the Bishops had the sole power of ordination and jurisdiction? Where do I deny either that the BB. did, or might use the assistance of their Presbyters, for either of both, or that in the defect of Bishops, both the one and the other might be performed by Presbyters? In a word, where do I deny all power either of ordination or jurisdiction to Presbyters? But let the Reader understand, that there are two main calumniations, whereby this Resuter and his consorts do use to disgrace my Sermon with their followers. The one, that I hold the tenure of our episcopal function so to be iure divino, as though no other manner of government were any way, or any where lawful. The other, that I ascribe so the sole power of of ordination and jurisdiction to BB. as though the Presbyters had no jurisdiction, or as though those Churches had no lawful Ministers, which have not such BB. to ordain them.  
His other, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or starting hole, is that which he hath already four times run into; 
His second starting hole.  and making use of it now the fifth time, in the beginning of the next section, desireth the Reader, that it may not be tedious to him, that now the fifth time he doth find fault with me, for not concluding what he (according to his forced analysis) would have concluded: though all men see, I do directly prove, what before was propounded, for the proof of my first assertion, viz. that the Angels, or BB. of the primitive Church were diocesan Bishops; and (for the substance of their calling) such as ours be. Having therefore proved that their Churches were dioceses, and themselves diocesan; it remained that I should prove that they were, as well as ours, superior to other Ministers in degree, &c: which if I did not endeavour to prove directly, he might have had some quarrel against me.   

CHAP. II. That Bishops were superior to other Ministers in degree.  (Serm. sect. 2. pag. 29. That Bishops were superior to other Ministers in degree, all antiquity with one consent, if you except Aërius, etc. to the end of pag. 31.) 
MY reason he frameth thus: 
Ad pag. 85.  If all antiquity (except Aërius, who for dissenting in this point, was counted an heretic by Epiphanius and Augustine) with one consent do acknowledge, that Bishops were superior to other Ministers in degree: then Bishops were superior to other Ministers in degree. But the former is true; therefore the latter. First he cavilleth with the consequence, (which no man bearing the face of a Divine, I had almost said of a Christian, would do) calling it, sore, poor, feeble, and insufficient, unless the consent of the Apostles and Evangelists be added. Where let the Reader consider, what is the question which is here concluded, viz. That the Bishops of the primitive Church were superior to other Ministers in degree. This question plainly is de facto, of what was: for de iure, that is, of the quality & lawfulness, I entreat in the second assertion. Now for a man to deny credit to all antiquity in a matter of fact not gainsaid by scripture, it is a plain evidence that he is addicted to novelty and singularity, rather than the truth. Doth all antiquity testify with one consent, that the Bishops in the primitive Church were superior to other Ministers in degree; and hath any of us the forehead to deny it? Neither is the consent of the Apostles wanting, as ● prove in the sermon both in the particulars of the superiority in respect of the fact, as also in respect of the right, in the demonstration of the second assertion. Where I do with such evidence demonstrate, that the Bishops, described in the first assertion, are of Apostolical institution; as I am well assured that this Refuter, with all his partakers, will never be able sound and substantially to confute. For there is nothing written with such evidence of truth, but that captious persons may easily cavil with it. And although it had been sufficient for the demonstration of the first assertion, to have produced such evidence as doth testify only de facto; yet many of the allegations which I bring, do also give testimony to the right. Thus much of the authority of antiquity, whereon the consequence is grounded.  

§ 2. The first argument, proving that BB. were superior in degree, because Aërius was counted an hertike for denying it. Epiph. haer. 75. Aug. haer. 53.  Now to the thing testified, which is the assumption: which I prove by five arguments. The first: If Epiphanius and Augustine do reckon Aërius among the heretics, condemned by the ancient Catholic Church, for denying the superiority of Bishops: then the ancient Church doth give testimony to the superiority of Bishops, not only de facto, but also the iure. 
But the first is true; therefore the second.   
Against the argument itself he hath nothing to say: but where I said all antiquity, besides Aërius, did acknowledge the superiority of Bishops: against this he objecteth, that either Jerome is against Bishops as well as Aërius, or Aërius is brought in by me to no purpose. For de facto Aërius denied the superiority of Bishops, no more than Jerome did. And de iure Jerome denies it as well as he. For that which he addeth of divers others consenting in judgement, is a vain flourish: let him name but one other in the first six hundred years (I think I might say 1000) and I will yield the cause. And those latter Writers which consent with him, use his words, & build upon his authority: so that the whole weight of this cause lieth on jeroms shoulders, whom if I can disburden thereof, there can nothing at all be produced out of antiquity against the superiority of Bishops. First, than I say, that they abuse Jerome, who match him with Aërius: for besides that Aërius was a damned heretic, being a most perfect Arian (as Epiphanius saith, who lived at the same time) living in a Church of Arians, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. haer. 75. Aug. haer. 53. Epiph.  standing in election for the Bishopric against Eustathius, who also was an Arrian; out of a discontented humour (the common source of Schism and heresy) broached this heresy (as Epiphanius & Augustine censure it) Presbyterum ab Episcope nulla differentia debere discerni: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: denying the Superiority of Bishops, both de jure, as Augustine reporteth his opinion; and de facto, as Epiphanius; alleging that there is no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter. For there is one order (saith he) of both, one honour, and one dignity. The Bishop imposeth hands, so doth the Presbyter: the B. giveth the laver (of Baptism) so doth the Presbyter: the B. doth administer God's worship, so doth the Presbyter: the B. sitteth on the throne, so also doth the Presbyter. But Jerome was not so mad (to use the refuters words of Aërius, who indeed, as Epiphanius saith, was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a frantic fellow) as to deny the Superiority of BB. de facto, which oftentimes he doth avouch; neither doth he deny it de jure. And therefore the refuter here hath delivered two untruths: the one, that (he saith) Aërius did not deny the Superiority of BB. de facto: which most manifestly he did, and did it no doubt with this mind, that though he miss of the Bishopric, which ambitiously he had desired; yet he would be thought as good a man as a Bishop. The other, that he saith, Jerome denied the Superiority of BB. de jure. For it is most evident by many testimonies alleged in the Sermon, that Jerome held the Superiority of Bishops to be lawful and necessary. For though somewheres he saith that Bishops are greater than Presbyters rather by the custom of the Church, then by the truth of Divine disposition; yet he acknowledgeth that custom to be 
a Ad evagr.  an Apostolical tradition; and therefore either he may be understood as holding the superiority of BB. to be not Divini, but Apostolici juris: or he may be interpreted as speaking of the names, proving by divers testimonies of the Scripture, that Presbyters are called Bishops. But hereof we may not conclude, that therefore Presbyters and Bishops are all one; for not only Bishops, but also Apostles 
b 1. Pet 5.1. 2. john 1. and 3. john 1. , are called Presbyters, and the Apostleship 
c Act. 1.20.  is called Bishopric.  
For howsoever all Presbyters are in the Scriptures called Angels and Bishops; yet that one among many, who had singular pre-eminence above the rest, is by the warrant of the holy Ghost, called the Angel of the Church; and by the same warrant, may be called the Bishop. Now whereas Aërius for denying the superiority of Bishops, was by Epiphanius and Augustine judged and heretic, hereby it appeareth that this alleagation not only proveth the superiority de facto, but de iure: for seeing there is no heresy which is not repugnant to God's word, it is evident that they who judged this opinion of Aerius to be an heresy, did also judge it contrary to God's word. Neither did Epiphanius and Augustine alone condemn Aërius for an heretic; but as Epiphanius 
d Heres. 75.  reporteth, all Churches both in City and Country did so detest him and his followers, that being abandoned of all, they were forced to live in the open fields, and in woods.  

§ 3. Objections for Aërius answered.  And whereas some object against Epiphanius and Augustine in defence of Aerius, that his opinion is not heresy, because Epiphanius did not sufficiently answer one of Aërius his allegations out of Scripture, where Presbyters seem to be called Bishops; and that Augustine followed Epiphanius, himself not understanding how far the name of an heretic is to be extended: these are very slender exceptions to be taken by so learned 
e Epist. ad. ●. K.  a man. For be it, that Epiphanius did not sufficiently answer some one of Aërius his allegations: is that sufficient to excuse Aërius from being an heretic; seeing that testimony 
f Phil. 1.1.  may be sufficiently answered, as I have showed; and seeing every testimony alleged by each heretic, hath not always been sufficiently answered by every one that hath written against them? The Allegation which Aërius bringeth out of Phil. 1.1. doth only prove, that the Presbyters were called Bishops at what time, he which was the Bishop of Philippi, namely Epaphroditus 
g Phil. 2.25. Vide Theodor. 〈◊〉 Phil. 2.25. , was called their Apostle. And it is confessed by many 
h Chrysost. Hieronym. Ambros. Theodor. Oecum. etc.  of the Fathers, that howsoever there were many in Philippi, which in a general signification were called Bishops: yet there was but one, nay, that there could be but one, which properly was called the Bishop of Philippi.  
And as touching Augustine; I marvel, that learned men could derogate so much from him, as that he, at that time especially, would write upon the authority of others, what himself understood not: For Augustine was no youngling or novice at that time; but he wrote that book in his elder age, even after he had written 
i In Epist ad Qu●dvul●de un.  his books of Retractations, at what time he had written 230. books, besides his Epistles and Homilies. Neither doth Augustine write any thing in his preface of that book, whereby it might be gathered, that he was in doubt, whether any of those particulars which he noteth, were to be judged heresies; only he saith, that what maketh an Heretic, can in his judgement hardly, if at all, be set down in an accurate definition. Notwithstanding, he distributeth his intended Treatise into two parts: The first, of the heresies which after Christ's ascension had been contrary to his doctrine, and which he could come to the knowledge of: among which, the heresies of Aërius have the 53. place: in the latter, he promiseth to dispute what maketh an Heretic. But though he came not to that, or if he did, what he wrote of that point is not come to our hands; yet in the conclusion of his Treatise, which is extant, he saith thus 
k August de haeres in fine. ; What the Catholic Church holdeth against these (meaning all the 88 heresies which before he had recited) it is but a superfluous question: seeing it is sufficient in this behalf to know, Eam contra ist● sentire, nec aliquid horum in fidem quenquam d●bere recipere, that the judgement of the Church is contrary to these, and that no man ought to receive any of these into his belief. And again; Omnis itaque Christianus Catholicus ist● non debet credere, etc. wherefore it is the duty of every Catholic Christian to believe none of these.  
But it will be said; do you then hold every one to be an heretic, who is of Aërius judgement in this point? Whereunto I answer: first, that although I hold them to be in an error, yet I do not judge them to be heretics, who do not with pertinacy defend their error. And secondly, I make great difference between errors in the articles of faith, and fundamental points of Religion (such as was the error of Aërius as he was an Arrian, and such as is the error of those who deny our justification by Christ's righteousness) and in matters of Discipline: for these though they be dangerous, yet they are not damnable errors; and it is no great disparagement to men, otherwise learned and orthodoxal, to have been overseen in matters of Church government; so that they do not for the same leave the Church and make separation: for such also be counted heretics by the Counsels, 1. Constant. ca 6. As for the refuter; it is at his choice whether he will be accounted an heretic, or not. In my judgement he were best to say, Errare possum, I may err (as in this controversy hitherto to hath done) sed h●reticus esse nolo, but I will ●e no heretic, by obstinate defending of that, wherein his conscience is convicted.  

§ 4. Other objections answered.  Now to help the Refuter, because I desire to give the Reader satisfaction, I will not conceal, that somewheres I find besides Jerome, the testimonies of chrysostom, Augustine, and Ambrose objected as favouring the opinion of Aërius: but unworthily. chrysostom 
l In 1. Tim 3. hom. 9 & 10.  is alleged, as if he should say, There is in a manner no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter. Indeed chrysostom understanding by Episcapus, 1. Tim. 3. him that is properly called a Bishop, asketh why Paul speaking of Bishops, and Deacons, maketh no mention there of Presbyters. Whereunto he maketh answer, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because there is no great difference: for they also have received doctrine and government 
m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  of the Church; and those things which Paul said concerning Bishops, agree to them. But doth it hence follow, that in Chrysostom's judgement, there was no difference betwixt a Bishop, and a Presbyter? doth not chrysostom in the next words acknowledge, that the Bishops are superior to Presbyters in respect of ordination? And as touching singularity of pre-eminence; doth not he teach, that in one 
n In Phil. 1.  City, or Church, (where are many Presbyters) there ought to be one Bishop? and so he ●old Sisi●●ius the Novatian 
o Socrat. l. 6. c. 22.  Bishop at Constantinople, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And though he ascribe government of the Church to the Presbyters under the Bishop; doth he not 
p Homil. 20. add pop. Antioch. in initio.  acknowledge the Bishop to be the governor of the Presbyters? and when he was Bishop himself did he not exercise 
q Theod. l. 5. ca 28.  great authority over them?  
But what saith Augustine? Quid est Episcopus, nisi primus Presbyter? what is a Bishop but the first Presbyter? doth he not expound himself? primus Presbyter, 
r Aug. quast. novi & vet. test. 101. t. 4.  h. e. 〈◊〉 Sacerdos, the first Presbyter, that is, the high Priest? such a one therefore in Augustine's judgement, is the Bishop to Presbyters, as the high priest was to the other priests: for in the same place also he compareth the Deacons to the levites, and the Presbyters to the Priests.  
Yea, but Ambrose saith, Of a Bishop and a Presbyter, there is one order, for either of 〈◊〉 a Priest; but the Bishop is the first. The words are not in his book de dignitate Sacerdotali, as it is quoted; for there I find the contrary: for, Ambrose saith 
s Ambr. de dignit. Sacerd. cap. 3. , There is one thing which God requireth of a Bishop, another of a Presbyter, another of a Deacon. And again, he signifieth 
t Cap. 5. , that as Bishops do ordain Presbyters, and consecrate Deacons; so the Archbishop ordaineth the Bishop. But they are found in his commentary on the first to Timothe cap. 3. 
u Ambr. in 1. Tim. 3.  Where ask the same question with chrysostom, why after the mention of the Bishop, he presently addeth the ordination, or order of Deacon? because, saith he, of a Bishop, and Presbyter, there is one ordination, or order: for either of them is a Priest: but the Bishop is the first: so that every Bishop is a Presbyter, but not every Presbyter a Bishop: for among the Presbyters, the Bishop is the first. Now what he meaneth by the first Presbyter, may else where be showed in his writings. In the Bishop, saith he 
x In ●●ph 4. , are all orders, because he is primus Sacer●●●s, hoc est, Princeps est Sacerd●tum, the first Priest, that is, the Prince of the Priests: and in the place alleged, he signifieth 
y In 1. Tim. 3.  that Timothe the Bishop, was the first Presbyter at Ephesus. And such presbyters I do confess our BB. to be.  
So much of Aër●us: concerning whom, I have often marveled, what some learned men do mean, to go about to salve the credit of such a frantic fellow, as Epiphanius describeth him, being also an absolute Arian, and schismatic or Separatist from the true Churches.  
Now, saith the refuter, let us take a view of his great army of antiquity; the whole number of them is but five, and 4. of them almost 200. years under age. Mark here, either the skill, or conscience of this great Analyser. The first argument, which indeed is unanswerable, that he swalloweth. And in stead of analysing and answering the rest, he cavils at the number, and at their age. I will therefore propound my arguments and withal answer his cavils. And first, for their number; besides the five he speaketh of, I produced the testimonies of Epiphanius and Augustine, delivering not only their own opinions, but the judgement of the Church; Epiphanius reporting, that all Churches did reject and condemn Aërius; and Augustine testifying, that the Catholic Church did hold the contrary to Aërius his assertion; that as I said, was my first argument.  
The 2. argument. Antiquity acknowledgeth 3. degrees of Ministers.  My second argument is this: Antiquity did distinguish the ministers of the Church into 3. degrees; viz, Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, answerable to the high Priest, the Priests and Levites under the Law: 
Therefore it giveth testimony to the superiority of BB. over other ministers in degree.  
The antecedent I prove by the the testimony of the Council of Sardica, of Optatus, of Ignatius, and generally by the testimony of Fathers in Councils; in which, as I said, nothing is more usual than the distinction of Ministers into these 3. degrees. That clause, if it had pleased the refuter to have taken notice of, it might have prevented his cavil concerning either the number, or the age of my witnesses. But he (such is his conscience) passing by it, b●aggeth (wi●h what face I know not) that I have no antiquity, which distinguisheth the ministry into 3. degrees. Here therefore 3. things are to be shown, which are so many arguments. 1. That antiquity distinguisheth the Clergy into 3. degrees. 2. That it termeth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, degrees. 3. That they compare them to the high Priest, Priests and levites.  
As touching the first: this distinction of Ministers is so frequent in the ancient Canons, that if a man do but open the book at all adventures, he shall not often light upon such a place, where this distinction is not to be found. In the ancient Canons, called the Apostles, it is mentioned 20. times at the least in the Council of Nice, 3. or 4. times; in the Council of Ancyra, and Antioch often, and so in the rest.  
Which of the ancient Fathers doth not acknowledge this distinction of Ministers? Ignatius, as we shall hear, giveth plentiful testimony to it. Clement 
a Epist. 1.  in his Epistle to james translated by Ruffi●●●, testifieth this to have been the Doctrine of Peter according to the institution of Christ, that Presbyters should be obedient to their Bishops in all things. And again, 
b Epist. 3.  that Presbyters and Deacons and others of the Clergy must take heed, that they do nothing without the licence of the Bishop.  
Dionysius 
c Eccl. Hierarch. c. 5.  an ancient and learned writer (if not the Areopagite) propoundeth the same distinction under the names 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Tertullian 
d De fuge in persecut. & de Baptismo.  acknowledgeth it. Orogen 
e Homil. 7. in jerem  likewise, terming the Bishop him q●●totim Ecclesia a●cemobtinet. So doth Cyprian, and Cornelim, and almost who not?  

§. 6. Adpag B6. B7. B8.  Yes, saith the Refuter, Anacletus and Damas●●● 
f Epist. 2. vivisuque. , afform● there were but two degrees, Bishops and Priests; and Ignatius 
g Ad Phil. & Trall.  divideth the offices of the Church into Bishops and Deacons. But having thus (as he thinketh) set them and others of the Fathers together by the ears, he will not go about to part them. Let them (saith he) agree about the matter as they can. Howbeit, the reconciliation is easily made. For Anacletus (if that were his Epistle) speaketh only of 
h Epist. 3. Sacerdotum (fratres) ordo bipartitus est.  Priests, and of two orders of them, ordained by Christ: but Deacons were not called Sacerdotes, as Bishops and Presbyters were: Sacerdotes being usually distinguished into maiores, which be Bishops; and minores, which be Presbyters. Neither were Deacons ordained by Christ himself, but by the Apostles. And with this distinction of Anacletus those unsuspected 
i Cyprian. Ambrose. Jerome. Augustine.  fathers agree, who hold, that these two degrees of ministers were ordained by Christ, when he appointed twelve Apostles (whose successors are the Bishops) and the three score and twelve Disciples, whom the Presbyters succeed. Now, if the Bishops succeed the Apostles, and the Presbyters succeed the 72. Disciples, as divers of the ancient approved Fathers do teach; than it cannot be denied, but that the calling of Bishops, and their superiority, as also the inferior degree of Presbyters, is of Christ's own institution. The like is to be said of Damasus 
k Epist., 4. , who acknowledgeth but two Orders among the Disciples in Christ's time, the twelve Apostles, and the 70. disciples; and by that reason rejecteth the Ch●r●piscopi, because they neither were Bishops, as he proveth; nor Presbyters, as themselves pretended. Among the Disciples of Christ, saith he, we know but two Orders, that is, of the twelve Apostles, and so●mentie disciples. Whence this third order is 〈◊〉 we know not.  
As for Ignatius, his testimony is falsified. In his Epistle ad Tralli●●os 
l Ignat. ad Trall. , he wisheth them. To 〈…〉 without their Bishop, to be subject to their Presbyters, and to please their Deacons, as being the ministers of the mysteries of Christ. Again, He that doth any thing without the Bishop, and the Presbyters, and the Deacons, such a one is without: For what is the Bishop; but he that hath power above all? etc. What the Presbytery, but a sacred company, counsellors, and coassessors of the Bishop? What the Deacons, but imitators of the angelical powers? etc. he that disobeyeth these, rejecteth Christ, and impeacheth his ordinance. And in the end: Farewell in the Lord jesus being subject to your Bishop, and likewise to the Presbyters, and Deacons. His other Epistle ad Phil. is so wisely quoted, that I know not whether he mean the Philippians, or Philadelphians. But it is no great matter, whether he mean: for as neither of both doth testify that, for which he quoteth them: so both of them doth mention the distinction of ministers into Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons. In the Epistle to the Philippians 
m Ign. ad Philipp.  he exhorteth them to be subject to the Bishop, Presbyters, and Deacons. And towards the end, he saluteth Vitalius their Bishop, the sacred college of Presbyters, and his fellow ministers, the Deacons. The Epistle to the Philadelphians 
n Ign. ad Philadelph.  he directeth especially to them, who were one with the Bishop, Presbyters, and Deacons. In the Epistle itself, that all who be Christ's, are on the Bishop's side. And besides that testimony alleged in the Sermon, he saith, attend to the Bishop, the Presbyters, and Deacons. To conclude, in these 3. Epistles Ignatius giveth testimony to this distinction into 3. degrees, noting their callings, 9 times, and not once letteth any thing fall, which may seem to insinuate any such thing as the refuter allegeth; and therefore with what conscience he citeth authors let the reader judge. 
§. 7. The three orders of ministers called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 degrees.   
Now that these three orders were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 degrees, it should not seem strange, seeing the Apostle useth that word in that sense 1. Tim. 3.13. noting the Deaconship to be a degree to the Presbytery, 
1. Tim. 3.13.  as it is with us.  
Cyprian 
o Li. 4. Epist. 2. Ad sacerdotij sublime fastigium cunctis religionis gradibus ascendit.  saith of Cornelius, that he came to the Bishopric not suddenly, but having been promoted through all the Ecclesiastical offices, he ascended to the height of Priesthood by all the degrees of Religion.  
In the Council of Sardica 
p Sard. c. 10. lat 13. , it is decreed, That if any rich man o● Rhetorician 
q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rhetoricae vacans. Balsan. , be from the court desired to be Bishop, he shall not be ordained, until he have performed the ministry of a reader, Deacon and Presbyter, that so through every 
r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  degree of he be thought worthy he may by way of promotion ascend unto the height 
s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  of Bishopric, and the degree of every order shall have a good time, etc. and he being thought worthy of the devils: Priesthood, shallbe made partaker of the 
t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  greatest honour. The same Council 
u Theodor. l. 5. c. 8.  in their Synodical Epistle report of the Arians, that they had not only received thos● who had been expulsed for Arianism, but also preferred them to a 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  greater degree, as from Deacons, to be Presbyters, and from Presbyters, to be Bishops. The Councils of 
y Conc. Ephes. c. 1.2.6.  Ephesus and 
z Chal●. c. 2 & 12.  Chalcedon, divers times for a penalty threaten Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, with the losss of their degree. And most plainly the Council of Carthage 
a Con●. Carth. Gra●. c. 3. Sive Carthag. 2. c. 2.  mentioneth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, these three degrees, 〈◊〉 Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons. And again, 
b Con●. Carth. Grae. 〈◊〉. Carth. 6. c. ●.  all the degrees of Clerks from the highest to the lowest.  
The like testimony to that which Cyprian gave to Cornelius, doth Nazianzen 
c In Encomio Athanas●●.  give both to Athanasius, that he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, having gave through all the degrees in order, and having been in every of them, as Theodoret 
d L. 1. c. 26.  saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
e Admirable. , was chosen Bishop; and also to 
f In vita Basil.  Basil, that he ascended to his Bishopric, by the order and law of the spiritual ascent; and Socrates 
g L. 7. c. 41.  to Pr●clus, that he was first a Reader, then by A●ticus preferred to the Deacon-ship, afterwards, when he was Presbyter, he was by the same Attical, made Bishop of Cyzicum. Op●a●us 
h Contr. Parme●. lib. 1. , as I alleged in the Sermon, assigneth to Deacons, the third ministery, to Presbyters, the second, to BB whom he calleth principes omnui●̄, the first.  
Burchardus 
i Decret. l. ●. c. ●5.  citeth this saying of Augustine being a Bishop: You Presbyters know ye, that your degree is the second, and next to ours: for even as Bishops have the place of the Apostles in the Church; even so the Presbyters of the other disciples: the former, have the degree of Aaron, the high Priest; the latter, of his sons.  
In which words the third point also is testified. Whereunto Jerome 
k Ad E●agr. in fine. Ad Nepoti. Epist. 2. Quod Aaron & falios eius, hoc Episcopum & Presbyteros esse novimus.  himself in more places than one giveth testimony, affirming that in the Church, the Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons are answerable to the high Priest, Priests, and levites.  
Now to reject these testimonies, as being under age, as though they did historically relate only what was in their own times, and not dogmatically set down the orders, and degrees of the ministery, perpetually observed in the Church of Christ; is a very unlearned shift. If any one of these, as namely Jerome, shall but seem to favour any of their assertions, though in their sense he contradict himself, and gainsay all others, both Councils, & fathers; against such a testimony no exception, either of minority of age, or singularity of opinion will be admitted; but that authority must overweigh all, that himself, and others say to the contrary. It is a world to see how Jerome in this case is magnified, and preferred before all antiquity: Who can tell better than Jerome? who better acquainted with the history of the Church then Jerome? etc. But when most pregnant & plain testimonies are produced out of Jerome, proving the superiority of Bishops, agreeable with all antiquity, than Jerome is a youngling, and under age.  
But where I said in the judgement of antiquity, 
§ 8. BB. Presbyters, Deacons, answerable to the high Priest, Priests, and Levites.  Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, are answerable to the high Priest, Priests and levites, he saith, This gay reason Cardinal Turr●cremata, & Bellarmine out of him, bring to prove, that there must be one Pope over the whole church, as there was one high Priest among the jews: and it proveth that as substantially, as it doth this. The which is wickedly spoken, and desperately, as many things of late have been uttered by that faction; as that the Papists arguments for the Pope's Supremacy, were as good as ours, for the superiority of Bishops. But of these blasphemous speeches, whereby they match the ordinance of Christ by his Apostles, with the height of Antichrists pride; I hope this Refuter, & his consorts will one day have the grace to repent. I confess it is ordinary with the Papists, to allege out of the Fathers for the Pope's supremacy, what they testified for the superiority of Bishops. But will any be so desperate, as to say, the same testimonies abused and detorted by Papists, do as substantially prove that for which they are alleged besides the true meaning of the fathers; as that, for which they are truly and faithfully alleged? Good reason therefore had Calvin, and the rest to refute that argument, because, as Calvin 
k Inst. l. 4 c. 6. s. 2.  saith. There is not the like reason between one small people, and the whole world. The whole Church hath no head, or universal Bishop, but Christ: But each several. Church may have their head, and several Bishop, answerable to the high Priest of the jews, as divers of the Fathers have taught: Therefore Ignatius requireth the Smyrneans to honour the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the high Priest: and it is an usual thing with the Fathers, not only to apply those things which were spoken of the high Priest to Bishops, but also to call the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, po●tificem, Sacerdotem summum etc. and Bishopric, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  

§ 9 The Testimonies of Ignatius.  There remain yet the testimonies of Ignatius to be discussed, which I produced in this 2. argument. The authority whereof the refuter first calleth in question. Wherein he may seem to prejudice his own cause: for T.C.W.T.D.F.H.I. and others of that alphabet, have oft times dragged some testimonies out of him: yea this refuter himself oft times doth cite him; and once I remember 
l Pag. 51.  he threatened to prove his lay Presbyters out of Ignatius, when he should come, to answer my allegations out of him: which how it will be performed, the reader is now to expect. In the mean time, little reason had he so much to clevate the authority of those godly and learned epistles: for his own confession, that they are recorded in Eusebius, is a good proof they are not counterfeits.  
But he is pleased to hear him speak. And whereas Ignatius 
m Ad Smyrn.  teacheth, that the lay 〈◊〉 must be subject to the Deacons, they to the Presbyters▪ & the Presbyters to the Bishop: the refuter denieth the Presbytery, and Deaconship to have been degrees of the ministry, but understandeth such Deacons as were only employed in looking to the poor, and such Presbyters as were only governing elders. The vanity of which conceit I have sufficiently declared before, if anything will suffice. And I am ashamed for the refuter, that he should be either so ignorant, as not to know; or so unconscionable, as not to acknowledge, that these three, Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, have always since the Apostles times been esteemed three degrees of Ministers, by the universal and perpetual consent of all Christendom until our age.  
Notwithstanding, his arguments, such as they are, must be answered. And first for Deacons (he saith) they were no Ministers of the word, 
That Deacons were in a degree of the ministry.  but employed only in looking to the poor: and that he proveth, by the confession of D. Bilson. What manner of men the Deacons were, of whom Ignatius speaketh, Ignatius himself sufficiently declareth, in his Epistles to the Trallians 
n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , where he calleth the Deacons, the ministers of the mysteries of Christ; and to the Smyrneans 
o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , Deacons of Christ unto the word of God; to the Philadelphians 
p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , ministering to the Bishop in the word; to the Antiochians 
q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , the sacred Deacons. Neither doth D. Bilson deny it. Only he maketh question of the 7. which were elected Act. 6. whether they were such, as properly were called Deacons, and are the third degree of the ministry, or such as were chosen only to be overseers of the poor: to which purpose he citeth the general Council held in Trullo 
r Conc. Const. in Trullo ca 16. , correcting the Canon of the Council held at Neocaesaria 
s Conc. Neocaes. cap. 15. , which appointeth that in every Church there should be 7. Deacons, in imitation of the act 
t Act. 6.  of the Apostles, in ordaining 7. But (say they) we comparing the sense of the Fathers, with the speech of the Apostles, do find, that they spoke not of men 
u 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  serving at the mysteries (such as properly be called Deacons) but at tables; alleging chrysostom, who inquiring what the office of these 7. was, plainly denieth, that they were Deacons: whereupon they denounce (as D. Bilson hath alleged) that the foresaid 7. Deacons, must not be taken for those that served at the mysteries, but for such as were trusted with the dispensation of the common necessities of those that were assembled together. And verily to me it seemeth more than probable, that these 7. were not such as S. Paul speaketh of 1. Tim. 3. & were in use in the primitive church, being a degree inferior to Presbyters: for these 7 or the most of them, were, as 
x Have s. 20. missed etiam alios 72. ad praedicand●m, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  E●●phaenius, & others do testify, chosen out of the 70. Disciples, & were (no doubt) principal men among them, full of the holy Ghost & wisdom, being before this ministers of God's word. For as the Apostles, the chief and principal ministers, thought it to appertain to their duty to take care of the poor; so when the Apostles were disburdened thereof, that care was committed to 7▪ others, who were chief men among the disciples. Neither may it be doubted, but that as Steven was a worthy preacher; so the rest (when their temporary function at jerusalem was ended by the dispersion of the faithful upon the death of Steven) gave themselves to the preaching of the word, as appeareth in Philip 
y Act. 8.5 & 21.8. , who was one of the 7. And whereas the Refuter saith, that D. Bilson 
z Cap. 15.  confesseth the Deacons to have been only employed in looking to the poor; the contrary is evident: for speaking even of those 7. he collecteth by S. Paul's precepts concerning Deacons, that their office was not only a charge to look to the poor, but also to attend the sacred assemblies & service of the Church, & even a step to the ministry of the word, meaning, as I suppose, to the Presbytery.  

§. 10.  As for those who properly are called Deacons; it is most evident by innumerable testimonies, that they were the third degree of the ministry, whose office was a sacred ministry 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, themselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, their duty 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ignat. ad Trall. Can. Apost. 15. Conc. An●yr. cap. 2. , helping the Bishop or the Presbyter in the divine service, offering the bread and the cup, & performing as it were the office of a crier in the Church, (which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) in dismissing those which were to depart, in commanding silence, and exciting the people to devotion, and attention. In the Council of Nice 
b Cap. 18. , fault is found with Deacons, who in some Cities did give the Eucharist to the Presbyters: but they are commanded to contain themselves within their bounds, knowing that they be the Bishop's ministers, & are inferior to the Presbyters, and to receive the Communion after the Presbyters, at the hands either of the Bishop, or the Presbyters.  
justine Martyr 
c Apol. 2. , speaking of the Eucharist, saith, after the precedent hath given thanks, and the people hath blessed, they, who with us are called Deacons, do give and communicate to every one that is present, of the bread & wine, and do carry it to those which are absent. And having repeated the same again, he speaketh of the collections for the poor: showing that what was collected, was committed (not to the Deacon, but) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Precedent, by him to be distributed. Tertullian 
d Tertull. de Bapt.  saith, The chief Priest, which is the Bishop, hath the right of giving Baptism, than the Presbyters, & the Deacons, but yet not without the authority of the Bishop. 
e Cypr. passim.  Cyprian every where speaketh of them, as being of the sacred ministery. The ancient Council of Eliberis hath this canon 
f Conc. Elib. ca 77. , If any Deacon, ruling, or having the charge of a people, without either Bishop or Presbyter baptise any, those the Bishop by his blessing must accomplish. The council of Carthage 
g Carth. Gr●c. ca 25. sive Carth 5. ca 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , speaking of BB. & other inferior orders, which do handle the sacred mysteries, reckoneth Subdeacons', Deacons, & Presbyters. Jerome hath these words 
h Adverse. Lucifer. , If at the prayer of the Bishop alone the holy Ghost descendeth, they are to be lamented, who in villages, and towns, & other remote places, being baptised by Presbyters, and Deacons, do sleep, or depart this life, before they be visited of the Bishop. The safety of the Church dependeth upon the dignity of the chief Priest (meaning the Bishop.) To whom, if a power peerless, and eminent above all be not given, there will be as many schisms in the Church, as Priests. Hence it is, that without the Chrism, (which the Presbyters & Deacons were wont 
i Conc. Carth. 4. ca 36.  to receive from their own Bishop) and commandment of the Bishop, neither Presbyter nor Deacon hath right to baptise.  
In the 4. Council of Carthage, which is so oft alleged by the Disciplinarians, there is direction given for the ordination 
k Conc. Carth. 4. c. 2.3.4.  of the Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon, & other of the Clergy. The Deacon 
l Ca 37.  is taught to acknowledge himself to be the minister aswell of the Presbyter, as of the Bishop. The Deacon 
m Ca 38.  is authorized even in the presence of a Presbyter, if there be necessity, & he be commanded, to deliver the Eucharist of Christ's body to the people, & to wear 
n Ca 41.  an Albe only in time of oblation, or reading. To conclude, Cyprian, and other of the fathers, when they term the Deacons levites, & make them answerable to the levites, as they do the Presbyters to the Priests, do evidently declare, what they thought concerning the office of Deacons.  
That the Presbyters were not ministers of the word, 
§. 11.  the refuter proveth thus.  

The Refuter denieth Presbyters to have been ministers of the word.  They who might not preach, nor baptise, nor do any pastoral duty without the Bishop's licence were not ministers. The Presbyters might not preach, nor baptise, nor do any pastoral duty without the Bishop's licence:  
Therefore they were not Ministers.  
The proposition is proved by 2. reasons. First, because it were a mockery of a ministery to deny Ministers power to execute their office.  
Secondly, because every popish Priest had potestatem ordinis, that is, power to do all things that belong to his order.  
First, to the proposition itself, I say it is very false, and that the contradictory in all the parts of it is true: viz that they who might, yea ought to preach, baptise, administer the Lords supper, and perform any other pastoral duty, being thereto licenced of the Bishop, were ministers. From which we may assume and conclude thus: But the ancient Presbyters might, yea ought to preach, baptise, administer the Lords supper, and perform any other pastoral duties, being thereto authorized by the Bishop: Therefore they were ministers.  
And that the proposition is false, it may appear by the practice of our own Church, and of all the ancient Churches, whose Presbyters are, and were Ministers (as I have sufficiently proved before, for the conviction, I doubt not, of the refuters conscience) and yet neither may, nor might preach, baptise, administer the Lords Supper, and perform other ministerial functions, but by leave or authority from the Bishop. Neither yet is the ministry of our clergy now, nor of the Presbyters in times past, a mockery, because it agreeth not with his fancy: but his fancy is a mere novelty, disagreeing from the general practice of the most ancient Churches. For howsoever afterwards he malepertly chargeth me with not understanding the distinction of ecclesiastical power, in potestatem ordinis et jurisdictionis; into the power of order and jurisdiction: yet doth he both here and there bewray himself not to understand it. For though every Minister, as he is a Presbyter hath potestatem ordinis; yet it doth not follow, that he may at his own pleasure exercise that power. We must therefore take knowledge of two distinctions: the one, of the power of order and of jurisdiction: for every minister hath the power of order as he is a Presbyter simply; but the power of jurisdiction, as he is praelatus, or pastor. The former he hath given him in his ordination; the latter, in his institution. By the former, he is qualified and authorized to preach and administer the sacraments, and to do other ●spirituall actions peculiar to his order, which another man, who is not of that order, neither can do, nor may have leave to do. But he may not perform these duties which belong to the power of his order to any congregation, as the Pastor thereof, unless that flock be assigned and committed to him by the Bishop, who hath the charge of the whole diocese. A presbyter therefore though he have potestatem ordinis, may not perform pastoral duties to any congregation, which are part of the Bishop's charge, unless he be authorized thereto by the Bishop; from whom he receiveth potestatem jurisdictionis, curamque animarum et regimen ecclesia parochialis, in his institution.  
Again, we must distinguish between the power itself and the exercise & execution of it. For although every minister hath the same power of order which is common to them with Bishops in respect of preaching the word and administering Baptism and the Lords Supper, yet the exercise of their power is, and always hath been subjecteth to the authority of the Bishop, to be permitted, directed, restrained and suspended by him. This subordination and subjection of the presbyters to the Bishop, for the exercise of their power, which ever hath been practised in the Church, doth not make either their function to be a mockery of the ministry, as the refuter malepertly speaketh, nor themselves to be no ministers. But plainly proveth the contrary, as I have showed.  
For whereas he objecteth out of Tertullian 
a De baptismo. , 
§. 12.  that any lay man might baptise by the Bishop's 〈◊〉 he falsifies his testimony. His words be these: Dandi baptismum ius ●ab●t summus sacerdos qui est episcopus, etc. The chief Priest, which is the Bishop, hath the right to give baptism. Then the presbyters and deacons; but not without the authority of the Bishop for the honour of the Church; which being safe, peace is safe 
b ●lioquin etiam laicis ius est. . Otherwise even laymen have right. Where Tertullian showeth, that the ordinary right of baptizing appertaineth to Bishops, Presbyters, deacons, as belonging to the power of their order; though for the honour and peace of the Church, the Bishop be superior in the exercise of that power, which the Presbyters and Deacons are not to exercise without his authority: otherwise, that is, extraordinarily, and in case of necessity, the lay man, even without the Bishop's leave, hath right (in Tertullia's judgement) to baptise. Where he saith, That in Tertullia's time, who was himself a Presbyter, Presbyters and Deacons were not ministers, and much less in Ignatius time; I hope he will recall this foul error, proceeding from extreme ignorance, when he hath read what before hath been alleged to the contrary. And whereas the last testimony, which I alleged out of 
c Ad Philadelph.  Ignatius for these three degrees of the ministry, plainly excludeth their lay Presbyters and lay Deacons, reckoning Presbyters and Deacons as degrees of the clergy; he answereth two things; the first, That the Epistle strongly savoureth of corrupter times, 
Of the word Clerus, or Clergy.  than those Ignatius loved in, by that very word clergy appropriated therein to the ministers, which is of a far latter breed. He should have done well to have showed, how late the breed is. For I am well assured that 
d Cypr. passim.  Cyprian useth the word clerus for the clergy ordinarily, who was little more than a hundred years after Ignatius. And Origen, 
e In jerem. hom. 7.  before him, mentioneth this distinction of the clergy and laity. Tertullian, who lived in the same century with Ignatius, distinguisheth each company of Christians, as sometimes 
f De fuga in persecut. Quam ipsi authores. i. ipsi 〈◊〉, & presbyteri & episcopi fugiunt, quomodo Laicus, etc. Cum duces fugiunt quis de gregario numero, etc. cum ecclesia distituitur à clero. , into gregem & duces, the flock and the guides; ecclesia ordinem & laicos, the order of the Church, meaning those which were in orders, and the lay people: so sometimes in ecclesiam & clerum, the assembly and the clergy. The clergy also or guides, he distinguisheth into these three degrees, Deacons, Presbyters, Bishops. The ancient Canons, called the Apostles 
g Can. Apost. 2.11. & 12. etc. , often mention those of the clergy, as opposed to the laity. But if I should say, that S. Peter useth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same sense, when writing to Bishops, whom he calleth Presbyters, & himself their Compresbyter, he willeth them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not exercise lordship over the clergy, I should deliver that which is agreeable to the interpretation of the ancient 
h Oecum. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Writers, and as I am persuaded to the truth. Neither do I doubt but the use of the word clerus, was first taken from that place of Peter, who therein followed the phrase of the old Testament, wherein it is oft said, that the Lord was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the portion or the inheritance of the Priests and Levites. For therefore are they called Clerici, saith Jerome 
i Ad Nepotianum. , vel quia de sort sunt Domini, vel quia ipse Dominus sors. i. pars clericorum est: Either because they are the Lords portion, (which notation some late writers do mislike, not without cause, the people also being God's inheritance) or because the Lord is their portion: which is agreeable with the scriptures.  
His other answer is, 
§. 13. Presbyters and Deacons in our Refuters' conceit, of the Clergy, but not of the ministry.  that though the Presbyters and Deacons were of the clergy, yet they were not Ministers: for there were many of the clergy which were not Ministers. Let him therefore tell me whether there were any Ministers in the clergy adjoined to the Bishop or not: if he say no, he is worthy to be hissed at: if yea, who were these Ministers, if the Presbyters and Deacons were not? Besides, it is plain, that the Clergy of the ancient Churches consisted wholly of scholars, which were trained up in learning: the Clergy belonging to each Bishop, being the seminary of the whole diocese: out of which, not only every parish, both in the City and Country, was to be furnished with Ministers, but also the Bishop himself, in the vacancy of the See, was to be chosen. Moreover, ordinarily those of the clergy ascended by degrees from the lower to the higher, the Bishop being chosen out of the Presbyters & Deacons, (for even Ignatius his successor was his deacon, Her●:) the Presbyters & deacons out of the inferior orders, as of sub deacons, or readers, etc. Whereby it is most evident, that presbyters & deacons were not such, as the lay-elders and lay-deacons which are now adays in some reformed Churches; but men brought up in learning and service of the Church, having attained degrees of the sacred Ministry, such as Presbyters and Deacons are with us. And so much of my second argument.  

The testimony of the Council of Chalcedon.  The third is taken from the testimony of the great Council of Chalcedon, and may thus briefly be framed: It is sacrilege to reduce a Bishop to the degree of a Presbyter.  
Therefore BB. were superior to Presbyters in degree, not only de facto, 
k Pag. 77.  but also the iure. But what is this, saith he, to the Apostles times, and the age following? Indeed, if the Council had testified the superiority of Bishop's de facto only, there had been some colour for this exception, especially if he could have proved an alteration in the state of Bishops, and the advancement of them to a higher degree, to have begun after the first two hundred years. But seeing no such matter can truly be alleged, and seeing also that famous Council giveth testimony to the superiority of Bishops, not only de facto, but also the iure, and that in such sort, as it deemeth it sacrilege to reduce a Bishop to the degree of a Presbyter; it cannot therefore be denied, but that this is a most pregnant testimony, if it be rightly alleged. Let us therefore consider the occasion of those words, which in the copy whereon Th. Balsamo doth comment, and in some manuscript Greek copies, is the twenty nine canon of that Council. When Eustathius Bishop of Berytum (for so I find him termed divers times in the Acts 
l Acts 4.5.6.9.  of that Council, in Euagr●m 
m evagr. hist. lib. 2. cap. 2. , in Photius 
n Ph. N●m●can. tit. 9 c 11. , and Balsamo 
o Balsam. in Conc. Chalc. c. 29. ) and not of tire, (as in Tilius his Greek edition it is corruptly printed) when Eustathius I say, had withdrawn divers Bishoprics from the Metropolitan Church of Tyrus, deposing the Bishops, whom Photius the Bishop of Tyrus had ordained, and bringing them down to the degree of Presbyters: complaint was made to the great Council of Chalcedon, and the matter therein in propounded by the Princes, in these words 
p Act. Concil. Chalced. de Photio & Eustathis episcopis. : Concerning the Bishops ordained by Photius, and degraded by Eustathius, and after they had been Bishops, commanded to be Presbyters, what is the sentence of this holy Synod? Whereto Paschasinus and Lucentiu● Bishops, and Bonifaciu● Presbyter, vicegerents of the Church of Rome, answered 
q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. : To reduce a Bishop to the degree of a Presbyter, it is sacrilege: if any just cause depose them from their Bishopric, neither ought they to retain the place of Presbyters. But if without any crime they have been removed from their honour, they shall return again to their episcopal dignity. Ana●olius the Archbishop of Constantinople said, These Bishops who are said to have descended from the episcopal dignity unto the order of Presbyters, if for just cause they are condemned, neither are they worthy of the honour of Presbyters. But if without any reasonable cause they have been dejected to a less 
r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  degree, they are worthy, if they be blameless, to 
s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  recover again the dignity and priesthood of their Bishopric. If you think that these were but the private opinions of these men, hear the censure of the whole Council: All the reverend Bishops cried; 
t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Righteous is the judgement of the Fathers, we all say the same things; the Fathers have decreed justly, let the sentence of the Archbishops hold.  
My fourth argument is drawn from the testimony of Jerome: 
§. 15. The testimony of Jerome.  whose authority in this cause ought to be of greatest weight, because he is the only man almost among the fathers, whom the Disciplinarians can allege against the superiority of Bishops. Jerome therefore saith, 
u Ad Euagrium.  that at Alexandria from Mark the Evangelist, unto Heraclas and Dionysius Bishops, evermore the presbyters having chosen one from among themselves, and placed him in exce●siori gradu, in an higher degree, called him Bishop▪ even as an army chooseth a General. This testimony the Refuter elevateth in two respects. The first, because Jerome is under age. Which is a very simple evasion. For Jerome doth not only testify what was in his time, but also giveth plain evidence, that in the first two hundred years, even from S. Mark until Heraclas, Bishops were placed in a superior degree above Presbyters.  
Secondly, because Bëllarmine allegeth the s●me testimony to the same purpose, whose allegation is answered by Ch●mier: whose answer if I like not, he bids me try what I can say in defence of Bellarmine against it. To omit how odiously this is set down, I do profess, that I may with better credit agree with Bellarmine, wherein he consenteth with all antiquity, than the Refuter and his consorts can agree with Aërius; wherein he dissenting from all antiquity, was by Epiphanius, Philaster, Augustine, and all the Catholic Church in his time, condemned for an heretic. But let us hear his answers. First, that Jerome proveth by the practice of the Church of Alexandria, that which before he had demonstrated out of the Scriptures, to wit, that a Presbyter and a Bishop differ not. Neither doth he call Mark a Bishop, but an Evangelist.  
This answer might become our refuter better then Chamier. For first it is untrue, that Jerome in these words proveth that a Bishop and a Presbyter differ not. For doth he not plainly say that the Bishop was placed in a higher degree? and doth he not compare him in respect of the Presbyters which chose him, to the Chieftain or General, chosen of the Army?  
Secondly, he faileth in setting down Ieromes purpose; which was not to prove there was no difference betwixt Bishops and Presbyters; but to prove, that Presbyters were superior to Deacons. That he proveth by many arguments. First, because the name Episcopus, Bishop, in the Scriptures is given to Presbyters. Secondly, because the Apostles and Bishops are in the Scriptures called Presbyters: to which purpose he allegeth 1. Tim. 4.13. 1. Pet. 5.1. 2. john 1. and 3. john 1. 
2. john 1. 3. john 1.  And thirdly, whereas it might be objected, the Bishops were set over Presbyters; he confesseth it was done for avoiding of schism; but yet so, as by the Presbyters the Bishop was chosen out of the Presbyters, ever since S. Marks time, until Heracla● and D●●●ysius, as a General by the Army, or the archdeacon by the Deacons, out of their own company. Whereby he would also insinuate, that a Presbyter is so much better than a Deacon, as a Bishop is superior to an Arch deacon. Thirdly, where he saith, that Jerome doth not call Mark a Bishop, but an Evangelist, and saith else where, that he planted that Church: It is plain, that in another place 
* Prooem. in Matthaeum.  he confesseth Mark to have been the first Bishop of Alexandria. If Mark therefore were superior in degree to the Presbyters at Alexandra, as no man will deny; then must the same be confessed of Anianus, and the rest of his successors, as Jerome plainly testifieth.  
Secondly he answereth, That the order by which the Presbyters chose a Bishop from among themselves, continued to Heraclas and Dionysius time, whom he therefore calleth Bishops, to the end he might signify, that in their days after one hundred and forty years were expired from Marks coming to Alexandria, that order was changed. Then at the soon, saith the refuter, began M. D. superiority of Bishops to creep in, etc. Which answer, if his meaning be as our refuter conceiteth, is unsound. For first where he saith the order was changed in Heraclas and Dionysius, that is spoken but by guess, because Jerome nameth them. Upon which conjecture, T. C. and H. I. as you have heard, did build their two divers fancies. For Ieromes meaning was not to signify that the superiority of Bishops was altered: but as I have showed, that until Heraclas and Dionysius, who were not Presbyters, but Teachers of the school in Alexandria, the Presbyters ever since S. Marks time, did choose one out of their own number. That which the Refuter addeth, is absurd, and against Ieromes plain words: Then at the soon begins M. D. superiority of Bishops to creep in: for the superiority I spoke of, is superiority in degree. And Jerome saith, that ever from Saint Mark, and therefore even in the Apostles times, the BB. had been placed in a higher degree.  
My fifth argument is also from the authority of 
a Ad Euagrium.  Jerome, 
§. 16. Another testimony of Jerome.  which yieldeth a double proof; the former, that the superiority of Bishops over Presbyters, and Presbyters above Deacons, is an ordinance or tradition apostolical.  
Secondly, that as the high Priest was in degree superior to the other Priests, and they to the levites: so by an apostolical ordinance the Bishop is superior to the Presbyters, and the Presbyters to the Deacons. That we may know, saith he, the apostolical traditions are taken out of the old testament, look what Aaron 
The like he hath ad Nepotian. Quod Aaron & filios eius, h●c episcopum & Presbyteros esse noverimus. , and his sons and the levites were in the Temple; the same let the Bishops, Priests and Deacons challenge in the Church. To this testimony containing two impregnable proofs for the superiority of BB. not only de facto, but also the iure; the refuter thought it his wisest course to say nothing.  
To these arguments this may be added: That as the new ordination of a Deacon, when he was made a Presbyter, doth prove that he was advanced to a higher degree of the ministry: even so when a Presbyter was chosen to be Bishop, he was by a new ordination promo●ed to the Bishopric, as to a higher degree. The two first canons, among those which are called the Apostles, appoint 
Can. Apost. 1. & 2. , that a Bishop should be ordained of two or three Bishops: but let a Presbyter, say they, be ordained of one Bishop, and likewise a Deacon, and the rest of the clergy. Valeriu● the Bishop dealt with the Primate, the Bishop of Carthage, by letters entreating him that Augustine (who then was Presbyter) might be ordained Bishop of Hippo: which being obtained 
d Possidon. in vita Augustini. , Augustine took upon him the care of the Bishopric, & maioris loci 〈…〉, and ordination of a greater place. The council of Sardica 
e Con. Sard. c. 10. , taketh order, that before a man may be a Bishop he must first perform the ministry of a Reader, then of a Deacon, then of a Presbyter, that so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by every degree, if he be worthy, he may arise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unto the height of the Bishopric. Theadoret 
f Lib. 4. c 18.  testifieth, that john (chrysostom) having been the chief of the Presbyters at Antioch a long time, oft times might have been chosen to the Bishopric (which he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Apostolical presidency) but always did fly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that principality. So that though he were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the chief of the Presbyters; yet he was no Bishop, neither durst he for a long time take upon him that degree of principality. So much of the superiority of Bishops in general.   

CHAP. III. Showing wherein the superiority of Bishops did and doth consist: and first of the singularity of pre-eminence.  (Serm. sect. 3. page 32. But let us consider more particularly wherein the superiority of Bishops did and doth consist, etc. ad lin. a fine 6: 
THe superiority of Bishops over other Ministers, I place in three things: singularity of pre-eminence during life, the power of ordination, and the power of jurisdiction: all which I ground on Tit. 1.5. But where I say, during life, he saith, 
Ad pag. 89.  This addition needed not, seeing it is grounded upon an erroneous conceit of mine own, whereby I charge them as holding the contrary. Secondly, that it is not proved out of the place alleged. In the former he showeth how audacious he is, seeing, Beza the chief patron of the pretended discipline, holdeth that the Precedents of the Presbyteries (which afterwards, as he saith, were called Bishops) ought to be but for a short time, and that by course, and esteemeth them which had a perpetual presidenship, to be Bishops human 
g Lib. 1. cap. 2. §. 17. , as I have showed before. The practice also of those Churches where the discipline is used, doth prove what their Founder's thought was agreeable to God's word. This their conceit is evidently confuted by the Epistles to Titus and to Timothy. For seeing they do confess, that they were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the Churches of Crect and Ephesus; it is evident, that they continued in this Presidentshippe, whiles they lived there. For it is absurd to imagine, that Titus was sent to Crect, and Timothy to Ephesus, to be precedents there in their turns, and when their turns were ended, to be subjecteth to other of the Presbyters there in their course. But these things the refuter doth but cavil at by the way. For he granteth that Titus had this superiority which we speak of: his main answer is, that Titus was not a Bishop. Which afterwards I prove in the Sermon, by the common consent of the ancient and most approved Writers of the Church; with whose affirmation, in a matter of fact, if this Refuters' denial shall be weighed in the balance of an unpartial judgement, it will be found as light as vanity itself. But of this question more hereafter 
h Lib. 4 cap. 4. . In the mean time, I will but desire the Reader to take this for granted, because it cannot be denied, that if Titus was Bishop of Crect, than Bishops had this threefold superiority which I speak of.  
Where I commend this order of Church government, consisting in the superiority of Bishops, and inferiority of other Ministers; this grave and learned Refuter maketh a scorn at it, saying, It is a toy to please children, and a gay Epiphonema wanting a note of exclamation (he would have said, acclamation) to grace it. The which argueth his spite against the government of Bishops, rather than his might, being neither able to endure the just commendation of episcopal government, nor yet to confute it. For what hath he but trifles and toys to object against it? For where he saith, I beg the question, supposing each Church to be a diocese; the conscience of the Reader, I hope also of the Refuter, will testify, that what I suppose in this behalf, hath been before sufficiently proved. Besides, those with whom I principally contend in this point, do confess the Churches endued with power of ecclesiastical government, to have been dioceses 
l Lib. 1. cap. 2. §. 14 , as hath been showed. I say then (which also I proved afterwards by the testimonies of Cyprian and Jerome, whereto the authority of 
k Basil, epist. 67. ad Ancyr. professeth that the members of the Church are by the government of the Bishop, as it were of the soul, united and knit together. Whether the unity of each Church, depend upon the unity of the B.  Basil may be added) that the unity of each Church, meaning a diocese, dependeth of the unity of the Bishop: and the setting up of a second, unless it were by way of coadiutorshippe, hath ever been esteemed the making of a schism in the Church. But of this more anon.  
§. 2. But let us hear, if it be worth the hearing, what more particularly he objecteth against these three points. And first he trifleth to no purpose, when he asketh, If there be not as much unity in a parish under one Pastor, as in a diocese under a Bishop. For though each parish, if it were, according to the new conceit, an entire body within itself, unsubordinate to any other, may perhaps have unity within itself: yet in the Church of the diocese or province, that may happen (which Jerome affirmeth is like to happen, where is no Bishop) that there shall be as many schisms as parishes. And surely what man of judgement and moderation, can without horror think of those manifold schisms and divisions which would ensue, if every parish should have (according to the new conceit) sufficient authority within itself unsubordinate and independent, for the government of itself, in all causes ecclesiastical? Yea but saith he, If there be not as great unity of the Church in a parish under one Pastor, as in a diocese under one Bishop, than the more Churches are under one government, the greater is the unity. But the consequent is false, therefore the antecedent. The consequence of the proposition is true, being not extended without the limits of the question. The more particular Churches in any one visible Church are subordinate to one Bishop, the greater is the unity. But by one visible Church I mean the Christian people of one diocese, or of one province, or at the most of one Nation. For the Christian people living under divers laws, as they be divers Nations, so are they divers visible Churches, though the faithful in them all are members of one and the same Catholic Church.  
Let us hear how he proveth the assumption. If the more Churches are under one government the greater unity, than welfare the Pope, who if this be true, maketh unity of all Churches in the world. As who should say, all the Churches in the world are under the Pope's government: so that whiles he denieth the superiority of Bishops, he seemeth (else there is no sense in his speech) to hold the Pope's supremacy. If any man shall say, that as the unity of each Church dependeth on the singular pre-eminence of the Bishop: so the unity of the whole Catholic Church by the same reason shall depend of the Pope's supremacy, (which seemeth to have been the Refuters meaning, who desireth as much as may be that the superiority of Bishops and supremacy of the Pope may seem to be of one tenure:) I answer, that the unity of the whole Church standeth in this; that it is one body, under one head Christ. And as in a diocese, to set up a second head, is to set up an Antibishoppe, and to make a schism from the true Bishop: so in the whole Church, to acknowledge a second head, is to set up Antichrist, and to make an apostasy from Christ. Neither was it ever the meaning of our Saviour, that as every particular Church should be under one Pastor, so the whole Church should be under one visible head, or earthly Monarch. For than would not he have furnished his twelve Apostles with equal power and authority, as I have said before.  

§. 3.  As touching the second, he confesseth all that I said, namely that from the power of ordination the perpetuity of the Church dependeth; and yet cavilleth with me, as if either I had said, there could be no ordination at all without a Bishop, 
Ad pag. 83.  or that the Bishop had the sole power thereof. Thus being resolved to wrangle, if he find not matter to cavil at, he will feign it. I did not say there could be no ordination without a Bishop: but that ever since the Apostles times to our age, it hath been the received opinion in the Church of God, that the right of ordination of Presbyters and Deacons, is such a peculiar prerogative of BB. as that ordinarily and regularly, there could be no lawful ordination but by a Bishop: otherwise I do confess in the sermon, that extraordinarily, and in case of necessity, Presbyters may ordain in the want of a Bishop.  
Concerning the third, he saith it is enough to preserve good order in Churches, if jurisdiction be in the ministers and Presbyters. He meaneth in the several parishes, which may after a fashion be governed, where the supreme ecclesiastical officers (I mean the parish minister) assisted with such a senate, as each parish is like to afford, hath the reins of government in all causes ecclesiastical committed to them. But I pray you, how shall there be any good order in the government of the Churches of a diocese, or province, when every parish is so according to the new conceit an entire body of itself, (indeed a member by Schism rend from the the rest) as it hath neither consociation with▪ nor subordination to others? For they are not governed by consociation, who deny the definitive power of synods, as our new Disciplinarians do; neither do they acknowledge any subordination: for their Pastor forsooth is the supreme ecclesiastical officer, and the power of each parish is independent, immediately derived from Christ. Now, how is it possible there should be good order in the government of so many parishes in a Kingdom, where is no subordination; no superiors, nor inferiors, but all equal? But this is enough for our Disciplinarians, if they might be subject to no superiors, but that each of them might be the supreme ecclesiastical officer in every Church.  (Serm. sect. 4. pag. 32. As touching the first, 
BB. superior in singularity of pre-eminence for term of life.  whereas there were many Presbyters in one City, etc. to pag. 36. l. a fine 8.) 
In this section I prove, that the Bishops of the primitive Church were superior to other Ministers in singularity of pre-eminence for term of life. Which is a point very material, proving both against the new Disciplinarians, that the BB. were diocesan, there being but one for each diocese, as hath been touched before: and against the elder, that the BB. were not such as their Precedents of the Presbytery, or Moderators of assemblies among them, whose pre-eminence is but a priority of order, and but for a short time, 
Lay Presbyteries and parity of Ministers, the two pillars of the new discipline.  and against both, disproving the parity of Ministers, which is the other main pillar of the pretended discipline. Here therefore it behoved the Refuter, if his cause were such, as indeed he could maintain with soundness of learning, and evidence of truth, both to have disproved this superiority of BB. and to have proved his parity of Ministers. But he passeth by in haste, touching only upon the points, as a dog by the river Nilus, not daring to stay by it; & yet so brag he is, that he would seem to haste away not for fear, but rather in disdain, as not vouchsafing to waste time in a matter either so impertinent, as the former part of this section, or so needless, as the latter. For this is his usual guise, to cast off those points of the Sermon, which indeed are most material, as impertinent or needless. The former is impertinent, because it is not proved to belong to those seven Angels, nor within the first two hundred years. Which is a mere evasion, unlearned, and I greatly doubt also unconscionable. Do I not plainly note that these seven Angels had this singularity of pre-eminence, when as I say the holy Ghost teacheth, that whereas there were many Presbyters▪ who also were Angels in every Church: yet there was but one, who was the Angel of each Church? For to his objection of their not being diocesan Bishops, I have answered before. And for the time, do I not affirm, that Timothy had this singularity of pre-eminence at Ephesus, Titus in Crect, Epaphroditus in Philippi, Archippus at Colosse in the Apostles times? As for the rest of my witnesses, they do either testify de iure, which in their judgement is perpetual; or if they speak de facto, it is of that which was in the Apostles times. Cornelius the worthy martyr, who was Bishop of Rome about the year two hundred fifty, avoucheth, that there ought to be but 
a Epist Cornel. apud Euseb. lib. 6. c. 43.  one Bishop in a Catholic Church, though the number of Presbyters and other clergy men were very great, and imputeth it as a matter of great ignorance to Novatian, that he did not know 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there ought to be but one Bishop in a Catholic Church, wherein he knew there were forty six Presbyters, etc. This testimony is rejected, because it was given fifty years after the date: which were but an evasion, if it did testify the facto only. But seeing Cornelius speaketh de iure, of what ought to be, I hope that which ought not to have been in Cornelius his time, was not lawful before, unless the Refuter can show, that before Cornelius his time, plurality of Bishops in one Church was counted lawful.  
§. 5. The Council of Nice 
b Conc. Nic. cap. 8.  (whose testimony I also alleged) was of this judgement, that there ought not to be two Bishops in one City. For having decreed, that when the Catharists, that is, Puritans or Novatians, returned to the Catholic Church, those who were of the clergy should retain their degree, as he that was a Deacon or a Presbyter should so continue, and likewise a Bishop (for even the Puritans or Catharists themselves had their Bishops) if there were not another already in the Catholic Church. But if there were a Bishop of the Catholic Church already, than it is manifest 
c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  before hand, that the Bishop of the Church shall have the honour of the Bishop: but he that was called Bishop among the Catharists shall have the honour of a Presbyter: unless it please the Bishop to communicate unto him the honour of the name. But if that like him not, he shall find him out either a Chorepiscopus, that is, a country Bishops, or a Presbyters place, that still he may be retained in the clergy, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that there may not be two Bishop▪ in one City Which words in Ruffinus 
d Ruffin. l. 10. c. 6. can. 10. Conc. Cabilon. ca 4.  are the tenth Canon: Ne in una Civitate duo sint Episcopi. Augustine also understood, though somewhat too late, that it was forbidden by the Council of Nice, that there should be any more Bishops in a Church than one. For how soever, whiles he was ignorant thereof, he was drawn to take upon him the B●shopricke of Hippo, whiles Valerius was alive; yet when himself was old, and desired that Eradius might be his Coadjutor, whom also he nominated for his successor; yet he thought it unlawful that whiles himself lived he should be ordanied Bishop Whiles Valerius lived (saith he 
e August. epist. 110. Possidon. in vita August. c. 8. ) I was ordained Bishop, and I sat with him, both of us being ignorant, that it was forbidden by the Council of Nice. But what was reprehended in me, shall not be blamed in him. Or as Possidonius speaketh, Quod sibi factum esse doluit▪ aliis fieri noluit.  
In the next place, I bring the testimonies of Jerome 
f In Phil. 1.1. , chrysostom, Ambrose, Theodoret, and Oecumenius on Phil. 1. All which (I confess) lived after the two hundred years: but they testify, that in the Apostles times there could be no more Bishops than one. And the like hath Primasius on the same place.  
To all this he answers, that he will not greatly strive about men's devices: which notwithstanding he can never prove to be human; and I trust the singularity of pre-eminence in each of these Angels, in Timothy, in Titus, etc. was no human device. But though he will not strive, yet he allegeth that little which he was able, and that also more than himself doth believe to be true. For he objecteth that Epiphanius and Eusebius also in his ecclesiastical story, reckon both Peter and Paul for Bishops of Rome at one time. Founders they both were of the Church of Rome, as Irenaeus 
g Lib. 3. ca 3.  testifieth, and having founded the Church, ordained Linus Bishop: but that either of them both, and much less that both at once were Bishops of Rome, the Refuter himself doth not believe. To what purpose then doth he allege that which himself is persuaded to be false? Would he have his Reader believe that to be true, which himself believeth to be untrue?  
That which he quoteth out of Athanasius 
h Vid Athan. cont. Mess.  that there were divers Bishops in some one Church, though I cannot find, it may be true in time of schism and division; as at Antioch sometimes there were three Bishops, etc.  
His allegation out of D. Sutcliffe 
i De pontiff. Rom. l. 1. c. 5.  is very childish: as though when he saith, that Paul ordained in every Town or City Presbyters and Bishops; his meaning were, that in every City he placed more Bishops than one. If I should say; there are Bishops placed in every City or diocese throughout England, I should speak truly: and yet my meaning would be, that in every diocese there is but one.  
Where I say, 
§ 7.  that as this singularity of pre-eminence was ordained for the preservation of the Church in unity, and for the avoiding of schism; so is it for the same cause to be retained; he would seem half amazed, that I, who do not deny other forms of government to be lawful, pag. 95. and no further hold the episcopal function to be of divine institution, then as being ordained by the Apostles, it proceeded from God, without implying any necessary perpetuity thereof, pag. 92. should now plainly avouch a necessity of retaining the government of diocesan BB. for the preservation of the Church in unity, etc. But the Reader that favoureth the Refuters' person and cause, hath more cause to be amazed at his dealing. For first, is not this a plain lie, and a notorious falsification of my words, to say I plainly avouch a necessity of retaining the government of diocesan Bishops, & c? Where do I mention or mean that necessity he speaketh of? Could those words, so is it for the same cause to be retained, no otherwise be expounded, then as implying an absolute necessity? That is to be retained which is meet, or fit, expedient or convenient, profitable or needful to be retained. Secondly let the reader remember how oft the refuter hath charged me for saying the Bishops calling to be holden ᵈ, iure divino, implying a perpetual necessity thereof, and chargeth the doctrine 
l Praefat. pag. 3. & 5.  of my sermon to be in that respect contrary to the laws of our land, which make the form of Church government to be alterable by the King; and yet here acknowledgeth for advantage, that I hold no such matter. Thirdly let it be observed, how under this pretence of amazement, he shifteth of the testimony of Cyprian, which sitteth so near to him, and his consorts. But the reader I hope will bear in mind the words off Cyprian 
m Cypr. l. 4. epist. 9 , noting the source of all schisms to be this, when the Bishop, who is but one, and governeth the Church, by the proud presumption of some is contemned etc. And in the same epistle, you ought to know, saith he, to Pupianus, that the Bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the Bishop, and that whosoever are not with the Bishop are not in the Church; and that they do flatter themselves in vain who have not peace with the Priests of God (that is the Bishops) etc. To this purpose Cyprian often writeth. 
n Lib. 1. epist. 3. , Neque enim ali●●de haereses, etc. Neither have heresies or schisms any other beginning then this, that God's Priest (meaning the Bishop) is not obeyed. Neither is one Bishop for the time, nor one judge in Christ's steed acknowledged, etc. Again, haec sunt initia haereticorum 
o Lib. 3. epist. 9 , these be the beginnings of heretics, these the risings and endeavours of ill minded schismatics, that they please themselves, and contemn their B. with swelling pride. Sic de ecclesia receditur, thus do men depart from the Church, etc. And in another place 
p Serm. 2▪ de zelo & livore. Ad pag. 91. : Hence do men rush into heresies and schisms, when they speak evil of Priests, and envy their Bishops, etc. The Lord open their eyes who are faulty in this behalf, that they may see their sin, and touch their hearts that they may repent thereof.  

§. 8.  Out of Jerome, (who is the only man among the Fathers, on whose authority the Disciplinarians in this cause do rely) I produce three most pregnant testimonies, the first affirming, 
Ad pag. 91.  that 
q Con●. Luciferianos.  unless this singularity of pre-eminence be yielded to the Bishop, there will be as many schisms as Priests. The second, 
r Ad evagr.  that ever since Saint Marks time, the Presbyters having elected one, placed him in a higher degree, and called him Bishop. The third, that 
s In Tit. 1.  when some began to say, I am of Paul, I of Apollo, (which was in the Apostles time) it was decreed by the whole world, that one being chosen from among the Presbyters, should be set over the rest in every Church, unto whom the care of the whole Church should appertain. Of these allegations, the first giveth testimony to this superiority de iure: the other two testifying the facto, bear witness that it hath been so in and ever since the Apostles times. These testimonies are featly avoided, with a promise to answer them afterwards, when he will say never a word to the present, not almost to any purpose.  
The second part of this section, 
§. 9  wherein I prove against Beza, and the better sort of the Disciplinarians, that the BB. had this singularity of pre-eminence, neither for a short time, nor by course, but were elected for term of life; this Refuter rejecteth, as not worth the mentioning, he hath so oft refuted it already. Refuted oft? I would be sorry that he should be able with soundness of reason and evidence of truth to refute any one sentence in the Sermon. All the refutation of this point, which hitherto we have had, was this: that I charged them with untruths, that I threaten kindness on them, that I had need to be as eloquent as Pericles, if I could persuade that any of them have said this, when as I have brought forth most plain and evident allegations to this purpose. And although I forbear to mention Beza, tendering his credit, yet what I here confuted, is avouched by him in his twenty third chapter of his book, concerning the degrees of Ministers, chiefly in the 141.142.143. pages.  
Now because this point is of great moment, 
§. 10.  though the Refuter have tripped over it so lightly, like a dog over a hot hearth, as if I were afraid to touch it; I will therefore endeavour to give the Reader some further satisfaction therein, by adding some other proofs. What antiquity thought of the singularity of Bishops, may appear first by these two testimonies out of Cyprian and Theodoret.  
For when Novatian was ordained a second Bishop in Rome besides Cornelius, some of the Clergy having been before Confessors, who also had consented to him, moved with repentance, and returning from schism unto the Church, confessed their error, saying 
t Concil. epist. apud Cypr. lib. 3. epist. 11. , Nos errorem nostrum confitemur, etc. Neither are we ignorant that there ought to be one God, one Christ the Lord, whom we have confessed, one holy Ghost, one Bishop in a Catholic Church. Likewise when Constantius being entreated by the godly Matrons in Rome, gave consent that Liberius should return, but withal appointed that he and Felix should rule the Church in common: the faithful people deriding that sentence of the Arrian Emperor, with one voice cried, as 
u Theod. lib. 2. cap. 11.  Theodoret reporteth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one God, one Christ, one Bishop. After these speeches of the true Christian people adorned with piety and justice, Liberius returned, and Felix departed to another City, and shortly died. Which came to pass by God's good providence, saith Sozomen 
* Soz l 4. c. 15. , that the seat of Peter, should not be defamed as governed at once by two rulers, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: which is a note of dissension, and repugnant to the law ecclesiastical.  
2. And that the adding of a second Bishop was judged unlawful and esteemed as a note of schism, Cyprian in some other places besides those which before I cited, doth testify. Writing therefore to the foresaid Confessors, who had joined with Novatian 
x Lib. 3. epist. 2. , Granat me, saith he, it greiveth me etc. When I understood that you there against ecclesiastical order, against the evangelical law, against the unity of Catholic institution, have thought that another Bishop was to be made, that is to say, which is ungodly, and unlawful to be done, that another Church should be instituted, the members of Christrent asunder, the mind and body of the Lords flock, which is but one, to be torn with schismatical emulation.  
And in another place 
y Li. 4. Epist. 2. , Where a Bishop is once lawfully ordained, whosoever now will be made Bishop, it is necessary that he should be put forth of the Church, and that he have not the Church's ordination, who doth not hold the unity of the Church. Whosoever he be, though he boast much of himself, and challenge very much to himself; he is profane, he is an alien, he is out of the Church. And for as much, as after the first Bishop, there cannot be a second, whosoever after that one, who ought to be alone, is made, he is not the second, but none at all.  
Thirdly, 
§. 11.  the singularity of pre-eminence in Bishops, during their life, is proved by their singularity of succession, both in and since the Apostles times, noted by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Eusebius, and other approved authors, most plainly proving, that there was but one Bishop at once in the ancient and Apostolical Churches.  
Fourthly, what the pre-eminence and superiority of Bishops was over the Presbyters, and others of the Clergy, appeareth by this, that in good writers they are said the Bishop his Presbyters, the Bishop's Deacons, the Bishop's clergy. Thus Arius 
a Epiph. haer. 69. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  is said to have been Alexander's presbyter, Petrus and Irenaus 
b Athanas. Ad sol●t. vitam agentes. , Timothe●● 
c Ruff. in hist. l. 1. c. 17.  and Macarius 
d Theodor. l. 2. c. 8.  to have been Athanasius 
e Socr. l. 2. c. 23.  his Presbyters; the vicegerents of Silvester, in the council of Nice were his Presbyters 
f Euseb. de vit. Const. l. 3. . Thus 
g Sozom. l 8. c. 15.  Crispio is said to have been Epiphaniu● his archdeacon, Heraclides 
h Socr. l. 6. c. 11.  to have been Chrysostom's deacon. In a word, all of the Clergy were said to be the Bishop's clerks, as in the council of Africa 
i Conc. Afric. c. 21. Carth. grac. c. 54. Socr. l. 2 c. 23. : Let no Bishop take another's clerk, without the consent of him whose clerk he is. The which is a plain argument of the great pre-eminence which the Bishops of the primitive Church had over the Presbyters, and others of the clergy. To these we will add the testimony of Bucer 
k De regno Christi. l. 2. c. 12 , against whom the Refuter cannot except, as being partial for Bishops. By the perpetual observation of the Church, saith he, even from the Apostles themselves, we see it seemed good to the holy Ghost, that among the Presbyters, to whom the charge of the Church is specially committed, one should have the singular charge of the Churches: and in that charge and care governed all others; for which cause the name of Bishop was attributed to these chief Governors of Churches: Howbeit, without the counsel of the other Presbyters they ought not to determine any thing etc.  
Thus much of the pre-eminence of Bishops.   

CHAP. FOUR That Bishops were superior in power, 
The BB. superiority in power proved by the testimony of Jerome. Adverse. Lucifer.  and first in the power of ordination.  (Serm. sect. 5. pag. 36. Let us see if Bishops were not also superior in power. Harken to Jerome. The safety of the Church dependeth on the dignity of the chief Priest or Bishop: to whom if there be not yielded exhorts & ab omnibus eminens potestas, a peerless power, and eminent above all, there will be so many Schisms in the Churches, as there be Priests.) 
THis testimony is handled by him as Sir Christopher blunt's head was used, after his apprehension; first healed, and then cut off: For first, he explanes the testimony, and then rejects it. He restraineth Ieromes speech to the Church in his own time, viz. in the end of the fourth age, saying, That no man can without open violence stretch it further. Which is as unlearned a shift, as ever was heard of. As though Jerome had spoken only of that which was in his time, and not of that which in his judgement ought to be. Was it Ieromes judgement, that the superiority of Bishops was needful for the avoiding of Schisms in his time only? doth he not plainly teach, that the superiority of Bishops began in the Apostles times, and that at the first they were ordained for avoiding of Shismes? For the former, doth he not say, that james was Bishop of jerusalem, Timothe of Ephesus, and Titus of Crect? Doth he not say, that ever since Saint Marks time, there have been Bishops placed in a superior degree above the Presbytes? Doth he not call the superiority of BB. a tradition Apostolical? and doth he not say, that it began in the whole world, when divisions began in the Church, saying, I am of Paul, etc. which was in the Apostles time? etc.  
As touching the latter, he saith, indeed that at the first the Churches (under the Apostles, before BB. were ordained) were governed by the common Counsel of Presbyters. But whereas afterwards one was elected, who should be set over the rest, 
Ad evagr.  In Schismatis remedium factum est, It was provided as a remedy against Schism, lest every man drawing after him, should rend in pieces the Church of Christ. And lest we should think, that afterwards to be referred to the times after the Apostles; he addeth in the next words, Nam & Alexandria, For even at Alexandria, ever since Mark the Evangelist (who died 5. or 6. years before Peter, and Paul, and almost 40. years before Saint john,) the Presbyters have always chosen one, and placed him in a higher degree, and called him Bishop. 
In Tit. 1.  The like he hath in Titum 1. that when divisions began in the Church, it was decreed in the whole world, that one should be set over the rest, to whom omnis Ecclesiae cura pertineret, & Schismatum semina tollerentur, the care of the whole Church, or all the care of the Church should appertain, and that the seeds of Schisms might be taken away, or as he speakth afterwards, ut dissensionum plantaria evellerentur ad unum omnem solicitudinem esse dela●●●▪ that the first plants or sets of dissensions might be plucked out, the whole care was committed to one. It is most plain therefore, that in Ieromes judgement, the superiority of BB. was needful for the avoiding of Schism, not only in his own time, but even in the Apostles times, when Bishops were first ordained. And as he teacheth, that BB. were instituted for avoiding of Schism, 
Adverse. Lucifer.  so his judgement in the place alleged was, that for the same cause they are necessarily to be retained: Yea, he saith, Salus Ecclesia, The safety of the Church dependeth on this dignity of Bishops, and that unless a peerless and supereminent power be given unto them, there would be as many Schisms in the Churches, as there be Priests.  

§. 2. The refuters answer to the testimony of Ier●●e.  But the refuter wants no reasons (I warrant you) to restrain Ieromes words to Ieromes time: For, To stretch it to the Apostles times (saith he) were to make Jerome a wild headed 〈◊〉 indeed. Thus Jerome, if he agree not with the conceits of some giddy heads, shall be judged wild-headed. And why so I pray you? For three reasons. First, because Jerome in divers places disputeth, and concludeth that BB. and Presbyters are equal by the word of God. Whereunto I answer, that this is all which Jerome in this cause saith, that Bishops, and Presbyters are the 〈◊〉 in the Scriptures. His meaning is, that before Bishops were ordained, the names Episcopus & Presbyter were confounded, and the same men were called Presbyters, and Bishops; which I do not deny. But no where's he saith, that Bishops and Presbyters were equal: for before BB. were ordained, he could not say that Presbyters and Bishops were equal: he saith they were the same. After Bishops were ordained, which he acknowledgeth to have been done in the Apostles times, and that by the Apostles, for which cause he calleth their institution, a tradition Apostolical; he plainly confesseth, that one, who was chosen from among the Presbyters, and was called the Bishop of the Church, to have been placed in a higher degree. But hereof we shall have occasion hereafter to entreat more fully.  
His second reason: Jerome maketh Heraclas and Dionysius in Alexandria the first authors of advancing one minister above another in power. The words are, Nam & Alexandria á Marco evangelista usque ad Heraclam & Dionysium Episcopos, Presbyteri semper unum ex se electum in ●●ccelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant, quo modo si exercitus imperatorem faciat. For even at Alexandria ever since Mark the Evangelist, until the Bishops Heraclas and Dionysius, the Presbyters have always called one, being chosen out of themselves, and placed him in a higher degree, Bishop; even as an army chooseth their chieftain. Which words as so far from giving the least inkling of the Refuters conceit, that Heraclas and Dionysius should be the first authors of advancing Bishops, that they plainly declare the Bishops ever from Saint Marks time to Heraclas and Dionysius, to have been placed in a higher degree above the Presbyters, as the general above the soldiers. 
Lib. 2.529.  And truly of the two, T. C. conceit, who collecteth the clean contrary to our refuter, hath the better gloss: for, he imagineth, that until Heralas, and Dionysius, they who were chosen from among the Presbyters, were called Bishops, but then godly men misliking the appropriating of the name to one in a Church, ceased to call him so. And he might have added with no less colour out of the words, that the Bishops till then had been placed in a higher degree above other ministers, but then good men misliking their advancement above their fellow ministers, brought them a peg lower. To these conjectures the words would seem to them that understand not the right meaning thereof, (which heretofore I have declared) to give some colour of likelihood, were it not that the practise of the Church did openly proclaim the contrary. Wherefore, of all collectors, my Refuter shall bear away the bell: For, he that can collect out of these words, Ever until Heraclas and Dionysius, the Bishop was placed in a higher degree, that Heraclas and Dionysius were the first that advanced the Bishops, needs not doubt to collect, quidlibet, ex quolibet, what himself will, out of any thing whatsoever.  

Ad evagr.  His third reason that Jerome in the same Epistle doth teach the contrary, is most false: For Jerome plainly confesseth the Bishop to be superior in the power of ordination, and in the end concludeth, that what Aaron and his sons, and the Levites were in the temple, the same let Bishops Presbyters, and Deacons, challenge to themselves in the Church.  

§ 3.  The Refuter having thus salved this testimony of Jerome, in the end rejects it: For if this be true, that unless the Bishop have a peerless power, there will be as many Schisms in the Church, as there be Priests; then by the like reason Bellarmine may argue, if there be not a peerless power given to the Pope, there will be as many Schisms in the Churches, as there are Bishops.  
but this latter consequence is nought: so is the former.  
Thus Jerome, on whose only authority among the ancient, the Disciplinarians in this cause rely, when he speaketh any thing for the BB. his credit is no better with them, then if he had spoken for the Pope's supremacy. But this is his desperate malice against the holy calling of Bishops, whereby he seeketh every where to parallel the Christian superiority of BB. with the Antichristian supremacy of the Pope. But all in vain: For though it be true in Ieromes conceit, that if there were no Bishops, there would be as many Schisms almost as Priests; yet it doth not follow, th●t if there were no Pope, there would be as many Schisms as Bishops. For first, experience teacheth how to judge of this matter: for until the year 607. the Pope never attained to his supremacy; and yet the Church was more free from Schisms, before that time, then since, whereas chose, when there were no Bishops for a short season, in the Apostles times, in most of the Churches, every one of the Presbyters, as Jerome 
a In Tit. 1●.  speaketh, sought to draw Disciples after him: which he supposeth to have been the occasion of instituting Bishops.  
Secondly, there is great odds between BB. and the greatest number of Presbyters. One Bishop, say the Fathers of the African council 
b Conc. Afr. c. 22. Carth. graec. c. 55. , may ordain many Presbyters, but one man fit to be a Bishop is hard to be found.  
Thirdly, before there was one supreme or universal Bishop, there was unity and communion between all the Bishops in Christendom, whose course to preserve unity in the Churches and to avoid Schism, was to communicate the confessions of their faith one with an other by their communicatory, pacifical or form letters. And if any were in error, they sought first severally by their letters to reclaim them; and if they prevailed not, they assembled in Councils either to reduce them to unity, or to depose them.  
Cyprian saith 
c Li 4. Epist. 9 , that the Catholic Church is one, not rend into Schisms nor divided, but every where knit together & coharentium sibi invicem Sacerdotum glutino copulata, and coupled with the glue as it were of Bishops agreeing mutually among themselves. And in another place 
d Lib. 3. Epist. 13. , which before hath been alleged; Therefore is the body of Bishops copious, coupled together with the glue of mutual concord, and with the bond of unity, that if any of our company shall be author of an Heresy, & shall endeavour to rend the flock of Christ, and to make havoc thereof, the rest may help etc. Whereas chose, if there were one supreme and universal Bishop, whose authority were greater than of general Councils, as the Papists teach; when he doth err, who should reclaim him, when he is exorbitant, who should reduce him into the way, when he shall draw with him innumerable troops of souls into Hell, who may say unto him, Domine, cur ita facis? Sir, why do you so? And as the Church is to be careful for avoiding Schism, and preservation of itself in the unity of truth, which may be provided for, as it was wont, yea, better than it was wont (where are Christian, and Orthodoxal magistrates) by the BB. singularity of pre-eminence in every several Church, and mutual concord of them in the truth: so must it be as careful to avoid conspiring & consenting in untruth. But where there is one supreme and universal Bishop, when he erreth and goeth astray, he becometh as we see in the Papacy, the head of a Catholic Apostasy from Christ. So that this pretended remedy against Schism, causing a Catholic apostasy, is as much, or more, to be avoided then Schism itself, the remedy being far worse than the feared malady.  
§ 4. What the power is wherein BB. be superior to other Ministers.  (Serm. sect. 6. pag. 37. This power is twofold, the power of ordination and of jurisdiction, etc. 19 lines to, Titus in Crect.) 
Where I place the power wherein Bishops are superior to Presbyters in these two things; the Reader is to understand, that I mention the principal, and most essential: for otherwise, ancient writers mention 
e Damas. epist. de Chorepiscop. Hicronym. de 7. ordin. eccles. et advers. Lucifer. Leo epist. BB.  other prerogatives of Bishops, wherein their superiority doth consist; as by imposition of hands to confirm them that are baptised, and publicly to reconcile the penitents, to consecrate Churches etc. of some whereof Jerome indeed saith, they did belong ad honorem potius Sacerdotij, quam ad legis necessitatem, 
Adverse. Lucifer.  rather to the honour of the Priesthood, then to the necessity of law. But what saith the Refuter? Now at the last yet, saith he, (it seemeth that he hath been long delayed, or that he hath greatly longed, in hope to do great matters, to deal in this matter of ordination) let us see, how it is proved that Bishops must have sole power of ordination. But where good sir, do I say they must have the sole power of ordination, which you have so oft objected, and now again do repeat? make you no conscience of publishing untruths? cannot BB. be superior to other ministers in the power of ordination, and jurisdiction, which is the thing which I maintain, unless they have the sole power? or do I here dispute what Bishops must have, when I only show what the ancient Bishops were wont to have? If he shall say, that unless they had the sole power of ordination, they had not the superiority which our Bishops have; I answer, that our BB. have no more the sole power of ordination, than the ancient Bishops had. And this I added in the Sermon, that although the power of ordination was held in the primitive Church to be so peculiar to Bishops, as that ordinarily and regularly the ordination was not thought lawful, which was not done by a Bishop: yet it doth not follow, but that extraordinarily, and in case of necessity, Presbyters might ordain. Howbeit, I must confess, I am not able to allege any approved examples thereof. If the Refuter can, which I do more than doubt of, he shall do well to produce them: it may tend to the credit of some other Churches, it cannot be prejudicial to the cause which I maintain  
Seeing therefore the Refuter doth alter the state of the question, making me to prove that which I did not intend, because he could not answer that which was propounded: I should neither wrong him, nor the Reader, If I vouchsafed him no further answer in this point. But in very truth, he is so far from refuting the superiority of Bishops in the power of ordination which I propounded, that he is not able to disprove their sole power, which himself hath foisted into the question.  
For as touching my first argument; 
§. 5. Ad pag. 92. BB. superior in the power of ordination. The 1. proof.  whereas he frameth for me this consequence, It hath been the received opinion in the Church of God, ever since the Apostles times, that the right of ordination of Presbyters, is such a peculiar prerogative of Bishops, as that ordinarily, and regularly, there could be no ordination, but by a Bishop: therefore BB. have sole authority of ordination, (he should have said, therefore they are superior to other ministers in the power of ordination:) he passeth by this consequence, though he would feign persuade his Reader, that it is liable to (he cannot tell what) just exception: and only insisteth on the antecedent, which is the assumption of his prolix syllogism. But it is worth the hearing, how he doth disprove it. Forsooth It halteth down right, having no strength but from a false supposition (and so proved to be) that there were always Diocesan Bishops.  
Here the Refuter, if he would have said any thing to satisfy his Reader, should have produced some approved example of ordination, either in the Apostles times, or since, performed by Presbyters without a Bishop; whereby he might have disproved my assertion: but not being able so to do, he betaketh himself to his ordinary trade of answering by mere cavillations. He talketh of a supposition, whereon the assumption is grounded; when as the speech is simple, and categorical as they speak, and not hypothetical; and the effect of his answer is not the denial of a supposition, but the taking away of the subject of the question: as if he should say; Bishops were not, therefore they had not this power: For where he addeth Diocesan, that is spoken unseasonably: for the question now is not what their authority was extensiuè: whether to a Diocese or not, which in this point is not material; but what it was intensiuè in respect of other ministers. By that starting hole therefore he cannot escape: especially, if it be added, that the supposition is not (as he untruly saith) false: for that error he will as I hope recant, when he shall have read, what I have alleged for the proof of Dioceses and Diocesan Bishops. And whereas he saith, he hath proved it to be false; that also is untrue: for he never went about it. Nec ausus est: nec potuit, only he rejected it in a glorious manner, as being so manifestly false, that he should not need to disprove it. But suppose for a little while, that the refuters, and the rest of the challengers conceit were true, that there were no Bishops but parishional, and that the Presbyters joined to them were lay elders: it would then be known, when the pastoral charge was void, who did ordain the new Bishop or Pastor. You will say, that is already defined. It is one of the main positions which the great challengers have offered to prove, that every parish hath within itself authority to elect, ordain depose, and deprive their Minister: Not that the whole parish doth ordain, but only the Presbytery. Very good: this than is the effect of the new Disciplinarians conceit, that the power of ordination belongeth ordinarily neither to Bishops, nor to other ministers, but to their Presbytery consisting of lay elders. But if they can prove by any one approved example, that lay elders had ever, or at any time, right to ordain, or to impose hands, I will yield in the whole cause.  
My second proof he hath perverted, 
My second proof.  proportioning it to his own strength: for he should have framed it thus.  
If the power of ordination were not in the Presbyters of Ephesus and Crect, neither before Timothe and Titus were sent, but in the Apostles; nor after, but in the Bishops (that is to say, in Timothe and Titus, and their successors); then the power of ordination is a prerogative peculiar to Bishops, wherein they are superior to other ministers.  
But both the parts of the antecedent are true: therefore the consequent.  
The former part of the antecedent I prove by Paul's substituting Timothe at Ephesus, and Titus in Crect, to that end, that they might ordain elders; notwithstanding that there were diverse Presbyters in both those Churches before. Whereto he answereth, that it had been lawful for the Presbyters, and people to have ordained: but at the first, they were less fit for the purpose, than an Evangelist.  
That the people sometimes have had some stroke in election of their Bishops, I do not deny; but that they ever had any right to ordain, can never be proved. That the Presbyters had right to have done it, he should have declared. But what Presbyters doth he speak of? ministers? they I trust, if the new conceit be true, were confined each man to his own parish; neither might they intermeddle in other parishes, every parish having sufficient authority within itself: neither can it be thought, that the Presbyters of latter times should be fit, and that they which were ordained by the Apostles themselves, were not fit for the execution of their power? assuredly, if it were not fit for them to ordain, but for Timothe and Titus; by the same reason, neither is it fit for Presbyters afterwards, but for Bishops, who succeeded Timothe and Titus. If he say, the lay Presbyters and the people had right to ordain; he must first prove (which he will never be able to do) that ever there were such Presbyters; and then he must prove, that they and the people had right to ordain ministers: which when he hath performed, he may hope to prove any thing.  
The latter part of the antecedent, I prove thus: Who were the successors of Timothe and Titus for the government of Ephesus and Crect, to them after their decease was their power of ordination derived:  
The Bishops of Ephesus and Crect were the successessours of Timothe and Titus for the government of those Churches, and not Presbyters. Therefore to the BB. and not to the Presbyters, was the power of Ordination derived.  
Hereto he answereth that Timothe and Titus, were Evangelists, and not Bishops, and therefore that which followeth, of deriving their authority, to their successors, is merely idle. Thus no part of my syllogism is answered, unless it be the conclusion. But to answer his reason, whereby he goeth about, 〈◊〉 cl●●● pel●ere: their being Evangelists, whiles they attended the Apostle in his peregrinations, and were not deputed to any one place, doth not hinder, but that they might be and were Bishops, (as all antiquity with one consent testifieth) when they were assigned to certain Churches. Neither is it greatly material, as touching the force of this argument, whether they were Evangelists, or Bishops: seeing the power which they had of ordination and jurisdiction, was not to die with them; but to be transmitted to them, who should succeed them in the government of the Church. Now that the Bishops of Ephesus and Crect, and so of all other Churches, did succeed Timothe and Titus, and other Apostolical men, who were the first governors of the Churches; is a most certain truth, as the singular succession of Bishops in those Churches from the Apostles times, doth inevitably evince. But hereof I shall have better occasion hereafter to speak. Now that the Presbyters were not their successors, it is evident: for they had the selfsame authority (and no greater) under the Bishops, who were successors to Timothe and Titus, which before they had under them. For they which had no other authority after them, than they had under them, could not be their successors.  (Serm Sect. 7. p. 37. They object 1. Tim. 4.14 Neglect not the gift which is in thee, which was given thee by imposition of hands of the Presbytery etc. to ex authoritate pag. 39) 
MY answer to this testimony out of 1. Tim. 4. is, 
§. 7. Their objection out of 1. Tim. 4 14. answered. Ad pag. 93.  That howsoever the Presbyterians do upon this place especially build the authority of their pretended Presbyteries, yet this text maketh not for them.  
That it maketh not for them, I prove by this reason.  
If there be but two expositions which are given of the word Presbytery, neither whereof doth favour their presbyteries; then the authority of their Presbyteries cannot be concluded out of this place. But neither of the two expositions do favour their Presbyteries:  
Therefore their authority cannot be concluded hence.  
The exceptions which he taketh against this answer are very frivolous. As first , that how many expositions soever any text in the conceit of men may admit, the holy ghost except by way of allegory intendeth but one. Be it so: but yet there may be question, which of the diverse expositions which be given, is the sense of the holy Ghost: unless that must needs be always the meaning of the holy Ghost, which the refuter fancieth. For my part, I did not take upon me to determine, whether sense is the more likely: It was sufficient for me, that whereas there be but these two expositions which are or can be given, neither of both maketh for the pretended Presbyteries. His first exception therefore is to no purpose.  
Now that the former exposition understanding by Presbyterium the Priesthood or office of a Presbyter, maketh nothing for their Presbyteries, it is more than evident. And that this exposition, which so plainly defeateth their Presbyteries, is very probable; I show first, because the word is in that sense oft used, though not in the new testament, yet in greek writers of the Church. It sufficeth the Refuter, that it is not used in that sense in any other place of Scripture: and yet himself saying that the word is no where's else used in all the Scriptures, doth as much prejudge his own exposition, as this. How be it I do not deny, but the word is else where used in the Scriptures; only this I say, that there is no other place, wherein it can be drawn to signify the Christian Presbytery, meaning either the company of Presbyters, or the office of a Presbyter. This then being the only place where it is so used, we must not expect parallel places in the Scripture to confirm either sense. Secondly I show that this may be the sense, because not only diverse in former times as Jerome, Primasius, Anselmus, Haymo, Lyra, but Calvin also do so expound it. To this his answer is worse than frivolous, that though these writers do so expound it, yet Doctor Bilson doth not say that therefore it may be so understood. And why so I pray you? because he confesseth that chrysostom, Theodoret and other Grecians expound it of the persons which did ordain, not of the function whereto Timothe was ordained. Doth not Doctor Bilson say it may be so understood, when more than once he mentioneth it as one of the received expositions of that place, approved by Calvin himself the chief patron (for I must not say founder) of the Presbyterian Discipline? neither doth his relating of Chrysostom's exposition prove that he rejecteth the other; no more, than his alleging of Ieromes interpretation doth argue, that he refuseth that of Chrysostom's: but reciting both 
a Pag. 129.252  indifferently he referreth it to the Readers choice whither to embrace.  
But let us hear how the Refuter confuteth this interpretation. 
§. 8. The former exposition, of Presbyterium, viz. that it may signify the office of a Presbyter, defended.  The exposition of Jerome, Primasius, Anselm; Haymo is not to be rested upon; because where Paul saith the grace given by Prophecy, they say, the grace of Prophecy, plainly mistaking the Apostle: as who should say, because they mistook the meaning of the word Prophecy, therefore they erred in expounding the word Presbytery, by which reason we may argue that he which mistaketh some one thing, understadeth nothing aright. What if the refuter himself doth mistake? for it is not all one to say the gift given 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Prophecy, and according to former Prophecies, as he expoundeth it. But by Prophecy, is, by the Revelation and Direction of the holy Ghost; whereby the Bishops, who were ordained by the Apostles, were designed and chosen. But what if they did not mistake? might not they mean by the gift of Prophecy, the gift which was given by Prophecy? yea, was not the gift of Prophesying, and preaching aright, which Paul exhorteth him not to neglect (for he continueth the exhortation begun in the words going before 
b 2. Tim. 4.13.  attend to reading, exhortation and Doctrine) the gift which was given him by Prophecy at his ordination? Certes, Bullinger thinketh the words may so be understood. Donun quod tibi delegatum est ad prophet andum. and this is all which Jerome saith, Prophetiae gratiam habebat tum ordinatione Episcopatus. But what if some of them did not call it the grace of Prophecy? Anselmus hath no such words, but calleth it gratiam Episcopalis of●icij, which by prophecy was given him at his ordination. But be it, that their exposition were not to be rested in, because of their other mistaking; what is this to Lyras and Caluins exposition, which is the same? What more? The three last, Anselmus, Haymo, and Lyra follow Jerome hand over head: For though they expound the word of the office, yet they read it not Presbyterij, but Presbyteri. But was not this exception taken hand over head, and at all adventures? did not Anselmus read Presbyterij? let his own words testify: For first, he readeth Paul's words thus: Quae gr●tia est data tibi per propheliam, cum impositione manuum Presbyterij; and then expoundeth them after this manner 
c Anselm. in 1. Tim. 4.14. : He speaketh of that imposition of hands, which was used at his ordination; which imposition of hands was Presbyterij, of the Presbytery, or Priesthood; and then giveth two reasons of the word, either because by this imposition he received the Presbytery, that is the office of a Bishop; for a Bishop is often called Presbyter by the Apostles, and likewise a Presbyter is called a Bishop: or because it was the imposition of the hands of a Presbyter, that is Paul 
d 2. Tim. 1.6. , who imposed hands upon him: for so Peter and john call themselves in their Epistles. So that he readeth Presbyterij; though in one of his explanations he expoundeth it, as if the Apostle by Presbyterij, did mean Presbyteri. The ordinary gloss indeed readeth Presbyteri, but so doth not Lyra: For expounding the word, he saith, Est autem Presbyterium, the Presbytery is the dignity or office of a Presbyter, & accipitur hic Presbyterium pro Episcopatu and Presbytery or Priesthood here is taken for the office of a Bishop. Thus you see how faithfully he hath dealt with these authors. It may be he will deal more truly with Calvin. For whereas I allege his judgement in his Institutions, understanding Paul, not as if he spoke of the College of Seniors, but of the ordination itself: as if he had said; Endeavour that the grace which by imposition of hands thou didst receive when I made thee Presbyter, be not in vain: he saith thus, that Calvin in his former writings, leaved to that sense of the word, I deny not: but in his latter times, and namely in his Commentary on that place, though he say that exposition is not much 
e 
Much is foisted in by the Refuter.  
Calvin saith, Non malè. Ad pag. 49.   amiss, yet he affirmeth, that they which understand it of the College of Presbyters, in his judgement think rightly of it. Which answer consisteth of forged cavillations. For first he would make the Reader believe, that Calvin's judgement in his Institutions, is the opinion of his younger head, and that his judgement in his Commentary is to be preferred, as proceeding from riper years. It would therefore first be known, whether that edition of his Institutions, which I alleged set forth by himself, or his Commentaries on the Epistle to Timothy, be the latter. Is it not evident that he wrote that Commentary in King Edward's time, whiles the Duke of Somerset was living? Whereas that edition of his Institutions, was set forth by him in the time of Queen Elizabeth. Again, where Calvin's judgement seemeth to vary, who doubteth but that is to be esteemed his settled judgement wherein he rested, which is set down in the Jnstitutions, whereunto himself doth refer his Reader for this purpose: being indeed a most accurate and elaborate work, often reviewed, and polished by him? And therefore though the first draft of his Institutions was made in his younger days, which in process of time he did by little and little bring to perfection; yet the last edition much differing from the first, is as it were his last resolution, for those things which are contained therein. Whereas therefore of the two senses, which in his Commentaries he giveth of the word Presbytery, misliking neither, he maketh choice in his Institutions of that which understandeth the office, and plainly rejecteth the other, which thereby understandeth the College of Presbyters, and that to prove, that sometimes no more than one did impose hands, which he confirmeth by the Apostles own testimony, who saith, that himself and no more did impose hands on Timothy, and that the grace which was given him, was by the imposition of Paul's hands, it cannot be denied, that Calvin's judgement wherein he rested, was, that by the Presbytery, not the College, but the office is meant.  

§. 9  But leaving other men, Refuter the is pleased to appeal to my conscience, and to appose me what governeth the genuine case, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the Presbytery. I answer, first, that it may be governed of the word gift, which trai●ction of words, the learned tongues do better bear then the English, which for the most part disposeth words according to the construction: and yet the English will bear it well enough, if the words between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gift, and Presbytery, be enclosed in a parenthesis. Neglect not the gift which was in thee (which was given thee by prophecy, with imposition of hands) of priesthood or Presbytery. But indeed Jerome, Anselm, and Calvin, and the rest, to whom I add Erasmus, understand it as governed of the words next going before, without any traiection, with imposition of hands, that is ordination of priesthood, (for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is all one even in the judgement of the Refuter) that is, when thou wast ordained Presbyter. So saith Jerome, Cum ordinations episcopatus, when thou wert ordained Bishop. Anselm; This imposition was presbyterij, of the priesthood, because by this imposition of hands (meaning ordination) he received the Presbytery, that is the office of a Bishop. I understand, saith Calvin, the ordination itself: as if he should say; the grace which by imposition of hands thou d●st receive, when I made thee Presbyter. Calum therefore understandeth it to be governed, as if it were said, Cum ordinatione Presbyteratus. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth either the Senate or company of Presbyters, which in Latin we call Presbyterium, or the office, degree, and order of a Presbyter, which we call Presbyteratus.  
Yea but the Refuter will show the absurdity of this interpretation, by laying down the order of the words in the Greek: and yet varieth not at all from the order which I myself set down. But this is but to please the simple. For he might as well require the words in Greek and Latin, to be set down in the order of construction, as to make the order of words in Greek and Latin sentences to be answerable to the English. Howbeit, this exception is against his own conceit, of the traiection of the words; it toucheth not the exposition of Jerome, Calvin, and the rest, which is without traiection.  
In his conclusion, where he bids me forbear to blear the eyes of the Readers with an exposition against reason, and mine own conscience; he wrongeth me egregiously, and not me alone, but all the Authors whom I alleged. For first, I did not deliver this as my exposition, but faithfully recited the interpretation given by these Authors. Secondly, if I had rested in this interpretation, as I did not, (though I see no reason why I may not) why should it be counted against reason, and against conscience in me, which I received from so approved Authors? But what a contumely is this to Jerome, Calvin, and the rest, whose exposition it is, warranted by the testimony of Paul, to say, they blear the eyes of their Readers with an exposition against reason, and their own conscience? I wish the Refuter, unless his judgement were better, to forbear to condemn other men's expositions, as void of reason: and unless his knowledge were greater, not to measure other men's conscience by his own. For that which is against his conscience, as not being within the compass of his science may be agreeable to the science, and consceince of them, who have more knowledge and better judgements. But if he would needs censure Calvin's exposition as void of reason, why did he not answer Calvin's reason, grounded on the authority of Saint Paul? For if Timothy were ordained by a Presbytery▪ than undoubtedly by more than one; But Paul (saith Calvin 
a C●lu. In●li●. lib. 4. cap 3. in fine. ) in another place saith, that he, and not any more imposed hands on Timothy: 2. Tim 1 6.  
And so much might suffice for the former exposition, saving that by way of advantage, something is to be added out of Erasmus 
b E●asm. in 1. Tim. 4.14. ; who also understanding the word Presbytery, of the office, giveth notwithstanding another sense: This Paul saith, Thou hast not only the gift of prophecy, but also the efficacy by imposition of hands, to give the spirit also to others, and that by the office of thy priesthood, namely, as thou art Bishop. And to this interpretation he was led by force of the Greek preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth with, not as an instrument, but as a companion. And this may seem to have been 
c Ambros. in 1. Tim. 4.  Ambrose his judgement also, that Paul gratiam dari ordinatoris significat, signifieth the grace of an ordainer to be given. Which sense if we follow, this place maketh wholly for the Bishop's authority in ordaining, this being the sense of the Apostle, that Timothy had received the gift of the ministry together with power to impose hands on others, by virtue of his office, as he was Bishop.  
The latter exposition is of them, who understand the word Presbytery, 
§. 10. The second exposition maketh not for the Disciplinarians.  collectiuè, for a Senate or company of men. In which sense, though the word receiveth from divers learned men, a threefold interpretation; yet in none doth it either favour the Disciplinarians Presbytery, or prejudge the superiority of Bishops in the power of ordination.  
For some by Presbytery, understand the Apostle, as speaking of himself by a synecdoche, led thereunto by the Apostles testimony in the place 
d 2. Tim. 1.6.  before cited, where he exhorteth Timothy to stir up the grace which was in him by imposition, saith he, of my hands. And this is one of Anselmus his expositions, with whom Dionysius Carthus. agreeth, joining both his expositions in one: Manuum Presbyterij, saith he, i. manuum meaerum, that is, of my hands who did ordain the● Bishop. By which imposition, the Presbytery or priesthood was conferred upon thee. So that in their judgement (wherewith Calvin also agreeth) none but Paul did impose hands in the ordination of Timothy. The second interpretation is of the Greek Fathers, chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, and Oecumenous, who expounding the word collectiuè, do understand a senate or company of Apostles and Apostolical men, who were either Bishops, or more than Bishops. Chrysostom's words be these 
e Chrys. in 1. Tim. 4. , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the Presbytery: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: He doth not speak here of Presbyters, but of Bishops: for surely Presbyters did not ordain a Bishop. Oecumenium 
f Oc●um. in 1. Tim. 4.  hath the like words; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theophylact 
g Theophylact. in 1. Tim. 4. ; Of the Presbytery, that is, of Bishops. Theodoret 
h Theodor. in 1. Tim. 4. ; He calleth them here the Presbytery, who had received Apostolical grace. Neither doth any Writer that I know of, before our age, understanding the word collectiuè, for a company, expound it otherwise: but conceiving Timothy to have been ordained Bishop by the company of Apostolical men, who either were Bishops, or more than Bishops. Now we do not deny, but that divers Bishops are to concur in the ordination of a Bishop. But that hindereth not, but that Presbyters and Deacons may be ordained by one. So are we taught in the two first canons 
i Can. Apost. 1. & 2.  called Apostolical. Let a Bishop be ordained of two or three Bishops. Let a Presbyter be ordained by one Bishop, likewise a Deacon and the rest of the clergy. This exposition therefore defeating their pretended Presbytery, is so far from derogating from the superiority of BB. in ordaining, as that it plainly proveth it, because the ordination of BB. wherewith Presbyters have nothing to do, belongeth to BB.  
The third exposition is of Beza, and some other new Writers, who by Presbytery, understand the order of Presbyters. By which name, saith Beza 
k Beza in 1. Tim. 4. , that whole company is signified, which did labour in the word in that Church, where this was done. Neither will I reject this exposition, though it be new, being understood of Timothy, his ordination to be a Presbyter; so that they will not deny that which Paul affirmeth, that himself was so principal a man in this company, as that he doubteth not to say, that the grace which was given by the imposition of hands of the Presbytery 
l 1. Tim. 1.14. , was given by the imposition of 
m 2. Tim. 1.6.  his hands. Which showeth, that if any Presbyters did join with Paul, it was no otherwise then as they use to do with BB. by the Canon 
n Conc. Carth. 4. c. 3.  of the fourth Council of Carthage, and by the discipline and order 
o In the book of ordaining Priests it is appointed, that the B. with the Priests present, shall lay their hands on the head of him that is ordained.  of our Church. And this answereth the first thing which the Refuter inferreth upon this exposition, that if Presbytery signify a company of seniors, as it must (for I tell you his word must stand for law) than it will follow that the power of ordination was not in one man's hand alone. For though that alone be of his own adding, yet it is plain, that Paul and ancient BB. had this power as much alone, as our Bishops.  
Where I say, this place maketh nothing either for their parish Presbyteries, or lay Presbyteries whatsoever, he saith, 
§ 11.  It skilleth not now what Presbytery this was. Belike than it skilleth not, what becometh of the main pillar of your Discipline, so you can make any poor shift to maintain the point which presently is in hand. But if this be the only place of scripture, which mentioneth a Christian Presbytery, on which also the Disciplinarians do principally build the authority of their pretended Presbyteries, it maketh not a little (me thinks) for the justifying of our cause, that it maketh not at all for their Presbyteries; which (by the confession 
p Calu. Instit. lib. 4. cap 3. § 16. Hoc posiremò habondum est, filos pastore● manus imposuisse Ministris.  of Calvin) have no right to impose hands. Neither can it be denied, but that it is sacrilegious usurpation, and horrible intrusion upon the right of the Ministry, if lay men shalt take upon them to ordain by imposition of hands. Besides, it skilleth something, that the Greek Fathers understand by Presbytery, a company of Bishops: which, as it proveth the Prerogative of BB. in the ordaining of BB. so doth it not impeach their superiority in ordaining Ministers. And where he maketh 〈◊〉 say, they were no Presbyters; he mistaketh the matter, unless he understand mere, or onely-Presbyters. For BB and Apostolical men, yea the Apostles themselves were Presbyters, and so call themselves; but they were not bare, or onely-Presbyters, as those be which are not Bishops. But if they were not Presbyters, saith he, than was the Apostle to blame to call them so. If the word be understood collectiuè, he calleth the company of them which imposed hands on Timothy, the Presbytery. And forasmuch as not only inferior Ministers, but Bishops and Apostles are called Presbyters, it being a common name to all Ministers of the word and sacraments, it should not seem strange that a company or senate of Bishops, or Apostolical men, should be called a Presbytery. Now that they were not mere Presbyters, the Fathers prove: Because Presbyters might not ordain a Bishop: neque enim fas erat, saith Ambrose 
q In 1. Tim. 3. , nec licebat, ut inferior ordinaret maiorem. Neither was Timothy any, saith he. Bluntly and peremptorily spoken. But the Fathers that before I mentioned, take it for granted: and it is the general consent of all the ancient Fathers, as we shall hear; the authority of some one whereof, in a matter of fact, aught to overweigh the whole nation of Disciplinarians contradicting the same.  
In fine, distrusting this burrow, he flieth to his old starting hole, out of which he hath been so often ferretted: that the Fathers spoke only of their own times, which is nothing to the ordaining of Ministers in the Apostles times, almost four hundred years before them. The absurdity of which evasion, the Reader may easily discern, if he will but call to mind what were the Greek. Father's words before cited, and upon what occasion they were uttered. 
Chrys. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  He speaketh here, saith chrysostom and Occumenius, 
O●cum. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  not of Presbyters but of Bishops. For Presbyters did not ordain Bishops. Is it not most plain, that they speak of the Apostles time? And were it not absurd to understand them thus, Paul by the Presbytery which ordained Timothy, understandeth Bishops, and not Presbyters; because howsoever in those times Presbyters might ordain, yet in our times they cannot?  
But let me ask the Refuter this question: Seeing it is agreed upon by all, that Paul here speaketh of Timothy his ordination: to what function he thinketh he was ordained? If to be a Presbyter, or Pastor, as Calvin saith, or to be a Bishop, as all the Fathers acknowledge, than was he not only ordained to an ordinary function in the Church, but also assigned to a particular Church, whereof he was made Pastor, as Calvin speaketh, or Bishop, as the Fathers affirm. But that his last ordination, whereof the Apostle speaketh, was not to the degree of a Presbyter, but of a Bishop, appeareth by the whole Epistle; wherein his singularity of pre-eminence over Presbyters, and superiority in power both for ordination and jurisdiction, is presupposed. If he say, that he was ordained to be an Evangelist, to omit the singularity & the novelty of the conceit; it would be known what Presbytery this was, that imposed hands on Timothy. Had the Presbytery of any parish (such as our Disciplinarians dream of, consisting for the most part of laymen) or the Presbytery of any particular Church, though consisting wholly of Ministers, authority by imposition of hands to ordain an extraordinary function, and that to be exercised in other parts of the world, where themselves had nothing to do?  (Serm. sect. 8. page 39 Yea but the Council of Carthage (say they) committeth authority of imposing hands to Presbyters, 
The objection out of Conc. Carth. 4. answered.  etc. to the end of page 44) 
Here the Refuter meaning to make short work, having little to say, hath made a long section, which he might better have divided into three. For three divers things are here performed. The first, an answer to the objection our of the fourth Council of Carthage. The second, a new supply of proofs for the superiority of BB. in the power of ordination. Thirdly a prevention of popish cavils, in favour of some reformed Churches, where the Presbyterian discipline is established.  
As touching the first, the Refuter saith, that canon may serve to show, 
Ad pag 95.  that the Fathers of this Council thought it not fit, no not to leave ordination to the Bishop alone. But because he perceiveth, by that which I answered, that that Canon, though greatly urged by the Disciplinarians, maketh nothing against the superiority of BB. in ordaining, and that it agreeth with the discipline of our Church, and consequently convicteth him of untrue dealing: (seeing he ●udgeth, that BB. by that canon have not sole authority of ordaining, and yet will make his Reader believe, that I defend their sole power of ordaining: which by the discipline of our Church, is no more sole in our BB. then it was by that canon in the BB. of Africa:) for these causes, I say, he refuseth to urge this canon: though he pretend, he will neither trouble the Reader, nor himself about the examining of it; because, forsooth, it cometh not near the time in question. Perhaps his conscience told him, that he knew of no testimony nor example of the Presbyters concurrence with the B. in ordination, before that time: and that in the foresaid Council, their assistance to the B. in ordaining, was first ordained: which if it did, as worthily it might, than had he no reason to urge that canon to prove the practice of the Church in the first two hundred years in a particular, which by that canon was first appointed.  
Having thus removed their two main objections which stood in my way, 
§. 13. Other arguments proving the BB. right in ordaining.  I proceeded in the proof of my former assertion, that the right of ordination was in the judgement of the ancient Church appropriated to BB. As first, that the Counsels and Fathers speak of the ordainer as of one, and consequently presuppose the right of ordaining to be in one, which I proved by four testimonies. This reason, because the Refuter did not well see how to answer, he passeth by it, as if he had not seen it. To make it therefore more conspicuous, I will enlarge it; affirming, that both Scriptures, Counsels, and Fathers speak of the ordainer as of one. Timothy was ordained by the imposition of Paul's 
a 2. Tim. 1.6.  hands. Paul left Titus 
b Tit. 1.5.  in Crect, that he should ordain Presbyters, and chargeth Timothy 
c 1. Tim. 5.22.  that he should not lay hands hastily on any man, etc.  
The Canon 
d C. 2.  called the Apostles, appointeth that a Presbyter, and so a Deacon, be ordained of one. The Council of Antioch 
e C. 9  acknowledgeth every Bishop within his own diocese, to have authority to ordain Presbyters and Deacons. The Council of Africa 
f Afr. c. 22. & Carth. graec. c. 45. : 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one Bishop may ordain many Presbyters. The Council of Hispalis 
g Hispal. 2. c. 6.  or Civil; A Bishop alone may give to Priests and Deacons their honour.  
chrysostom 
h De Sacerd.  describeth the Bishop by this property, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he that is to ordain us. The people of Hippo 
i Possidon. de vitae Aug. c. 4.  wanting a Presbyter, lay hold on Augustine, and as it was wont to be done, bring him to Valerius the Bishop, desiring him to ordain him. To these add the penalty inflicted upon the B. alone, when any ordination was irregular. Sozomen 
k Soz l. 4. c. 24.  reporteth, that Elpidius, Eustathius, Basilius of Ancyra, Eleusius, among other faults objected against them, were deposed, because every of them had ordained contrary to law. The aforesaid Council of Carthage decreeth, 
l Conc. Carth. 4. c. 68.69. distinct. 50. ex poe●itentib.  that if a B. wittingly ordain a penitent, he shall be deprived of the power of his Bishopric, at least from the power of ordaining. And to the like penalty doth it subject a Bishop, who shall ordain such a one, as hath married her that is divorced, etc. But you shall never read, that the Presbyters were found fault with for unlawful ordinations, unless that any of them did encroach upon the Bishop's right in ordaining: which is a plain evidence, that the power of ordaining was in the B. and not in the Presbyters. When Epiphanius being at Constantinople 
m Socr. l. 6. c. 23.14.  ordained a Deacon, he was blamed as offending against the Canons, not because he wanted the presence of his Presbytery, but because he did it in Chrysostom's diocese.  

§. 14.  Secondly, that the power of ordination was peculiar to the Bishop in the judgement of the Fathers, I prove first by the authority of Counsels: then, by the testimonies of Epiphanius and Jerome. To the former he answereth; It is to no purpose to meddle with these allegations out of the Counsels, which were well nigh three hundred years after the Apostles times, and some of them such, as deserve neither imitation, nor approbation. Here let the Christian Reader judge what credit he deserveth, that so contemptuously shaketh off the authority of ancient Counsels, even the second among the four ancient general Counsels, which are and have been from time to time received in the Church 
n Gregor. mag. l. 1. epist. 24. Sicut evangelii 4. libros sic 4. concilia suscipere & venera●i mef●teor. Dist. 15. c. sicut. , as it were four Gospels. But let us examine the particulars, & consider whether they deserved to be so lightly rejected. The first testimony was taken out of an Epistle 
o A●hana. apol. 2. in epist. ●resh. & diacon. Mareot. ad Curios & Philagr. praefect. Aegyp●i.  written by the Presbyters and Deacons of Mareot, in the behalf of Athanasius the Great, their Bishop, who was accused, for that by his appointment Macarius had disturbed one Ischyras, a pretended Presbyter in the administration of the Communion, and had broken the sacred cup. They testify these things to be false, and among the rest they deny, that Ischyras was a Presbyter, because he was ordained of Colluthus, the Presbyter, who was but an imaginary, or 
p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  fantastical Bishop; and afterwards by a general Council 
q This seemeth to have been the general Council of Sardica, which was not two hundred fifty years after the Apostles times. , to wit, by Osius and the BB. who were with him, commanded to remain a Presbyter, as he had been before. For which cause, all that were ordained of Colluthus, among whom was Ischyras, returned to their former place and order. The like is testified by the Synod of Alexandria 
r Epist. Synod. Alex. in Apol. 2. Athanas. , which denieth that Ischyras could be ordained Presbyter by Colluthus, seeing Colluthus himself died a Presbyter, and all his ordinations were reversed, and all 
s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that were ordained by him were held as lay men. Hereunto we may add another most pregnant testimony, expressed in the acts of the same general Council of Sardica 
t Vid. Balsam. in Co●c Sard●c. c. 18.19. & editionis Tilianae c. 20. , wherein it was decreed, that forsomuch as Musaeus and Eutychianus were not ordained Bishops, that therefore such Clerks as they had ordained should be held as lay men.  
My second testimony is out of the second general Council 
u Constantinop. ●. c. 4. Graec. & 6. L●t. Balsam. in Conc. Const. 1. c 4. , concerning Maximus, who being by birth an Alexandrian, & by profession a Cynic Philosopher, before he was converted to Christianity, and received into the Clergy by Gregory the Divine, against whom he ambitiously sought the Bishopric of Constantinople, bribing the BB. of Egypt: Who being come to Constantinople, and excluded out of the Church, went into a certain minstrels house, and there unlawfully chose Maximus the Cynic to be Bishop of Constantinople. The general Council therefore assembled at Constantinople, determineth thus concerning Maximus; that he neither was, nor is a Bishop, neither 
* Soz. l. 7 c. 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  they Clerks who had been ordained by him, in what degree so ever of the Clergy. And to this I will adjoin another testimony out of the fourth general Council 
g Conc. Chalc. act. 11. , where Bassianus who had been Bishop of Ephesus, and now sought to recover it, alleged for himself, that if he were not Bishop, than were not they clerks which had been ordained by him.  
Neither were ordinary Presbyters alone forbidden to ordain, 
§. 15. Chorepiscopi forbidden to ordain.  but Chorepiscopi also, that is, country BB. sometimes were restrained, and sometimes forbidden altogether to ordain Presbyters and Deacons. Restrained, whiles there were such as had received episcopal ordination, that they might not ordain without the leave of the Bishop of the City, whereunto both the Chorepiscopus himself, and his Country is subject. Forbidden altogether, when they ceased to have episcopal ordination, and were ordained, as other Presbyters by the B. of the City alone.  
It seemeth to me, that Chorepiscopi, until the Council of Antioch, had sometimes episcopal ordination, being ordained by two or three Bishops. And therefore to the Council of Neocaesaria, and Nice, they subscribed among other BB But forasmuch as they being but (for matters of less importance) vicegerents in the Country to the Bishop of the diocese, whose seat was in the City, being after the manner 
y Conc. Neecaes. c. 13.  of the seventy disciples, Presbyters rather than BB. did encroach upon the bishops rights and prerogatives, not knowing their own measure; therefore they were restrained, as in other matters of importance: so in ordinations, to do nothing without the leave of the Bishop. Thus the ancient 
z Which was before the Council of Nice, and was within little more than 200. years after the Apostles times.  Council of Ancyra determined; That it was not lawful 
a C. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , that Country Bishops should ordain Presbyters, or Deacons, unless 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  they had leave granted unto them by the Bishop, with his letters: for so Theod. Balsam. expoundeth that Canon; the Fathers of this Synod determine, that the Country Bishop may not ordain Presbyters or Deacons, without the letters of the Bishop.  
The Council of Antioch thus 
c C. 10. : It seemeth good to the holy Synod, that those which are placed in villages, and country Towns called Countrey-Bishops 
d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , although they have received the ordination of BB. should know their own measures, and administer the Church's subject to them, and content themselves with the charge and care of them, and to ordain Readers, Subdeacons', and Exorcists, and to content themselves with preferring of them. But that they should 
e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  not presume to ordain a Presbyter or a Deacon without the Bishop in the city, whereunto both himself and his country is subject. If any shall dare to transgress this definition, he shall be deposed from that honour which he hath; and that the country Bishop should be made of the B. in the city, whereto he is subject. Which last clause (as I suppose) was added, to take from them that colourable pretence, whereupon they had presumed before to ordain Presbyters, and Deacons; viz. because they had Episcopal ordination by the Metropolitan, and two or three other BB. To prevent this, the Council decreeth, that from that time forward, they should be ordained, not as other BB. by the Metropolitan, and two, or three other Bishops; but as other Presbyters, by the Bishop of the city: and so having not so much as an Episcopal ordination, to make them (as they were before) titular Bishops, they might acknowledge themselves to have no right of ordination of Presbyters, and Deacons. Harmenopulus 
f Tit. 9 the Chorepiscop.  in his abridgement of the Canons, setteth this down as the sum of both these Canons, 13. Ancyr. and 10. Antioch. Let not a Country Bishop ordain a Presbyter or Deacon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the licence of the Bishop.  
To the like purpose the Council of Laodicea 
g Conc. Laod. c. 56.  determined, that Bishops may not be ordained in villages, and Country towns, 
h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so it is in ●alsam and some manuscripts.  but visitors: and that those which were before ordained, may do nothing 
i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  without the consent of the Bishop in the city. By these two Councils therefore, as Episcopal ordination for the time to come was denied to the Country Bishops, so also power of ordaining Presbyters, and Deacons. To the same purpose I quoted 
k Damas. Epist▪ 4. De Chorepiscop.  Damasus, and Leo, who prove, that Chorepiscopi were not indeed Bishops, but Presbyters; and therefore had no right to ordain Presbyters, and Deacons. Chorepiscopi, saith, Leo, 
l Leo Epist. BB.  according to the Canons of Neocaesaria, and decrees of other Fathers, are the same with Presbyters, bearing the figure of the sons of Aaron, and being after the manner of the 70. Disciples. And although in respect of the ministery they have a common dispensation with Bishops, notwithstanding some things are forbidden them by the authority of the old law, some of the new, and by Ecclesiastical Canons, as the consecration of Presbyters, and Deacons, etc. And to his sentence the Council of 
m Hispal. 2 c. 7.  Hispalis subscribed. Basil likewise plainly signified to the Chorepiscopi, that if any without his appointment were received into the ministery, he should be held for a lay man.  
These testimonies plainly evince, that in the primitive Church the power of ordination was so in Bishops; as that either themselves did ordain, or if this power were communicated to others, it was by leave and permission from them. And little reason had the refuter so lightly to esteem these testimonies, as being under age. For unless he be able to show, that in the first 200. years the Presbyters either had de iure the power to ordain, or that de facto they did use to ordain, which he will never be able to show; the worst of these testimonies for the Bishops, is of more worth than all that he shall be able to say against them. Let him produce, if he can, any one testimony of Scripture, any one sentence out of Councils, Histories or Fathers, proving that Presbyters without a Bishop had right to ordain, and I will yield to him. But he doth not go about by sound learning and evidence of truth to refel my assertions, which indeed he cannot do; but by unlearned shifts, and sophistiall cavillations, to elude them, as he can; either not doubting, but such refutations would serve his turn to retain the people in their preconceived alienation from Bishops, or else hoping, that I would not vouchsafe him an answer.  
But to return to my proofs: 
§. 16. The Canon of the Council of Civil.  For one there remaineth yet out of the Councils; showing, that in ancient times, they were so far from permitting Presbyters without a Bishop to ordain, that 
n Conc. Hispa●. 2. c. 5. Dist. 23. c. 14.  when as a certain Bishop in the ordination of one Presbyter and two Deacons used only the help of a Presbyter to read the words of consecration, and to bless them, himself laying on his hands, but being not able for the pain of his eyes to read; the Council of Hispalis reversed the ordination, as unlawful. This is the Council, which the refuter judged to deserve neither imitation, nor approbation: by which censure of this one, though he durst not give it of any of the forenamed Councils; yet it being indefinitely propounded, he discrediteth the rest with the unlearned, who are not able to distinguish. But let us hear more particularly his grave censure of this Council; What a toy was it for the Council of Civil in Spain, to reverse the ordination etc. What a boy is this (might these Fathers say) that presumeth thus to censure us? was not Isidor the Archbishop of Civil, the precedent of this Council, and author of these Canons, one of the most learned writers which have been in the Church within this 1000 years 
o See Cent. 7▪ 51▪ 2.  with whom this Refuter for learning is not to be named the same day? was not this Council held against the Heretics called Acephali, & did it not learnedly and judiciously confute them? did these grave father's toy, when by grave censures they sought to preserve the discipline, and canons of the Church, to maintain the lawful authority of BB. and to prevent the presumptuous usurpation of Presbyters, contrary to the Canons of the Church? had not the ancient council of Orange 
p Conc. Arausican. c. 29.  decreed, That if any Bishop should by any infirmity or weakness, either fall into the dullness of his senses (as this Bishop did) or lose the faculty of speech, he should not suffer Presbyters (as this Bishop also did) under his presence, to do those things which are not done, but by Bishops; but that he should call for a Bishop, to whom he may commit that which is to be done in the Church? But if we must talk of toys, what a toy was this, that (all these things which I have alleged, being duly considered) divers of our disciplinarian Ministers have renounced their ordination, which they had received from a Bishop, that they might be ordained by such as themselves?  
And thus you have heard, how easily he hath answered the Councils, by vouchsafing them no answer.  
Now let us weigh his answers to the testimonies of Ephiphanius and Jerome. 
§. 17. The testimonies of Epiphanius and Jerome.  His common answer to both, is such, as unlearned, yet obstinate Papists use to give; that though they cannot tell how to answer our arguments, yet there be learned men which can. There be Lectures of the par●●ie of Ministers one day to be published, which will show the weakness of Epiphanius his reasons; and there is another learned man that hath answered the allegation out of Jerome. Why, but hath the Refuter no answers of his own, that he referreth us thus to other men? yes no doubt; such answers as his are never to seek. First, he wrangleth with Ephiphanius, and then with me for alleging him. He telleth Epiphanius, that he beggeth the question. Alas good man, he wanted the Refuters acumen in disputing. And what was the question I pray you? was it not the same which is now between you and us, whether Bishops and other Ministers be equal, as Aërius held? This assertion of Aërius, Ephiphanius disproveth by two main arguments, as I do yours; proving that BB. are superior to other Presbyters, both in the power of ordination, and jurisdiction. His former argument may thus be concluded. 
Epiph. haeres. 75.   
That order, which hath power by ordination to beget Fathers to the Church, is superior to that which hath not that power.  
The order of Bishops hath power by ordination, to beget Fathers to the Church, which the order of Presbyters is not able to do:  
Therefore the order of Bishops, is superior to the order of Presbyters.  
Call you this begging of the question? Yea, but Aërius denied, that Bishops had power more than Presbyters, to beget Fathers. How is this proved? he said they were equal. It followeth not. Aerius being a giddy-headed fellow, because he perceived the Presbyters to do the same things, that the Bishops did in some particulars; by an insufficient enumeration or induction, concludeth, that therefore there was no difference between them. The parts of Aërius his induction concern the superiority and pre-eminence of the ministery in general above the people, noting those things which be common to Bishops, with other ministers, as their imposing hands on the penitent, their giving of Baptism, their executing of Divine service, their sitting in the chair or pulpit to instruct the people; but considered not the respect which was between the Bishop and the Presbyters themselves. Epiphanius therefore showeth, that although it were true, that Bishops and Presbyters did the same things, which argue their pre-eminence in common above the Laity: yet this hindereth not, but that Bishops were superior to the Presbyters: and this Epiphanius proveth by two instances, which Aërius himself could not deny: because the Bishops were ordainers of the Presbyters, having the power of ordination of Presbyters and Deacons, which Presbyters had not; the second, because the Bishops were also governors and judges over Presbyters. The Refuter therefore should rather have suspected the shallowness of his own judgement, then have laid such an imputation upon Epiphanius.  

§ 18. Epiphanius, his reason defended.  What then doth he answer to Epiphanius his syllogism? He denieth in effect, though perhaps he intent not so much, both the proposition, and the assumption: and first the assumption. For where Epiphanius saith, that Presbyters were not able to beget Fathers: he asketh, What hindereth them, but the usurpation of Bishops? In which words, two things are implied: The first, that the power of ordination, which the BB. have, is usurped by them: The second, that Presbyters have as good right to ordain as they. But you will say, how are those things proved? you must be entreated to take them upon his word: for proole he hath none: and yet can he by no means abide begging of the question. But such is the boldness of our new Disciplinarians, that they doubt not to prefer their newfangled opinions, & self-set assertions, which have no ground nor warrant in the word of God, or true reason, before the judgement and practise of all the ancient Fathers, of all the approved Councils, of all true Christian Churches of former times. We prove, that the Apostles had the right of ordaining; that this right was from them derived to their substitutes, and to their successors; to their substitutes, as to Timothe in Ephesus, and Titus in Crect, to Mark at Alexandria, to Polycarpus at Smyrna, to Euodius at Antioch, to Linus at Rome, etc. to their successors, as to Simon the son of Cleophas, the successor of Saint james at jerusalem, etc. that from these substitutes and first successors of the Apostles, the same was derived to their successors, which without all doubt were the BB. of the several Churches. And hereunto we add the general consent of the Fathers, and Councils; many of them affirming and confirming, not one, I say not one, denying the superiority of BB. in ordaining: the perpetual practise of all true Christian Churches, not one approved instance to be given to the contrary: and yet he shameth not to avouch the Bishop's right in ordaining to be but usurpation. As touching Presbyters, that they have right to ordain, we see no warrant in the word, but rather the contrary; no testimony of Fathers, no decree of Councils for it, but many testimonies and decrees against it; no approved example to warrant it; how then could he say the Presbyters have as good right to ordain as BB▪ But because he shall not carry the matter without proofs, this I will offer him; that if he can bring any one pregnant testimony or example out of the Scriptures, any approved authority or example out of the ancient Fathers, Councils or Histories of the Church, proving that the Presbyters had by and of themselves an ordinary power or right to ordain ministers, I mean Presbyters, and Deacons; I will promise to subscribe to his assertion. But if he cannot do this, as I know he cannot; then let him for shame give place unto the truth.  
Again, whereas Epiphanius in the assumption saith, that BB. beget Fathers, meaning that they have power to ordain ministers of the word, and sacraments, or as he expoundeth himself, 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  teachers; he fond cavilleth at Epiphanius words, saying, that ministers are no spiritual Fathers until they beget children unto God. Why, but their calling is to be spiritual Fathers, ordained of God to this end, that they may by the laver of regeneration & ministry of the Gospel beget children unto God▪ when Stephen said 
b Act. 7.8.  that jacob begat the twelve patriarchs, meaning those whom God appointed to be the first Fathers of the twelve Tribes; will the refuter wrangle with him, because when they were begotten, they were not Fathers? even so BB. are said to beget Fathers, because by ordination they beget such, as by the institution of their calling, and ordinance of God, are to be spiritual Fathers. 
§. 19 Ad pag. 96.   
And thus much of the assumption. The proposition also he denieth, finding great fault with me, saying, that it is a strange and fearful thing that I having so worth: he set out in my former Sermon the excellency of the ministers calling in regard of his labouring in the word, do now turn all topsey tur●●y, and prefer making of ministers before begetting souls. And to this purpose he allegeth that to beget one child unto God, is more precious then to beget a thousand Fathers to the Church, and of more comfort at the day of judgement, etc. But be of good comfort, this fault which he layeth to my charge, is but as he saith, in his poor understanding. For there be three things which show the poverty of his conceit. The first, that he thinketh I do therefore prefer the ordaining of Ministers before preaching, because I say that Bishops are superior to other ministers in the power of ordination. It seemeth he hath not learned the distinction of those three things wherein superiority consisteth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, excellency, empery, and power. The magistrate is superior to the minister, in empery, and civil authority; but the minister notwithstanding is superior to the magistrate in excellency. But the second thing doth much more show the shallowness of his conceit: he conceiveth of ministers, as having alone the power of preaching; and of Bishops, as having only the power of ordination: whereas if he had but considered that the authority of preaching is common to the Bishop with other ministers, and the Bishop in respect of his office superior in the exercise; because he may licence, and he may upon just occasion suspend this power in others (though perhaps in personal gifts the Presbyter may excel the Bishop:) he could not but have discerned the superiority of Bishops, without any disparagement to the ministery of the word; for that they being at least equal in (respect of their function) to other ministers in the power of preaching, are superior in the power of ordaining. The third, that he conceiveth Epiphanius to have made a comparison between preaching, and ordaining, which he doth not, 
Heres. 75.  but between baptizing, and ordaining. How is it possible, saith Epiphanius, that a Bishop and a Presbyter should be equal? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For the calling of Bishops is an order generative of Fathers, begetting Fathers to the Church; but the order of Presbyters being not able to beget Fathers, doth by the laver of regeneration (that is baptism) beget children to the Church, and not Fathers, verily, or teachers. And you are to mark how he speaketh of begetting Fathers and children to the Church. And who can deny, but that it is a matter of greater consequence, the begetting of a Father to the Church, then of a child? But Epiphanius his meaning was, that the Bishop having power of baptizing common to them with Presbyters, 
1. Cor. 1.  as Paul had, though he did not greatly use it, whereby they might beget children to the Church; hath also the power of ordaining, (which Presbyters have not) whereby he begetteth spiritual Fathers to the Church. And so much of Epiphanius.  
Now I come to Jerome: 
§. 20. The testimony of Jerome.  For the Refuter thinketh it very strange, that I should bring him as a patron of the Bishop's sole power in ordination. It seemeth, that the Refuter conceiveth nothing aright. I bring in Jerome in this place, not as a patron of BB. but as one, who pleading for the superiority of Presbyters above Deacons, & desiring to raise them as near as he can to BB. doth notwithstanding confess, that Bishops are superior in ordination. 
Ad evagr.  What doth a Bishop (saith he) excepting ordination, which a Presbyter may not do? To which, the Refuter having no answer of his own, entreateth another to answer for him; which done, he craketh, as if he had laid me on my back. The answer is, that Jerome speaketh of his own time. No doubt: for speaking in the present tense, whereby he signifieth actum continuum, he doth not exclude his own time. But doth he speak therefore of his own time only? or doth he signify, that there was a time since there were first Bishops, (which he confesseth, was in the time of the Apostles) when the Bishops had not this power? if this could be showed, than Jerome might be thought not to speak of the Apostles times. Nay, doth not Jerome speak as well de iure, as de facto, when he saith, What doth a Bishop etc. that is, what hath a Bishop right to do by the power of his order, which a Presbyter hath not right to do by the power of his order, only except ordination? that I confess to be above the Presbyters power. Well, and to what end doth Jerome speak this of his own time? That having showed before out of the Scriptures, and the practice of the Church at Antioch, that of old a Bishop, and a Presbyter were all one; he might see, that in his time also, there remained a proof thereof: because a Bishop then did nothing, except ordination, which a Presbyter could not do.  

The Epistle of Jerome to Eu●grius analysed.  Out of the Scriptures Jerome proveth, that in those times when the Scriptures were written, the name Episcopus, and Presbyter were confounded; because, as the name Episcopus, was given to Presbyters, Phil. 1. Act. 20. Tit. 1. So the name Presbyter, to Apostles, and Bishops: as 1. Tim. 4.14. Where Jerome understandeth, as before, by Presbyterium, Episcopatus; 1. Pet. 5.1. joan. Epist. 2. & 3. And this is Ieromes first argument that Presbyters are superior to Deacons. But hence it doth not follow, that therefore the offices of a Bishop, and Presbyter, are confounded; especially, after the institution of a Bishop. Doth Jerome think, that every Presbyter is equal in degree with Timothe, because the office of Timothe in Ieromes understanding is called Presbyterium? or that they are equal with Peter, and john, because they called themselves Presbyters? His second argument to prove the superiority of Presbyters above Deacons, is, because Bishops were chosen out of Presbyters, and by Presbyters; whereas chose, he that is chosen from among Deacons, by Deacons, is but an Archdeacon. The former part he first illustrateth by the end, which was to avoid Schism; and then proveth it by the Practice of the Church of Alexandria. In his setting down the end, he lets fall one word, which if it be not favourably expounded, will make him contradict himself, and the truth. For upon the allegation of Saint john's second and third epistle he saith, Quòd autem poste● unus electus, that one afterwards was chosen who should be set over the rest, it was provided as a remedy against Schism, lest every one drawing after him should rend the Church of Christ. What say you Jerome, were Bishops first ordained after Saint john's time? do not yourself testify that Saint james a little after the ascension of Christ was by the Apostles made Bishop of jerusalem, that Mark was Bishop of Alexandria? that ever since his time (and he died almost 40. years before Saint john) there hath been a Bishop, in a degree superior to other Presdyters? that Timothe was Bishop of Ephesus etc. That word afterwards therefore, is not to be referred to Saint john's time, but to those testimonies where he proved the name Episcopus to be given to Presbyters; which custom, as he supposeth, continued, until one of the Presbyters, being chosen from among the rest, was called Bishop: for indeed whiles Apostles or Apostolic men were made BB., BB. were called the Apostles of the Churches: But when out of the Presbyters one was chosen, he began for difference sake to be called, the Bishop, the Angel of the Church. Now that BB. were chosen out of Presbyters, and by Presbyters, he proveth by the example of the Church at Alexandria: For even at Alexandria, from Mark the Evangelist unto Heraclas and Dionysius BB. (who were not chosen from among the Presbyters) the Presbyters have always called one, chosen from among themselves, and placed in a higher degree, the Bishop: even as if an army do choose their general, or Deacons choose from among themselves one, whom they know to be industrious, and call him the Archdeacon.  
His fourth argument is this. There be many things which a Bishop by the power of his order may do, which a Deacon cannot: but there is nothing which a Bishop may do by the power of order, excepting ordination, which a Presbyter may not do. A Presbyter is therefore by so much superior to a Deacon, by how much he is nearer to the Bishop: this is the very scope of this place, and to the same are all the arguments following referred etc. the sum whereof is, that the Presbytery is a degree between the Bishops, and Deacons.  

§. 21.  You see then what Jerome proveth out of the Scriptures; not that the office, but the name of Bishop, and Presbyter were for a time confounded. Now let us see what he proveth by the practice of the Church at Antioch: he would say at Alexandria, that of old a Bishop, and a Presbyter were all one. See you not how he proveth it, when he saith, that ever since Marks time the Bishop hath been placed in a higher degree above the Presbyters? Was this to prove that a Bishop, and Presbyter are equal, or all one? or did Jerome intend any thing else, but to prove the Presbyters superior to Deacons, and that by such arguments as before I analysed? We have heard what Jerome proveth out of the Scriptures, and practise of the Church at Alexandria; now at the last, let us hear the end of his speech. That he (I know not who) might see, that in his time also there remained a proof thereof, because a Bishop even then did nothing except ordination which a Presbyter could not do. Toto coelo errat: it was not Ieromes end, to prove the Presbyter equal with the Bishop, but superior to the Deacon: For if the former had been his intent; this, and the other from the practice of Alexandria: had been very untoward arguments to prove his purpose. At Alexandria the Bishop ever since Marks time was superior to Presbyters in degree, therefore they were equal. The Bishop is superior in the power of ordination, therefore Presbyters be his equals. Hath not the Refuter now great cause, think you, to crack of this answer? was this, among all the testimonies which I alleged, chosen as most misalledged, by occasion whereof, he might pay me mine own, and tell me that it was wherried in with ●are● by him that looked an other ●ay? Blessed be God, that so guided me in the way of truth, that among all my allegations, the refuter hath not been able to charge me with misalledging any one. As for this; nothing could be more pregnant, and pertinent to prove, that BB were superior to Presbyters in ordination, then as I said in the sermon, that Jerome himself, even when, and where he seeketh to advance the Presbyters, as high as he can, above the Deacons; doth confess ordination to be peculiar to Bishops.  
Now, whereas Jerome saith a Presbyter may do any thing which a Bishop doth, 
Of the power of order and jurisdiction.  excepting ordination; I did easily foresee it would be objected, that if BB. be superior only in the power of ordination, then are they not superior in jurisdiction. This objection I prevented in these words, Where you are not to understand him, or other of the Father's speaking sometime to the like purpose, as though the B. were not superior, in any thing else; but that potestate ord●nis, as touching power of order, ●e is superior only in ordination. For that he is superior potestate jurisdictionis, they every where acknowledge. I know some 
a Bell. de Cler. l. 1. c. 15.  answer, that in Ieromes judgement BB. are iure diuin● superior to other Ministers, only in the power of ordination: but in the power of jurisdiction iure apostolico; in that he acknowledgeth, that superiority of BB. was brought in by the Apostles necessarily for avoiding of schisms. Which answer I refusing, because Jerome saith the like 
b Adverse. Lucifer. in Titum. ● ad evagr. de 7. Ordin. Eccles.  of the superiority of the BB. in general, and of the power of ordination in particular, that it was reserved to the B. ne a multis disciplina ecclesia vendicata, concordiam sacerdotum solueret, et scandala generaret; made choice of this other, as the more like to be true. Not that I absolutely was of this judgement, that the right of ordination doth belong to the power of Episcopal order; as appear by that supposal which I made in the sermon page 44. l. 3. but that I supposed it to be the judgement of Jerome, and some other fathers, who acknowledging the Bishop to be superior in jurisdiction, and yet affirming that he is superior only in the right of ordination or imposing hands: must thus be understood, as judging the Bishop to be superior only therein, quoad ordinis potestatem, as touching the power of order: they holding other things belonging to the power of order, as the ministry of the word and Sacraments of Baptism, and the Lords Supper, to be common to BB. with other ministers: but the power of ordination to be peculiar to the BB. and in their judgements not communicable to Presbyters: because as Thomas 
c 2 2●. q. 187.2. c.  saith, ea quae sunt ordinis non possunt committi nisi habenti ordinem. Hereunto the Refuter, after his malapert and saucy manner, answereth: that I understand not this distinction. For, saith he, potestas ordinis, power of order is not potestas ordinationis, power of ordination, but power to do all that which belongeth to the order of that ministry which he hath received, as Tolet 
d Instruct. sacerd. l. 1. c. 3.  showeth. But whether of us spoke without understanding, let the judicious Reader hereby judge. For he conceiveth me, as no man would that is not of a very shallow conceit, as if I confounded the power of order with the power of ordination, and as though the power of order contained nothing else but the power of ordaining, whenas I plainly made it, according to those Father's judgement, but one part of the power of Order: they supposing other parts of the power of order to be common unto Presbyters, 
Whether BB. be superior to Presbyters in the power of order.  but that of ordaining to be peculiar to the Bishop: and in that sense say, the Bishop in respect of the power of order, is superior only in ordination.  

§. 23.  Yea but Bellarmine (for even his authority when he saith any thing that may seem to make for the Refuter, must serve the turn) saith 
e De pont. Rom. l. 4. c. 22.  that Potestas ordinis refertur ad sacramenta conficienda, the power of order is referred to the ministry of the Sacraments. Me thinks the Refuter should add, that it is also referred to the ministry of the word. But what doth Bellarmine and all other Papists understand by Sacraments? Do they not mean five others besides Baptism and the Lords Supper, the ministry of two whereof, viz. of confirmation, and of orders they make peculiar to BB. and of the other five common to them with all Priests? and doth not Bellarmine therefore prove, that the order of Bishops is superior to that of Presbyters, and that Bishops are superior in the power of order, because 
f De Sacram. ord. 1. C. 3.  the Bishop may confer two Sacraments, which the Presbyters may not, viz. the Sacrament of confirmation and of orders? Howbeit of the former, Jerome saith 
g Adverse. Lucifer. , that it was reserved as peculiar to BB. potius ad honorem sacer dotij, quam ad legis necessitatem.  
It is true, that some Popish writers make BB. and Presbyters to be but one order; but you must withal take the reason of that Popish conceit: They hold, that the Sacrament of the altar (as they call it) is the Sacrament of Sacraments, whereunto the Sacrament of orders is subordinate 
h 2. 2●. q. 40.4. & supplem. q 37.2. c. ; all their orders of Clerks being ordained to the ministery of the altar; and that every one of their 7. orders (all which they call Sacraments) is only to be counted a Sacrament, as it hath reference to the Eucharist: to which purpose 
h 2. 2●. q. 40.4. & supplem. q 37.2. c.  Thomas Aquinas doth somewhat ridiculously distinguish their 7. orders, according to their divers offices referred to that Sacrament. And forasmuch as in the whole power of order this is the supreme act, by pronouncing the words of consecration to make the very body of Christ, which is as well performed by a Priest, as a Bishop: therefore they teach 
i Suppl. q. 40.5. , that Bishops, and Priests are both of one order; and that the order of Bishops, as it is a Sacrament, is not superior to that of Presbyters, but only as it is an office, in respect of certain sacred actions; & in this sense, saith Thomas, that the Bishop hath power in sacred and hierarchical actions in respect of Christ's mystical body above the priest, the office of a Bishop is an order. For you must understand that they make all Ecclesiastical power to have reference to the 
k Bellarm. de Sacram. ord. 1. c. 9  body of Christ, either verum, his true body in the Sacrament of the altar, which they call the power of order; or mysticum, mystical (that is, the the Church and members thereof) which they call the power of jurisdiction.  
This new Popish conceit therefore of confounding Bishops and Presbyters into one order, ariseth from their idol of the Mass, & their doctrine of transubstantiation, whereby every Priest is as able to make his maker, as the Pope himself. I call it new, because all the ancient writers do confess (as before hath been showed) Bishops, 
Hier. de. 7. ord.. acknowledgeth the order of BB. to be the seventh and the highest order.  Presbyters and Deacons to be three distinct degrees, and consequently orders of the Ministry: for what is an order but that degree, which, among things or persons which are subordinate one to another, some being higher, some lower, any one hath obtained?  

§. 24. That BB. are superior in the power of order.  Wherefore laying aside these popish conceits, let us consider what is to be determined concerning this matter according to the truth.  
1. And first, that ecclesiastical power is to be distinguished into the power of order and jurisdiction.  
2. That the power of order is a spiritual power, whereby ecclesiastical persons are qualified and enabled to do sacred actions appertaining to the service of God and salvation of men, which they who are not of the same order at the least, may either not at all, or not ordinarily perform.  
3. That this power is that which is granted to ecclesiastical persons in their ordination, and appertaineth to them as they simply are of that order, though they have no jurisdiction or charge, and therefore cannot be taken from them whiles they continue in that order.  
4. That of Ecclesiastical order there are three degrees, in Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons: and because neither of the two superior orders may be granted to any per saltum: therefore each superior order includeth the inferior, so that a presbyter may do that which belongeth to a Deacon, and a Bishop that which belongeth to to a presbyter, but not chose.  
5. That the power of the order of Presbyters is beside the performance of the divine liturgy and power to administer the sacrament of Baptism and to preach, common to them with Deacons (who shall be thereunto authorized by the B.) a power also to minister the holy communion, and authority to remit and retain the sins of men: which last I do not doubt to refer to the power of order. First, because it is given to the minister in his ordination, and belongeth to him as he is simply a Presbyter, without jurisdiction or relation to a charge. And secondly, because it continueth with him whiles he is of the order, though his charge and jurisdiction should be taken from him. Besides, this power of remitting and retaining sins is called the key of order, and according to the Popish doctrine 
n Bell. de pont. R l. 1. c. 12. , belongeth to the conferring of the sacrament of penance.  
6. The power of order in B. B (besides all this power which is in the Presbyters) is power by imposition of hands to convey grace 
o 1. Tim. 4.14. 2. Tim. 1.6. , as the ordinary instrument of the holy ghost, either to parties baptised for their confirmation; or to penitents, for their reconciliation; or to parties designed to the ministry, for their ordination. As touching the former, the ancient writers gather it to be peculiar to BB. because howsoever many in the primitive Church were converted and baptised by men of inferior order, yet the Apostles alone, and after them the BB. had authority to put their hands upon them that they might receive the holy Ghost. Acts. 8. & 19  
And for the latter, we read, that both the Apostles themselves and such as they ordained Bishops, did ordain ministers by imposition of hands: insomuch that whereas at Ephesus and in Crect (where were divers Presbyters before) Timothy and Titus were appointed to ordain ministers.  
I hold this authority to impose hands to belong to the power of order: 
§ 25. The power of ordination belongeth to the power of order.  First, because imposition of hands is a sacred action of spiritual efficacy, indeed a sacrament, not only by the doctrine of the schoolmen and Papists, but also by the confession of Calum; 
Iust. l. 4. c. 14. § 20. Imposit●onem manuum, qua ecclesiae ministri in suum mann●●uitiantur, ut non invitus patior vocari sacramentum, ●t● inter ordinaria sacramenta (sci. quae in usum totius ecclesia● sunt instituta) non numero. etc. 19 §. 31. Impositionem 〈◊〉 in veris legitimisque ordinationibus sacramentum esse concedo.  though not such a sacrament as Baptism and the Lords supper, which are seals and pledges of our union and communion with Christ; yet in a more general sense, as a sacrament is defined a visible sign of invisible grace.  
I say it is a sacred action of spiritual efficacy, consecrating a man to the service of God in the Ministry, conveiing unto him the power of that order whereunto he is ordained, whereby he is qualified to perform sacred actions of spiritual and supernatural efficacy. Wherefore I do not see, why the power of begetting spiritual Fathers to the Church by ordination, as Epiphanius speaketh, should not be thought to belong to the power of order in BB. even as the begetting of sons to the Church by baptism, to the power of order in all Ministers.  
Secondly, because this power is conferred upon each Bishop in their consecration, and belongeth to him as being a Bishop simply, and cannot be taken from him whiles he remains a Bishop, though his Bishopric be taken from him, and may be exercised by him, where he hath no jurisdiction. Whereof examples might be produced of Athanasius, Eusebius▪ Vercellensis, and other godly Fathers, who when they were turned out of their bishoprics, and others placed in their rooms, not only retained their power, but also exercised the same, as occasion was offered in other Churches.  
Thirdly, because all ecclesiastical power, being referred either to the power of order or of jurisdiction, this must therefore be referred to the power of order, because it cannot be referred truly to the power of jurisdiction: and that for these two reasons: both because the Bishop cannot communicate this power to others, as he may jurisdiction: and also because he doth not lose it with his jurisdiction, but retaineth it when his Bishopric is taken from him, and may as well exercise it without his diocese, where he hath no jurisdiction, as another Minister may preach or baptise out of his own parish.  
Whenas therefore I expounded Jerome and some others, who say the B. is superior to the Presbyters only in ordination, as not meaning that he is not superior also in the power of jurisdiction, but that in respect of the power of order, he was superior only in the right of ordaining; because whereas other parts of the power of order be common to him with Presbyters, that of ordaining is his peculiar right and prerogative, I did not speak without understanding. chose the Refuter, as in laying to my charge that I confound the power of order with ordination, he spoke he knew not what: so in the inference which he bringeth upon his former words, he prattleth without understanding. Now if the power of ordination did belong properly to the office of BB. then were the BB. superior to the other Ministers potestate ordinis, 
Ad pag. 97.  (but the former I have manifestly proved, therefore the latter must be granted) but that is the question, saith he; as who should say, he were resolved to deny the conclusion. But hear him I pray you. Notwithstanding (to let him enjoy his own distinction) of BB. differ only in ordination from Presbyters, quoad ordinis potestatem, then in the power of jurisdiction, Presbyters are equal with them potestate ordinis, by the power of their order. Wherefore where afterwards he draweth unto BB. the whole power of censuring under the name of potestas jurisdictionis, he maketh that to be adivine, which is but an human pre-eminence by his own distinction. All which is mere babbling, without sense, or understanding what he saith, as the Reader who understandeth what I have delivered concerning this distinction, will easily judge.  
There remaineth the third part of this section; wherein out of a Christian and charitable desire to preserve the credit of such reformed Churches as have no BB. I endeavoured to prevent the objections of Papists, 
§. 26.  who reason thus against them: The right of ordination being peculiar to BB. it followeth, that where is no B. there is no ordination; where is no ordination, there are no Ministers; where are no Ministers, there is no Church. I answered, that although the ordinary right of ordination belongeth to BB. in the judgement of the ancient Church, that yet it was not to be understood, as so appropriating it to them, as that extraordinarily and in the case of necessity it might not be lawful for Presbyters to ordain, and much less teaching absolutely a nullity of the ordination, which is performed without a B. Which answer I confirmed by divers reasons. Whereunto I now add, that there seemeth to be the like reason for imposition of hands, in confirmation of the baptised, in the reconciliation of public penitents, as in the ordination of Ministers. But although the two former were reserved as well as the third, to the B. yet extraordinarily, in the case of necessity, and in the want or absence of the B. the ancient Church held it lawful for Ministers to impose hands either for the confirming of parties baptised, or for reconciliation of the penitents. The former is testified by 
a Ambros. in Eph. 4.  Ambrose and 
b Aug. quest. ●x vet. & non. test. mixtim. 4.101.  Augustine, the latter by 
c Cyp. l. 3. ep. 17.  Cyprian and divers 
d Conc. Carth. graec. c. 43. Carth. 2. c. 4. Conc. Arausic. c. 2.  Counsels. And moreover, the Popish Writers themselves 
e Summa Angelica. ordo. §. 2.  do teach, that the Pope may give licence to him that is not a Bishop to ordain: so that he to whom such licence is given, have those orders himself, which he would give to another. If therefore by the Pope's licence, a Presbyter may ordain Presbyters, much better may a company of Presbyters, to whom in the want of a Bishop the charge of the Church is devolved, be authorised thereto by necessity, which, as they say, hath no law. To this passage, inserted by me only in favour of the Churches where the presbyterian discipline is established, which I would not lay open to popish cavils; the Refuter, if he had been led with a good spirit, would rather have answered with thanks, then have set himself to wrangle and cavil therewith, as if he cared not, so he may have something to speak against, what becometh of those Churches, which notwithstanding he would seem to favour more than myself. The which ungracious course he taketh again in answering the 95. page of my Sermon; where I forced myself, as in this place, to speak as much as the truth would permit in favour of the aforesaid Churches. But if my answers for them either here, or there, do not please the Refuter and his consorts, I will hereafter give them leave to answer what they please. Neither will I any more disaduentage the truth, which I defend, in a desire to gratify them, seeing my endeavour is so ungratefully taken. Which I speak, not as though I thought his exceptions against my defence any thing worth. For where he objecteth, that if the Fathers had thought the power of ordination to have been peculiar to BB. by any ordinance of God, they would not have allowed any such ordination as I speak of without a B: it follows not. For though they held the right of Baptizing to belong to the Ministers of the Church by God's ordinance; though they held the right of imposing hands to be peculiar to the Apostles and their successors: yet in a case of necessity, 
Apostolorum & suc●●ssorum ●orum ●st per manus impos●tionem donum spiritus sancti tradere. Damas'. epist. de Chorepiscopis. Tertull. de B●ptismo. Conc. Eli●. c. 38. Hier. adverse. Lucifer.  they held baptism without a Minister, and confirmation without a B. to be lawful. In like manner, though they held that the right of ordination was peculiar to Bishops by Apostolical institution, & therefore taught that none but Bishops could regularly and ordinarily ordain: notwithstanding in a case of necessity, we may well think they would have allowed of such an ordination as I spoke of, though (as I said) not as regular, according to the rules of ordinary Church government, yet as effectual and justifiable in the want of a B. If he still say they wou●d not, then must he confess that the practice of the Disciplinarians is such, as the Fathers of the Primitive Church would in no case have allowed: and that is all the inconvenience that can come to our cause, if my defence of them be not sufficient.  
As for his cavil at my supposal of the right of ordination, to belong to the power of order in BB. I have answered before. To such objections one answer is enough, two is too many.  
And thus much of the Bishop's right in ordaining.   

CHAP. V. That Bishops were superior to other Ministers in the power of jurisdiction.  (Serm. sect. 9 pag. 45. Now I am to show, that the B. is superior also in the power of jurisdiction. The Presbyters indeed, etc. to the end of the page.) 
HEre the Reader is to observe, what is by me propounded to be proved, not that the BB. had, or have the sole power of jurisdiction, the defence whereof the Refuter every where would feign force upon me, but that they are, and were superior in the power of jurisdiction or government. I deny not the Presbyters (which have charge of souls) to have jurisdiction both severally in their parishes, and jointly in provincial synods. And I have confessed before, that Presbyters have with, and under the Bishops exercised some jurisdiction. I grant that godly BB. before they had the countenance and assistance of Christian Magistrates, and direction of Christian laws, used in all matters of moment to consult with their clergy; imitating therein, as Jerome 
a Hier. in Tit. 1.  speaketh, the example of Moses, Qu● cum haberet in potestate solus praesse populo; who when it was in his power to govern the people alone, he chose seventy with whom to judge the people. This was practised by Cyprian 
b Lib. 3. epist. 10. f. , who resolved from the beginning of his Bishopric, to do nothing of importance alone, because he would prevent dissension and scandals. Ambrose 
c In 1. Tim. 5. ●. , also teacheth that there was a time, when nothing was done without the advice of the Presbyters, who therefore by Ignatius 
d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ignas▪ ad Trall. , are called the counsellors and coassessours of the B. Which course if it were used still, as it would ease the Bishop's burden very much; so would it nothing detract from their superiority in governing: the sway of their authority being no less when they used the advice of their Presbyters, then when they used it not. For the assistance of the Presbyters was to help and advice, but never to overrule the Bishop. Neither will any man say, that the authority of a Prince who useth the advice of his counsel, is the less for it, but the mo●e advised.  
But what the authority of BB. was in the primitive Church in respect of government, 
The authority of BB. showed absolutely.  I will first show absolutely, and then by way of comparison with Presbyters. What the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Council of 
e C. Carth. grae. c. 68  Carthage calleth the authority of BB. was, may first appear by this, that they were accounted the governors and rulers of the Churches, meaning thereby dioceses. For though there were many ministers, who were Angels, Pastors, Bishops: y●t there was but one in every Church, who was the Angel, the Pastor, the Bishop, the governor of the Church; bearing as Ignatius 
f Ignat. ad. Trall.  saith, the sway of authority above and over them all. But I delight to hear Jerome, the only pretended patron of the Disiplinarians; who confesseth, as we have heard 
g Contra Lucifer. , that of necessity a peerless power and eminent above all, is to be attributed to Bishops, and that the safety of the Church dependeth thereon. He therefore in his Commentary upon 
h Hier. 1. Esa. 60.  Esay chap. 60. verse 17. reading according to the Septuag. 
i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , I will give thy Princes in peace, and thy Bishops in righteousness, saith, Herein the Majesty of the holy Scriptures is to be admired, which calleth, principes futuros ecclesiae episcopos, the Princes or Rulers which should be of the Church, Bishops, whose visitation is all in peace, and the name of their dignity (meaning their superintendency) in righteousness. And on those words 
k Hier. in Psal. 44. , of the 45. Psalm, In stead of father's children shall be borne unto thee; O Church, saith he, the Apostles were thy fathers, for they begat thee. Now forasmuch as they are gone out of the world thou hast BB. who were borne of thee. For these also are thy fathers, because thou art governed of them. And on the words following, whom thou shalt make Princes in all the earth: for, saith he, in the name of God the gospel is spread in all ends of the world, in which Principes ecclesiae, i. episcopi; the princes of the Church, that is to say, the Bishops are placed. On which words Augustine 
l Aug. in Ps. 44  also doth comment to the like purpose: In stead of the Apostles, sons are borne to thee, BB. are ordained: think not thyself forsaken, because thou seest not Peter and Paul who beg at thee; of thine own issue is sprung a fatherhood: Agnoscant qui pr●cisi sunt, veniant ad unitatem, etc. Let them which are precise or cut off by schism, acknowledge it and come unto unity. The Church hath borne sons, and in steed of her fathers, hath made them princes over all the earth. Optatus 
m L. 2. advers. Parmen.  likewise calleth the BB apices & principes omnium.  
The Council of Carthage 
n Carth. gr. c. 39 Afr. c. 35.  decreed, that when the Donatists returned to the Church, they should be received each one in their degrees, according to the will and pleasure of the B. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who governeth the Church in the same place, if he shall think it expedient for the peace of the Church▪ Cyprian 
o Lib. 1. epist. 3. , though he had approved Cornelius his courage, in that Felicissimus a wicked schismatic, attended with a troup of desperate fellows, was by him vigore pleno, quo episcopum agere oportet, pulsus de ecclesia, with full vigour of authority and courage, wherewith it behoveth a B to deal, driven out of the Church; yet perceiving him to be somewhat daunted with the threatenings of those lewd companions; if this be so, saith he, that the ●●daciousnes of wicked men be feared, that what they cannot do by right and equity, they may accomplish by rash and desperate courses, actum est de episcopatus vigore, & de ecclesiae gubernandae sublimi ac divina potestate, then farewell the vigour of episcopal authority, and that high and divine power of governing the Church. But more fully is this authority described in the Counsels of Antioch and Constantinople, and also in the writings of Jerome. Every Bishop (saith the Council of Antioch) 
p Conc. Antioch. c. 9  hath authority of his own See, both to govern it according to the fear of God which is before his eyes, and to have a provident care of the whole Country which is under his City, as also to ordain Presbyters and Deacons, and to govern all things with judgement. The Council held in Trullo 
q Constant. in Trullo. c. 37.  decreed, that forasmuch as some Cities being occupied by the Barbarians invading Christian kingdoms, the Bishops of the said Cities could not enjoy their seat, and perform such offices there as belong to the episcopal function; that they should retain their 
r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 eximiam ill. 〈◊〉 pontificatus dignitatem.  eminent dignity and authority, so that they may canonically exercise ordination of the divers degrees of Clerks, and that they may use within their bounds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the authority of their Prelacy, and that all their 
s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  administration be firm and lawful. But what saith Jerome? He having entreated 
t De 7. ordinib. Eccles.  of the other degrees of the Clergy, at the last cometh to entreat de praecipuo gradu Ecclesiae of the chief degree of the Church, qui ordo episcopalis est, which is the order of Bishops: the power whereof he setteth down in these words: He ordaineth Priests and Levites, that is, Presbyters and Deacons, etc. He 
u Fabricae Dei praeest.  governeth the Church of God: he showeth what every one ought to do: he condemneth, he receiveth, he bindeth, he looseth that which was bound, he hath the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he openeth and shutteth the throne of God, (meaning heaven) having nothing (meaning no ecclesiastical order) above him, etc.  
But the superiority of Bishops over Presbyters I showed in the sermon, 
§ 3. The jurisdiction of Bishops compared with that of Presbyters.  by comparing the jurisdiction of BB. with that which Presbyters have, both in regard of the greatness and largeness, and also in respect of the derivation thereof.  
The Presbyters jurisdiction is over the flock of one parish: the jurisdiction of the Bishop is over the whole Diocese. The Presbyters is private in the court of conscience: the Bishop's public, and in the external Court also. The Presbyter governeth the people only of one flock: the Bishop governeth not only the people of the whole Diocese, but the Presbyters also themselves. The Presbyters receive institution unto their jurisdiction from the Bishop, and exercise it under the Bishop of the Diocese, who hahaving (as the Council of 
* C. 24.  Antioch and Jerome say) the care of the whole Church or Diocese, admit the Presbyters in partem solicitudinis, into part of their care, by giving them institution to their several parishes. The Presbyters do answer to the sons of Aaron, and are the successors of the 70. Disciples, as divers of the Fathers do teach: but the Bishop's answer to Aaron, and are the successors of the Apostles, as I prove by the testimony of Jerome, 
x Hieron. ad Marcel. adverse. Montan.  who saith, that in the true Church Bishops do hold the place of the Apostles; and of Irenaeus, 
y Ir. l. 3. c. 3.  that the Apostles left the Bishops their successors, delivering unto them their own place of government.  
To all this the Refuter maketh a dilatory answer, not purposing indeed to answer these allegations at all. Of these points I purpose not (saith he) to say any thing in this place, because the former concerning the difference of the Bishops and Presbyters jurisdiction, must presently be disputed: the latter is to be discussed in the last point of his five. And thus hath he by a cleanly device avoided these allegations, which he knew not how to answer, and very featly rid his hands of them. But if the Reader shall upon examination find, that he speaketh nothing to these allegations, and proofs in the places whereunto he is differred, he must needs think, that their cause of sincerity (as they call it) is not very sincerely handled.  
Having thus in general noted the superiority of Bishops in the power of jurisdiction, 
§ 4 The BB. authority in respect of the things of the Church.  let us now descend unto particulars.  
The authority therefore of the Bishop respecteth either the things of the Church, or the persons. Whatsoever things (saith the Council 
a C. Ant. c. 24.  of Antioch) appertain to the Church, are to be governed, husbanded, and disposed by the judgement and authority of the Bishop, to whose trust the whole people is committed, and the souls of the congregation. And again: 
b Ibid. c. 25.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that the Bishop hath the power or authority of those things which belong to the Church. And this authority the Bishops had from the beginning; for, as what was at the first given to the Church, was laid at the Apostles feet, so afterwards what was contributed, was committed (saith 
c Apol. 2.  justine Martyr) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the Bishop. Hereof you may read more, Conc. Gangr. c. 7. & 8. Concil. Tol. 3. c. 19 & 4 c. 32. Balsam. in Concil. Carth. Gr. c. 36. alias 33.  
As touching persons, 
In respect of persons.  they were distinguished at the first into Clericos & Laicos, unto whom afterward, a third sort was added, viz. Monachi, monastical persons; who, though they were sequestered from the company and society of secular men, as they count them, yet were they not exempted from the jurisdiction of the Bishop. The great Council of Chalcedon 
d Conc. Chalc. c. 4.  determined, that no man should build a monastery any where, or house of prayer, without the consent of the Bishop of the City: and that those which in every City or Country, 
e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  did lead a monastical life, should be subject to the Bishop. See more, c. 8. Conc. Afric. c. 47. Agath. c. 27. & 58. Theod. Balsam. saith, 
f Bals. in Conc. Carth. c 83.  that Monks were more subject to the Bishop, then to the Governor of the monastery.  
As touching the Laity, I said, Serm. sect. 10. pag. 46. to pag. 47. l. 6. I should not need to prove the Bishop's authority over the people of their Diocese, 
§ 5.  if I demonstrate their rule over the Presbyters thereof, 
Their authority over the people. Ad pag 98.  etc. Not need (saith the Refuter?) Ye● you must prove the power of censuring the people to be their only right, unless you yield that pre-eminence to be given them jure humano, as indeed it must be, seeing they have it not potestate ordinis, by the power of their order. The Refuter is to be borne with, if he talk at random, seeing he is (as it seemeth) out of his element.  
The thing which I was to prove, if it had been needful, was, that whereas Presbyters did govern each one the people of a parish, and that privately, the Bishop governeth the people of the whole diocese, and that publicly: the which I held needless to prove, because before it was proved, that they had the charge of the whole Diocese, and were Pastors thereof: And secondly, because if I prove they governed the Presbyters, who were the governors of the several flocks, then much more their jurisdiction did extend to the flocks themselves. Where he saith, I must prove that the censuring the people is their only right; I answer, it is sufficient to prove their superiority in jurisdiction, which I intended, and that none in the Diocese doth exercise external jurisdiction, but from the B. and under him. A notable evidence whereof we have in Silvanus 
g Socr. l. 7. c. 37.  the famous Bishop of Troas, who perceiving those of his Clergy to make gain of men's suits, appointed others whom he thought good, to be the Judges of men's causes, whereby he got himself great renown. And as for the power of binding and losing in the court of conscience, it is common to Bishops with all Presbyters, howsoever in respect of the use and exercise thereof, they are subject to the Bishop.  
Where he saith, that Bishops have their jurisdiction jure humano, because they have it not potestate ordinis, by the power of their order, he seemeth to harp upon something, which he doth not well understand. For although the Schoolmen and Papists 
h Bellarm. de Pont. R. l. 4. cap. ult.  teach, that to the power of order belongeth a character and grace which God alone doth give in their ordination; yet they grant also, that the jurisdiction which is conferred to them by the will of man, doth also mediately proceed from God. And howsoever it be true, that Bishops with us are assisted iure humano, 
i Statut. anno Elizab. 1.  to exercise their public and external jurisdiction, and to judge in causes ecclesiastical by the King's ecclesiastical Law; yet this doth not hinder, but that they are authorized thereunto iure Apostolico, as is manifest by the Apostles themselves, by Timothy and Titus, and all the ancient Bishops of the Primitive Church, who by authority derived to them from the Apostles, did exercise the ecclesiastical censures over the people and clergy, before there were any laws of Christian Magistrates to authorize or assist them thereunto.  
But he is pleased to see how I prove the BB. to have been superior to the Presbyters in jurisdiction; 
§ 6. Their authority over the clergy.  though not pleased that I speak in general of BB. for here his Coccysme again hath place, that I should have proved the Angels of the seven Churches to have had jurisdiction over ministers under them. Which is a miserable poor shift indeed. Was not this the thing propounded to be proved, that the BB. of the primitive Church were superior in jurisdiction? doth not himself confess, that the ancient Churches were all of one Constitution? And is not the proof of the general, a proof of the particular also? If I should say, these seven Angels had this jurisdiction; some such exception of singularity in them, would with as great reason be taken, as against Timothy and Titus. But when I prove, that BB. in general had this superiority, I do more than prove, that these seven Bishops had it.  
The reason which I use is an induction. The Bishop had superiority in jurisdiction both to the Presbyters, that were parts of the Presbytery assisting him, and to the Pastors assigned to several cures. Therefore he had superior jurisdiction to all the Presbyters in the diocese. But the Refuter maketh me reason thus: 
If the Bishops had majority of rule both over the Presbyters that assisted them, and also over the Pastors allotted to their several charges, than had they power of jurisdiction.  
But they had majority of rule over the Presbyters, assisting them and the Pastors, etc.  
Therefore they had power of jurisdiction.   
Why? Needs this to be proved, that Bishops had power of jurisdiction, which every parish Minister hath? Or doth the Refuter deny, that Bishops had power of jurisdiction? Or if he cannot but grant the conclusion, what a folly is it to wrangle with the premises? And yet for fear of granting the conclusion, first he picks a quarrel with the proposition. For though they had majority of rule, etc. yet w●ll it not follow they had sole power of jurisdiction. Whence cometh this sole I pray you, that hath so oft been foisted in? I fear greatly from an evil conscience, resolved to oppugn and deface the truth. Cannot the B. be superior to Presbyters in the power of jurisdiction, unless they have (as none have) the sole power of jurisdiction?  

§ 7. 1. Over the Presbyters of the City.  Then he flatly denieth the assumption. But what reason doth he give of his denial? what evidence of truth doth he bring to prove the contrary? Alas, he troubleth not himself that way, all his care and endeavour is to find out starting holes and evasions to elude the truth.  
I prove first in general, that BB. had majority of rule, or superiority of jurisdiction over the Presbyters, even those of the City, who were the chief. Then in particular, in the next section. The former I prove, first, by the testimony of Jerome 
l Adverse. Lucifer. , who confesseth, that of necessity a power eminent above all and admitting no partner, at lest no compear, is to be granted to the B. To this besides the poor evasion of Ieromes minority, and being under age, before answered, he saith, Jerome speaketh of such BB. as he acknowledgeth to 〈◊〉 no warrant in the scriptures, and to have been brought into the C●●rch by occas●●● of schism after the Apostles times. Both which I have before proved, and shall▪ again prove to be manifestly false. Doth Jerome deny BB. to have warrant in the scriptures? beside the places of the new testament often alleged, call to mind those two 
m Hier. in. Ps. 44. & in Esa. 60. , on Psalm 45. and Esay 60. Where he calleth them, principes ecclesia by warrant of those scriptures. Doth Jerome say, they were not brought into the Church until after the Apostles times? doth not he confess james, Mark●, Timothy Titus, and divers others to have been BB. in the Apostles times, and that ever since S. Mark there have been BB. at Alexandria?  
Secondly, I allege Ignatius 
n Ad Trall. What is a B. but he that holdeth all authority over all? , whom themselves oft allege for their Presbyteries. But see what hard hap some men have: he, whose authority is so good when he is alleged by them, is but a counterfeit when he is produced by me. And yet those who 
o Problem. Perk.  suspect five of his epistles, because Eusebius and Jerome mention but seven, acknowledge this ad Trallianos to be none of the five which are suspected, but one of the seven which are received. This suasion should not have been used, if he could tell how to answer his testimony otherwise. Yes that he can. For though Ignatius do say that a B. is such an one as holdeth or manageth the whole power and authority above all, 
Ad pag. 99  yet that proveth not the sole jurisdiction of BB. God amend that soul, that so oft foisteth in that sole besides my meaning and my words. And yet truly Ignatius saith fair for the sole power. For if the B. have the whole power and authority above all, why may he not be said to have the sole power and authority over all? what? saith the refuter, he alone? May not a man say as much of the Duke of Venice, or of the King of Polonia? yet are neither of these sovereigns: no more had the B. for all these words any supreme and sole authority. Do I any where say, that the BB. have or aught to have supreme and sole authority, which here again he objecteth to make the BB. according to my judgement forsooth absolute Popelings? will these odious slanders wilfully devised to disgrace the truth, which I taught, never be left? and yet that is untrue which he saith of the Duke of Venice, and that is more than we desire, that the B. in his diocese, should be like the King of Polonia in his kingdom. For though the Duke of Venice be above any other in Venice; yet he hath not the whole power and authority above all: neither do we make the B. to have supreme power in his diocese, as the King of Poland hath in his realm; though in respect of the election of him to his kingdom, and of BB. to their sees, there be somelikenes.  
In the third place I allege another testimony of 
p Ad Antioch.  Ignatius, 
§. 8. Another testimony of Ignatius.  where he exhorteth the Presbyters of Antioch, where himself was Bishop, to feed the flock which was among them, using the words which Peter doth 1. Epist. 5. Until God should declare who should be their 
q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Governor, meaning the Bishop. Where the B. in plain terms is called the governor of the Presbyters. There can be no question but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is a majority of rule. And yet he saith this testimony doth not prove any such majority of rule: and that for four worthy reasons. First, because this is one of those places which the disciplinarians absurdly allege for the proof of onely-governing elders (which never were) the duty enjoined them being pastoral. Secondly, because the Church whereof he was B. was but one congregation at that time. And yet he expressly calleth himself the 
r Ad Roman.  Bishop of Syria: which plainly proveth, that he was not only a diocesan, but a Metropolitan B. Yea but in his epistle to Jerome he calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I will not urge the error in the name Jerome, for Heron: perhaps it was not our Ieremies 
s Pref. to inform. , but his Barucks fault. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which he absurdly translateth, Synagogue and parish, signifieth congregation, and is the same with ecclesia, or Church. For Ignatius having signified to him that he should be his successor in the Bishopric, he saith 
t Ignat. ad Heronem. ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the congregation of the Lord shall not be as sheep without a pastor. But hereof I have spoken heretofore. Howbeit, both this and the former answer here are mere evasions. For suppose that (which I have proved to be most false) that there were onely-governing elders in Antioch, and that the Church had been but one parish, can he be so absurd asto say, that none of the Presbyters in Antioch were ministers? If any were (as indeed they were all as I have abundantly proved before) is not the B. here plainly noted to be their governor? and if he were their governor, was he not above them in the power of jurisdiction or government? Or what is this to the present question, whether the Church of Antioch contained one congregation or more, if it cannot be denied that the B. was superior in the power of jurisdiction to the Presbyters of that Church, how great or how little soever it was?  
His third reason of all others is most impertinent. For what is this to the purpose, if it were true, that the duty which Ignatius inioineth them of feeding, that is, of instructing and guiding the people, was not perpetually belonging to their office, but only in the time of the vacancy, till they had another governor, seeing he noteth that himself had been, and his successor should be their governor? But it is untrue which he saith, concerning the perpetuity of the duty. For Ignatius his meaning was, that as they were at all times to feed the people, so especially in the absence or want of the Bishop, the care and attendance of the flock in the defect of a B. being devolved to them.  
Fourthly, 
§ 9  If M. D. do urge, saith he, that Ignatius was, and so also his successor their governor, (which was indeed the only thing for which the place was alleged, and to which point alone he ought to have directed his speech) the answer is easy, that he might be so, and yet the Church but a parish, and those Presbyters governing Elders. An easy answer indeed: as who should say, though the allegation do prove that for which you bring it, yet it doth not disprove some other of our absurdities, for the disproof whereof you do not bring it: as that the Church was a parish, and the Presbyters only governing elders. Was the disproof of those points to be expected from this place, and at this time? do you not say, it is one of the places which is ordinarily brought out of Ignatius, for proof of onely-governing Elders? And must this be your shift to avoid my argument, proving out of this place the superiority of Bishops in the power of jurisdiction, that for any thing can hence be alleged, the Presbyters might be only governing Elders? Is not the Refuter near driven, think you, when he would bear his Reader in hand, that his lay Presbyters be sufficiently proved, if the place which themselves bring for them, doth not disprove them; but especially, when he is driven to allege this as a poor shift to avoid another thing in question? Yea but if the Church were a parish, and they only governing Elders, than was Ignatius but as a Parson of a parish: and Parsons, though they be called, rectores ecclesiarum, governors of the parish Churches, are far enough from the majority of rule in question. Whereto I answer, that if he would need● make Ignatius but the Parson of a parish, assisted with a Presbytery of lay Elders, he should have conceived him to be such a one as themselves fancy, and not as ours are. For he should not have been subordinate and subject as ours are (and as all Presbyters of 
t The Council of Sardica saith, they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 subject to the B. and aught to perform a sincere ministry unto them, c. 14.  parishes ever were) to the Bishops, but as they fancy, endued with a power unsubordinate and independent; and therefore had a supremacy, rather than superiority, as being the supreme ecclesiastical officer in all that Church. But how I beseech you is it proved, that Ignatius was but a parish Bishop? Because, forsooth, the Church of Antioch might be a parish, and the Presbyters thereof onely-governing Elders, for any thing that I have here said to the contrary, which indeed I intended not in this place. But now I discern a worthy stratagem of this Refuter, in choosing rather to answer the places out of Ignatius, being brought for superiority of Bishops, than himself to urge them for the lay-elders: hoping to persuade some kind of Readers, both that their Elders are sufficiently proved, if they be not disproved out of the places which themselves do bring to prove them: and also, that by such an answer, the superiority of Bishops is sufficiently avoided. But to conclude this point, whiles the Refuter goeth about to prove, that Antioch (which was the Metropolis of Syria, and the chief City of all the East) was but a parish Church: and the Bishop of Antioch, who was also (as Ignatius testifieth of himself) the Bishop of Syria, 
Theodor. hist. l. 5. c. 23.  and as Theodoret saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the chief or pr●●ate of all the Bishops in in the East, to have been but a Parson of a parish Church; the Reader will hereby learn, what conceit to have of his learning and judgement, and what credit to give to his new-fangled opinions.  (Serm. sect. 11. pag. 47.) Now the Presbyters were subject to their B. both as their ruler to be guided, 
§. 10. The BB. did rule and direct the Presbyters.  etc. to page 50. med.) 
Having in general showed the Bishop's superiority in jurisdiction over the Presbyters, even those of the City; in this section I prove it more particularly by the parts of government, which are, both to rule and direct; as also to censure and correct. I show therefore, that the Presbyters of the City were subject to the Bishop, both as their ruler, to be guided and directed by him, and also as their judge, to be censured and corrected of him. Where the Refuter, if he would needs be analysing and syllogising, should have framed this argument: 
To whom the Presbyters were subject, both as to their ruler, to be guided and directed by him; and as to their judge, to be censured and corrected of him, he was superior to them in the power of jurisdiction, and majority of rule.  
To the B. the Presbyters were subject, both as to their ruler, to be guided and directed by him; and as to their judge to be censured and corrected of him.  
Therefore the B. was superior to the Presbyters in power of jurisdiction and majority of rule.   
The proposition of this syllogism is of evident & undeniable truth. The assumption consisteth of two parts: the former concerning the rule of direction, the latter concerning the power of correction: which I do in order prove by evident testimonies, whereunto he opposeth nothing but cavilling shifts and evasions. By way of analysis he saith thus: The former proof of the assumption touching the Bishop's majority of rule, was general, concerning diocesan and parishional Presbyters. Now follow the reasons for each of them in particular: and first, for the bishops jurisdiction over the diocesan, in regard of direction. Where I desire him to tell us, what he meaneth by diocesan Presbyters, whether such as assisted the Bishop in the diocesan government? If yea, he dreameth of that he cannot prove. To omit the commendation of his skill in analysing, which is not great, his resutation here is, as you plainly see, not only a dream, but the dream of a dream. He saith, I dream of diocesan Presbyters, when himself (belike) did dream so. Where speak I one word of diocesan Presbyters? where do I once name them? Is the Refuters conscience no better, than still to father upon me untruths for his own advantage? doth he not thereby bewray what a cause he maintaineth, which cannot be upheld but by forgeries? Neither if I had spoken of diocesan Presbyters, would I have used the word in that sense. For as parts of the diocese in the country are sometimes in the Counsels called dioceses; so are Country Ministers called 
a Conc. Agath. c. 22. Tolet. 3. c. 20.  dioecesani, qui 
b Carth. 4. c. 36.  per dioeceses ecclesias regunt: which in the Council of Neocaesaria, are 
c Neocaes'. c. 13.  called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, Country Ministers, and are opposed to the Presbyters of the City, who are there called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and else where 
d C. Agath. c. 22. Ad pag. 100 , civitatenses Presbyteri. Of whom it may be truly said, that the College or company of them was the Presbytery, which being not assigned to any one parish, was provided to assist the Bishop in the feeding and government of the diocese, as I have proved before, and in that sense might be called dioecesani.  

§. 11.  But let us see his reason, saith the Refuter. If the 40. Canon of the Apostles saith he (I said, the ancient Canon,) if the Counsels of Arles and Ancyra, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Ignatius affirm, that BB. had majority of rule for direction over Diocesan Presbyters, than they had such majority. But all these affirm so: therefore they had so.  
The former part of my 
e § 10.  aforesaid Assumption, that the Presbyters of the City were subject to the B. as their ruler to be directed by him, I prove, first in general, because they might do nothing of importance without his direction or consent, then particularly, in respect of those things which did belong to the power of their order. For as touching the former; if the Presbyters might do nothing without the B. nothing without his appointment, or consent; then were they subject to him, as their ruler, to be guided and directed by him. But the former I prove by these testimonies, whereto more may be added; therefore the latter cannot be denied.  
Of the Syllogism which he framed, he denieth first the Consequence of the proposition; not shaming to affirm, that although the ancient Canon called the Apostles, though the ancient Counsels of Ancyra and Arles, though Tertullian, Cyprian and Ignatius, do all testify the majority of rule in BB: yet it would not follow that they had it. It will follow then, that the ancientest Counsels, and Fathers deserve no credit: which whosoever shall affirm, doth much more without comparison, deserve not only no credit, but no audience, nay no sufferance, he is not to be endured. But what pretence hath he, to discredit their authorities? forsooth none of them, excepting Tertullian and Ignatius lived in the first 200. years. As if all truth were confined within that period: or as if some of the Fathers which succeeded (as Cyprian by name) deserved not as much credit as they. As for Cyprian, he came 40. or 50. years after: and the Council of Ancyry some 50. or 60. years after him. No doubt, but great alteration in discipline, and Church-governement, was or could be pretended to have been in the Church, before Constatines' time whiles it was under the Crosse. But let the Refuter esteem of these authorities as he pleaseth; there is no modest or moderate Christian, but will prefer the affirmation of any of these, especially, in a matter of fact, before the negation of a thousand such as the libeling refuter.  
After he hath thus elevated their authority, 
§. 12.  he cavilleth with their testimonies, denying also the assumption. And first to the ancient Canon, 
Presbyters might do nothing with out the leave or consent of the Bishop.  forbidding Presbyters & Deacons to do anything 
f Can. Apost. 39 all 40.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without the appointment and consent of the Bishop, he frameth such an answer, as every word whereof almost doth argue extreme either unconscionableness, or ignorance. He saith, It doth not prove they had majority of rule, or sole sovereignty over them▪ Sole sovereignty? O defiled conscience, which ceasest not to ascribe such odious and absurd assertions to me! But why is not the majority of rule in the Bishop hence proved, and the subjection of Presbyters to him as to their ruler, to be guided and directed by him, seeing they are charged to do nothing without his direction and warrant? what can be more plain? forsooth, the like Phrase is used Can. 35. and Conc. Antioch. c. 9 where BB. are enjoined to do nothing without the sentence of the Archbishop, nor he in their Parishes without the sentence or appointment of them all. If therefore the majority of rule in BB. may be proved from this Canon, then in like manner from the other two Canons, the majority of rule not only in Archbishops in those days over BB. but also of Bishops in their Parishes, over the Archbishop. But the consequent is false in both the parts of it: the former, for there were no Archbishops in those days; the latter, because BB. had not authority over archbishops: therefore the Antecedent also is untrue. Here the refuter under some show of learning hath bewrayed much ignorance. For first, as touching the proposition: his reason is unlike, and his allegation out of the 
g Can. Apost. 34. a● 35.  34. Canon is untrue. The Bishop of every nation m●st agnize him that is the first or Primate among them, and esteem him as the chief, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is not said as in the Canon by me cited, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 simply, as the refuter citeth it; but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Is there no difference between these two speeches, to do nothing simply, and to do nothing more, or exceeding their own bounds? For that this is the meaning of the Canon, the words following do plainly declare, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but that they do only those things which appertain to their own See, and the countries under it. But more plainly in the Council of Antioch 
h Con. Antioc. c. 9 , that the rest of the Bishops do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nothing more than those things only which concern every man's own Church and Countries which be under it. And that you should not understand them, as the Refuter doth without understanding, they add; for every Bishop hath authority of his own City, both to govern according to the fear (of God) which he hath, and to have care of all the Country, as also to ordain Presbyters and Deacons, and to administer everything with judgement. And yet I do not deny, but that the metropolitans are superior to their Comprovinciall Bishops, in the power of jurisdiction; although all Bishops whatsoever, are equal in the power of order. Neither should the Bishops by the like reason be superior to the Archbishops in their parishes, as he ignorantly addeth. For the Canon doth not speak of the several Bishops in their Dioceses, which he absurdly calleth Parishes; but of the whole Company of them assembled in a Provincial Synod, saying that he must do nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without the consent of them all. Howsoever therefore either the Metropolitan, or any other of the Bishops in their own several Dioceses might do those things which concerned their own proper charge; yet 
i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Conc. Const. 1. c. 2.  provincial businesses (which exceeded the bounds of any one man's charge) were to be dispatched in Provincial Counsels; wherein the Metropolitan was to be acknowledged as the chief and Precedent thereof, who called them together, and moderated the assembly; but so, as the Bishops might do nothing without him severally, so he might do nothing without them all jointly; and as he was superior to them severally, so was he inferior to them all jointly, that is, to the Synod.  
The Assumption likewise in the former part of it is false, and the reason of it also. For there were metropolitans in the first two hundred years, and they were superior in the power of jurisdiction to their Bishops. But before he will let this testimony pass, he hath one point of ignorance more to show, and that is, because archbishops are mentioned, c. 35, alias 34. therefore these Canons were none of the Apostles, nor any others above an hundred, he will not say (whatsoever he thinks) two hundred years after them. For Archbishops were not hatched (so reverently he speaketh) a long time after, all men being judge. The antiquity of these Canons I have touched before; showing, that within little more than two hundred years after the Apostles time, they were then accounted ancient Canons. But to the point. If he speak of the name Archbishop, it is not mentioned in the Canons, called the Apostles; if of the office of a Metropolitan, which is meant in the aforesaid Canon; I have proved before, that it hath been ever since the Apostles times. Those learned men, which hold Archbishops to be of a latter edition, by that name understand patriarchs; and those of 2. sorts, being either so called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the patriarchs of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and jerusalem; or such as are more usually called Archbishops, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 governors of large provinces, being in a degree between, metropolitans, and patriarchs, which seem to have been ordained in the first Council of Constantinople, as Socrates 
k Socr. hist. l. 5. c. 8.  witnesseth. Hence it is, that Isidor 
l Orig. lib. 7. c. de clericis.  saith Ordo Episcoporum quadripartitus est, i. in Patriarchis, Archiepiscopis, Metropolitis atque Episcopis: and the same distinction is noted in the Council of 
m C. Chalc. c. 9 et 17.  Chalcedon, and in the 
n Lib. 1. tit. 4. de episcopali audientia.  Code, 
§. 29. Sanc●mus: et Novel 123 c. 22.  and constitutions of justinian, and in the 
o Ius graecorom page 88  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made by Leo the Emperor etc.  
To the same purpose I alleged the ancient Council of Arles 
p Arelat. 1. c. 19 , that Presbyters may do nothing without the knowledge, and consent of their BB. and of Ancyra the most ancient approved Council that is extant 
q Ancyr. c. 12. alias 13. I cite the Latin text because the Greek seemeth to be defective. , Non licere Presbyteris civitatis, sine Episcopi praecepto amplius aliquid imperare, nec sine authoritate literarum eius in unaquaque parochia aliquid agere. That it is not lawful for the Presbyters of the city to do any thing of importance without the Bishop's appointment, no● to do any thing in any parish without the authority of his letters.  
To these I add the first Council of Toledo; 
r Toletan. 1. c. 20.  Sine conscientia Episcopi nihil p●nit●● Presbyteri agere praesummunt, Let the Presbyters presume to do nothing at all without the knowledge, and consent of the Bishop.  
And forasmuch as for a poor evasion he allegeth, that these Councils by me cited, though the ancientest that are extant, are under age; which ill becometh him to object, who hath no witnesses to the contrary before this present age; I will therefore produce one or two more, who lived in the Apostles times, and conversed with them. Ignatius therefore in an Epistle which the Refuter hath before cited, saith 
s Ad Magnes.  that neither Presbyter, nor Deacon ought to do any thing without the B. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, neither let any thing seem reasonable unto you, which is done without his warrant. To him I will adjoin a testimony of Clement, wishing the Reader to credit it no further than he seeth cause. He 
t Epist. 1. ad jacob.  therefore reporteth it as a doctrine of Peter, that no Presbyter ought to do any thing in any bishops parish or diocese, without his permission; and that all Presbyters ought without delay to be obedient to their BB. in all things.  
§. 14. But as I proved that Presbyters might do nothing without the bishops appointment or consent, 
The Presbyters might not do those things which belong to the power of order, without authority from the B. As not baptise.  so I noted especially those things which belong to their power of order; as the actions of their ministry, to baptise, to celebrate the Communion, to preach, to say the public Liturgy, or divine service.  
As touching Baptism, I alleged Tertullian 
u Lib. de baptism. , testifying, that the Bishop hath the right to give Baptism; then the Presbyters and the Deacons: but yet not without the authority of the Bishop, for the honour of the Church, (that is, the honour due unto him in the Church) which being safe, peace is safe. Where note in Tertullia's time, within the first two hundred years, the Bishop was so greatly honoured, that the peace of the Church was supposed to depend on the honour of the Bishop, as Jerome also speaketh, & that the ordinary right of baptizing was primarily in the Bishop; secondarily, in the Presbyters & Deacons, but not to be exercised by them without his authority: whereas extraordinarily, and in case of necessity, lay men in his judgement might baptise. To this the Refuter giveth five answers, but never a good one. As first, that Tertullian speaketh not of their iuresdiction in the Apostles times, or af●er by authority from them. He speaketh nor de facto, but de iure; noting what right Bishops had: and he showeth the ordinary right of baptizing which the Presbyters had, was not without the Bishop's authority.  
2. That the pre-eminence he giveth them was for the honour of the Church, and preservation of peace. What then? was this peculiar to his time? Were they not as careful of the honour of the Church, and preservation of peace in the Apostles times, as after?  
3. Neither doth he speak of the authority of the Bishop in general, but of an honour given him in one particular. And for one particular belonging to the power of order, did I allege it, that having proved this point in general, I might also show it in the particulars, which cannot otherwise be done, but sigillation, one by one. Yea but this honour no one particular, might well be in a titular Bishop, that had no such jurisdiction. Titular Bishops in the primitue Church were such, as had the name and title, but not the authority of a Bishop granted to them. Such a one was Meletius, who by the censure of the Council of Nice 
* Epist. Synod. Nic. apud. So●r. l. 1. c. 6. , was not to have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the authority, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the bars name of a Bishop. And such were 
x Synod. Nic. c. 8.  Novatian Bishops, returning to the Church permitted to be, if the Catholic Bishop would gratify them with the name and title of a Bishop.  
I read of Eustathius 
y Epist. Synodi Ephes. ad synodum Pamphyl. , the Metropolitan B. of Pamphylia, who being desirous to lead a more quiet and solitary life, gave up his Bishopric: whereupon Theodorus was chosen in his room. For it was not meet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that the Church should continue a widow, and that the flocks ●f our Saviour should remain without a governor. But he afterwards repenting him of the abdication of his Bishopric, putteth up a petition to the Council of Ephesus, that he might at the least retain the name and honour of a Bishop. At his request, the Council writeth to the Synod of Pamphylia, that he might have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the name, the honour, and communion of a Bishop: but yet so, as that neither he do ordain, nor taking upon him the charge of the Church, should perform sacred actions by his own authority Thus we see who were titular Bishops in the primitive Church, such as were gratified with the name, but wanted the office and authority of a Bishop. As for those who had the office of a Bishop, of whom Tertullian speaketh; they had also vigorem episcopatus, the vigour of the episcopal office: whereof Cyprian so oft speaketh, and the sway of authority ecclesiastical was in their hands: insomuch that Presbyters and Deacons, who by the power of their order had right to baptitize, might not even in Tertullia's time exercise that power, but by authority from the Bishop.  
In the fourth place the Refuter objecteth , that these Presbyters were not ordinary Ministers of the word and Sacraments, 
§ 15. Ad pag. 101.  but such as he and his fellows dream of; because Tertullian in the very next words affirmeth, alioquin etiamlaicis iut est, otherwise lay men also might baptise. That the Presbyters were Ministers, I have manifestly proved before, and I have noted already, that Tertullian signifieth the ordinary right of baptizing to be in the Bishop, Presbyters & Deacons, that yet extraordinarily and in the case of necessity, lay men might baptise. And so Jerome 
a Adverse. Lucifer.  seemeth to exhound Tertullia's meaning. Hence it is that without Chrism (which 
b Conc. Carth. 4. c 36.  the Presbyters of the several parishes were to fetch from their B.) and without the commandment of the Bishop neither Presbyter nor Deacon have right to baptise. Which notwithstanding we know to be oft times lawful for lay men to do, si tamen necessitas cogit, but yet so, if necessity do compel. But nothing is more evident than that the Presbyters were Ministers, by that which hath heretofore been delivered. Whereunto this helpeth somewhat, that Tertullian opposeth Presbyters and Deacons to laymen. This objection the Refuter thought to prevent, by saying, that the governing Elders and Deacons were accounted among the Clergy. Which also is an unlearned assertion. For to omit the arguments which before were brought to prove, that the Presbyters and Deacons were degrees of the sacred Ministry; it is plain, that the clergy of each diocese was a company of such as were trained up in learning, it being the seminary of the whole diocese. And as they profited in years, learning, and piety, so they were preferred to be Readers, than Exorcists, then Acolythi, then Subdeacons, after that Deacons, than Presbyters, out of whom ordinarily was chosen the Bishop. And moreover, the Presbyters and Deacons, with the rest of the Clergy, had all their maintenance according to their place and degree in the Church. And therefore our disciplinarians, if they will have such Presbyters and Deacons as were in the primitive Church, they must fetch them from the University, and schools of learning, as we do, and maintain them by the charges of the Church, as well, though not with so large allowance▪ as the Bishop.  
His last evasion (for none of his answers is better) is, that the lower Tertullian speaketh of, might well be, and was on a parish Bishop, the Presbyters being subject to him, as his assistants for that one Church. But parish Bishops, such as they speak of, and lay elders be of one edition, never heard of before our age. For the more manifest proof whereof, I refer you to that which before hath been by me alleged. It is evident therefore by the testimonies of Tertullian and Jerome, that such was the superiority of Bishops, in respect of jurisdiction, that the Presbyters and Deacons, though the right to baptise belonged to their power of order, yet they might not exercise that power, without jurisdiction and authority granted them from the Bishop.  

§. 16. Presbyters might not administer the Communion without the Bishop's licence.  The like I alleged concerning the Lord's Supper. Ignatius 
c Ad Smyrnens.  saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Let that Eucharist be allowed as firm and warrantable, which is celebrated under the Bishop, that is, in his presence; or by such (namely in his absence, or in those Congregations where he is not present) as he should permit or appoint. The words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, prevent the Refuters cavil, who saith, that the Church was but one Congregation, wherein no man had authority to minister the word or Sacraments, but with the liking of the Pastor. For that Eucharist which was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, was in the congregation, where the Bishop was present, it being administered in other congregations by such as the Bishop did authorize. But the idle conceit of one only Congregation in the greatest Churches hath been before sufficiently refuted.  
Where I alleged Cyprian, reproving the Presbyters of Carthage, for giving the Communion to some which had fallen in time of persecution, without warrant from him, though he were absent, therein not regarding as they ought 
d Cypr. li. 3. ep. 14.15.16.  praepositum sibi Episcopum, the Bishop who was set over them, nec Episcopo honorem Sacerdotij sui & Cathedrae servants, nor reserving unto the Bishop the honour of his Priesthood and Chair: the Refuter saith, the same answer which he gave to Tertullian, will serve (as a poor shift) for Cyprians testimony, who had just cause to complain, that the Presbyters, who in his absence were to feed the Flock, had taken upon them to admit to the Communion, etc. Doth not the Refuter see his former shift will not serve the turn? Is it not plain, that the Presbyters which Cyprian speaketh of, who as he saith elsewhere, 
e Li. 3. epist. 1.  were cum Episcopo sacerdotali honore coniuncti, joined to the Bishop in the honour of Priesthood, who were to feed the people, and whose office it was to deliver the holy Communion to the people, were Ministers of the word and Sacraments? Again, will it serve the turn to say, either that the Presbyters had authority only in this particular of the Sacrament, or that Cyprian was either but a titular or a parish B. whom I have proved before to have been a Metropolitan? In the end he resteth in his first answer, that Cyprian is under age. Alas good Cyprian, how hard was thy hap, that thou wert not Bishop one 
f 
Cyprian testifieth when he wrote the book, De duplici martyri●, that it was about the year 240. and it is plain that he was B. in Fabianus the B. of Rome his time, who ended his life in the year 249. after he had been B. 14. years.  
§ 17. The like is said of other ministerial functions.   forty years sooner, that the Refuter and his consorts, which now have excluded thee without the compass of their imagined Primitive Church, might have esteemed thy testimony as good as Tertullias, or others who wrote in the first 200. years!  
The like I might have added concerning other ministerial functions. The second Council of Carthage 
g Conc. Carth. 2. c. 9  decreed, that if any Presbyter without the consent of the B. should in any place agenda celebrare, celebrare divine service, and perform such actions as belong to the ministery, he should be deposed. The Council of Gangra pronounceth him accursed, who shall perform the actions of the church, meaning those things which appertain to God's public service, and the ministery of the word and sacraments, 
h Gangr. c. 6.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there being not present a Presbyter by the appointment of the Bishop.  
The ancient Canon, 
i C. 30. aliâs 31.  called the Apostles, appointeth, that such a Presbyter as will of his own authority, without the appointment of the B. hold assemblies for the service of God, & use of the sacraments, that he should be deposed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as ambitious. The same hath the Council of Antioch, 
k Conc. Antioch. c. 5.  in the fifth Canon; which Canon being recited in the Council of Chalcedon, 
l Act 4.  all the BB. gave it this acclamation: This is a just rule; this is the rule of the Fathers. This case being propounded in the Council of Carthage, 
m Carth. graec. c. 10. & 11.  if a Presbyter being condemned by his own B. shall swell with pride against him, and think he may apart celebrate the divine service, and offer the Communion, etc. the Council determined, if any Presbyter swelling with pride against his B. shall make a schism, withdrawing himself from the Communion of his B. etc. let him be anathema.  
For a conclusion, I alleged the words of Ignatius, 
n Ad Smyrn.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Let no man without the B. that is, without his leave and authority, do any thing that belongeth to the Church. To which the Refuter maketh this one only answer, of one congregation, which I have confuted more than once.  
To prove the Bishop's power and authority in correcting Presbyters, 
§. 18. The Bishop's authority in correcting Presbyters.  in the first place I alleged Cyprian, who 
o Li. 3. epist. 9  telleth Regatianu● a B. who had been abused of his Deacon, that pro Episcopatus v●gore & Cathedrae authoritate, for the vigour of his Bishopric, and authority of his chair, he might himself have censured him as he thought good; & counseleth him, if the Deacon did persist, he 
p Fungaris circa eum potestate honoris tui, ut eum vel deponas, vel abstineas.  should exercise the power of his honour towards him, and either depose him, or excommunicate him. Secondly, Jerome 
q Adverse. Vigilant. ad Riparium.  marveling that the B. where Vigilantius was Presbyter, did not virga apostolica, with the apostolic and with an iron rod, break that unprofitable vessel, and deliver him unto the destruction of the flesh. Both these the refuter casteth off, as uncompetent witnesses, who speak but of the practice of their own times; as who should say, it had been otherwise before their times. But it is plain almost by innumerable testimonies, some whereof I will cite 
r § 20.  anon, that the ancientest Canons, Counsels, and Fathers acknowledge and allow this corrective power in the Bishops over the Presbyters and Deacons in the Primitive Church. As for the Apostles times, I prove the same out of the Apocalypse, but more plainly out of the Epistles to Timothe and Titus.  
The former reason, if the Refuter will give me leave to frame it, is this: 
Those who either are commended for examining, and not suffering such in their Church, as called themselves Apostles, and were not, or were reproved for suffering false Teachers, had a corrective power over other Ministers.  
The Angel of the Church of Ephesus 
s Apoc. 2.2.  is commended for the former: the Angel of the Church of Thyatira 
t Apoc. 2.20.  is reproved for the latter.  
Therefore these Angels, which before I have proved to be BB. had a corrective power over other Ministers.   
His answer is frivolous, 
Ad. past. 102.  that neither these Angels were diocesan Bishops, which before hath been proved, nor these false Teacher's diocesan Presbyters, which word himself devised for a shift. Is it not against sense (saith he) that the Presbyters which were subject to the B. should call themselves Apostles? If they were not subject to him, why is he either commended for exercising authority over them, or reproved for suffering them? And if they were not Presbyters, because they called themselves Apostles, be like they were better men. Is it not then against sense, to deny that Presbyters were subject to the censure of the Bishop, because he imagineth these, who were subject to their censure, were better men? Whatsoever they were, whether Presbyters, or in a higher degree; whether of the Bishop's presbytery, or not; whether of his diocese originally, or come from other places, it is plain, that they were Teachers, and that being in their diocese, the Bishops had authority either to suffer them to preach, or to inhibit them; to retain them in the Communion of their Church, or to expel them.  
My other reason, that BB. had corrective power over the Presbyters, is, because Timothe and Titus had such power over the Presbyters of Ephesus and Crect: as I prove by most evident testimonies out of Paul's epistles 
Tit. 1.5.  written to them, 
u 1. Tim. 1.3.5.19.20.21.22.6.14.  and Epiphanius 
* Haeres. 75.  his inference on these words to Timothe: Against a Presbyter receive not thou an accusation, but under two or three witnesses, etc. Therefore (saith he) Presbyters are 
x Par in parem non habet imperium.  subject to the B. as to their judge. To my inference out of S. Paul he answereth, that Timothe and Titus were not BB. and that I shall never prove they were. I desire therefore the Reader to suspend his judgement until he come to the proofs on both sides; and if he shall not find my proofs for their being BB. to be better than his to the contrary, let him believe me in nothing. In the mean time let him know, that if the general consent of the ancient Fathers deserve any credit for a matter of fact, then must it be granted that Timothe and Titus were Bishops.  
Against Epiphanius he objecteth, that he took for granted that which Aerius constantly denied. But this is one of his presumptuous and malapeit conceits; for when Epiphanius proveth against Aerius, that Bishops were superior to other Presbyters, because Timothe was, taking it for granted that Timothe was a Bishop: what moderate or reasonable man would think otherwise, but that this assertion, that Timothe was a Bishop, was such a received truth, as he knew Aërius himself would not deny it?  (Serm. sect. 12. pag. 50. But consider also the Presbyters as severed in place from the Bishop, 
The Bishop's authority over Presbyters having cures.  and affixed to their several Cures, etc. to offenders, pag. 52. 
My first Argument to prove the jurisdiction of Bishops over Presbyters assigned to their several cures, is, that when any place in the country was void, the Bishop assigned a Presbyter to them out of his Presbytery, which as hath been said before, Calvin confesseth; and is an evident argument, as to prove the jurisdiction of the Bishop over the country parishes, and Presbyters thereof, so to demonstrate that the Bishops were Diocesan. This reason because he could not answer, he would as his manner is, persuade the Reader that it is needless.  
Secondly, I allege that these Presbyters might do nothing but by authority from the Bishop, from whom they had their jurisdiction, and therefore were subject to him as their ruler.  
Thirdly, 
Ad Pag. 103.  that they were subject to his judgement and censures. These two points with their proofs, he passeth over, as if he made haste to the reason following, which he supposeth to be the weakest. For this is his manner, to pass by in brevity, or in silence the best proofs, and if he meet with any thing which seemeth to him weaker than the rest, there he resteth like a●lie in a raw place. But by his leave I will insist a little on these two points. And first, for the former point in general, the ancient Council of Laodicea having ordained that Country Bishops might do nothing without the consent of the B. in the City; in like manner commandeth the Presbyters 
a Con. Leod. c. 56 alias 57  to do nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without the consent of the B. The same hath Damasus, 
b Epist. de Chorepiscopis.  who having spoken of Country Bishops, in like manner saith, this must be held concerning Presbyters; ut sine jussu proprij Episcopi nihilagant, that they do nothing without the commandment of their own B. To omit those actions that belonged to the power of order, which I have already proved they could not perform without licence and authority from the Bishop: consider, how in respect of their persons those of the Clergy were subject to the Bishop, to be disposed by him. First, he had authority to promote them from one degree to another, as he saw cause; insomuch 
c Conc. Carth. Graet. c. 31. & Aquisgran. c. 56.  that if they refused to be promoted by him they were to lose that degree from which they would not be removed.  
Secondly, they might not remove 
d 
Can. Apost. 15.  
Con. Antioc. c. 3.  
Constant. in Trul. c▪ 17. Carth. 4. c. 27.   from one Diocese to another without his consent. If they did, he had authority to call them back. Or if any other Bishop should ordain any of his Clerks without his consent, or letters dimissory 
e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , and in that Church prefer him to a higher degree; his own B. might reverse that ordination, & bring him again to his own Church. Con. Nic. c. 16. Arel. 2. c. 13. Sard. c 15. Constant. in Trullo. c. 17. Venet. c. 10 Epaun. c. 5.  
Thirdly, they might not so much as travel from one City to another, without the B. licence, & his commendatory 
f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  letters. This was decreed by the council of Laodicea 
g C. Laod. c. 42. & 41. , and divers others, as Con. Agath. c. 38. Epaunens'. c. 6. Aurelian. 3. c. 15. Venet. c. 5. Turon. c. 11.12. Hereby the Reader will easily discern, that the whole Clergy of every Diocese was subject to the B. as to their Ruler.  

§. 20. The B. judge of the Presbyters.  And that he was their judge, it is evident. Cyprian 
h l. 1. Epist. 3. In their controversies.  testifieth, that heresies and schisms arise hence, that the Bishop is not obeyed, nec v●us in Ecclesia ad tempus sacerdos & ad tempus index vice Christi cogitatur, neither is one B. in the Church and one judge for the time in the stead of Christ acknowledged. First, in their controversies: for when Clerks 
i Con. Carth. 4. c. 5●.  are at variance, the B▪ shall bring them to concord, either by reason, or by his power. If there be a controversy between Clerks, saith the Council of Chalcedon 
k c. Chalc. c. 9 , they shall not forsake their own B. but first their cause shall be tried before him. And if in their suits they thought themselves 
l c. Carth. grae. c. 28 & 126.  wronged in their bishops court, than were they either to se●ke to the next BB 
m C. Chalc. 9 , if the matter could not be differred to the next Synod: or else they might appeal 
n Cod. justin. de audien. tia episcopali c. sancimus.  to the Metropolitan, or Provincial Synod. But that the B. should be overruled, controlled, or censured by his own Presbytery, it was never heard of, unless it were by way of insurrection or rebellion.  
Secondly, in causes criminal, 
In causes criminal.  that the Presbyters and others of the Clergy were subject to the BB. censures, it is every where almost in the ancient Canons and Counsels either expressed, or presupposed. If any Presbyter or Deacon, saith the ancient Canon 
o Can. Apost. 32. , be excommunicated by the B. he may not be received by another into the Communion, then by him who did excommunicate him whiles he liveth. Which Canon is ratified in the Council of Nice 
p Conc. Nic. c. 5.  in these words; as touching those which be excommunicate, whether they be of the Clergy or Laity, by the BB. in every Province, let that Canon be observed, that those that are excommunicated of one should not go to another, etc. The Council of 
q C. Antioch. c. 4.  Antioch decreed, that if any B. being deposed by a Synod, or a Presbyter or Deacon by his own B. shall presume before they be restored by a Synod to exercise their ministry, their degree should be unrecoverable; and that they which communicate with them, should be cast out of the church. Again, 
r Ibid. c. 6.  If any of the Laity, or Clergy, whether Presbyters or Deacons &c. shallbe excommunicated by his own B. he may not be received of another. And yet again, 
s C. 12.  If any Presbyter or Deacon being deposed by their own Bishop, etc. The Council of Sardica 
t Sardic. c. 13.  forbiddeth a Bishop to receive a Presbyter or Deacon, etc. whom he knoweth to have been excommunicated by his own Bishop. Again, 
u C. 14.  If any B. through choler shall rashly excommunicate a Presbyter or Deacon, it shall be lawful for them to appeal to the Metropolitan. Exuperantius a Presbyter being excommunicated by Triferius his Bishop for some misdeamenour towards him, the Council of Taurin 
* C. 4.  left his restitution to the arbitrement of the Bishop; by whom he had been excommunicated. The Council of Carthage 
x Carth. graec. c. 9 Carth. 2. c. 7.  decreed, that they which received those which be excommunicated, shall be guilty of the same fault with them, who do fly from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the canonical sentence of their own B. Out of the same Council 
y Carth. graec. c. 10. Carth. 2. c. 8.  I cited before a decree concerning Presbyters which were condemned of their own Bishop. And in the 
z Afric. c. 29. & Carth. gr. 63 etc. 133.134.  African Council there is another decree concerning Clergy men of what degree soever, that have been condemned by the judgement of their Bishop. In the 4. Council of Carthage 
a Carth. 4 c. 55.  it was decreed that the Bishop should excommunicate the accusers of their brethren, and that if they did repent, he should receive them unto the communion, but not into the Clergy. The council of Ephesus 
b Ephes. c. 5. , that if any for their misdeeds being condemned, either by a Synod, or their own Bishop, should be restored by Nestorius or his complices either to the communion or to their degree, that they should notwithstanding remain excommunicated or deposed. The Council of Agatha 
c C. 2.  appointed▪ that disobedient Clerks should be corrected of their Bishop. In the Council of Chalcedon there is a Canon 
d Chalc. c. 23.  concerning such Clerks as being excommunicated by their own Bishops, got themselves to the City of Constantinople, etc. In the same Council Carosus 
e Act. 4.  useth these words; They are Bishops, they have power to excommunicate, and to condemn. These testimonies for counsels may suffice. For I will not descend to those of latter times, the latest which I have cited being the 4. general Council. For examples, the like plenty might be shown of them, who have been excommunicated or deposed by the B. Thus Alexander deposed 
f Theod. l. 1. c. 2.  Arius; 
g Socr. l. 6. c. 4. Sozom. l. 8. c. 3.  and chrysostom divers of his Clergy. Euryches was canonically 
h evagr. l. 2. c. 4.  deposed by his own Bishop, and divers Presbyters excommunicated by 
i Conc. Chalc. act. 10.  Ibus the Bishop, etc. To conclude, Bishops, saith Balsam● 
k Bals. in Conc. Eph. c. 5. , have authority either to excommunicate their Clergy or to depose them.  
Thus have I proved by evident testimonies, that all sorts of Presbyters, and other clergy men in every diocese were subject to the Bishop. Whereunto this I add, that since the first institution of Bishops, which was in the Apostles times until our age, it was never otherwise: but all clergy men, if either they withdrew themselves from their subjection to their orthodoxal B. they were counted schismatics; or if they lived under no Bishop, they were wont to be called headless Clerks. By no means, saith the council of 
l Burchard. decret. l. 2. c. 126. ex Conc. Parisiens.  Paris, are they to be accounted Clerks, or Priests, who do not live under the government and discipline of some Bishop: for such the custom of the ancient Church called acephalos, that is, headless.  
To these testimonies in the end I added a reason, 
§. 21. The superiority of BB. in jurisdiction proved by reason.  wherein the refuter, because he hoped to find some advantage, is pleased to insist. The reason standeth thus: 
The pastors of several parishes in the primitive church were either subject to the authority and jurisdiction of the Bishop; or they had associates in the parishes joined with them in the government thereof, or ruled alone without controlment, being neither restrained by associates, nor subject to BB.  
But neither had they associates in the parishes joined with them, neither did they rule alone without controlment, being neither restrained by associates, nor subject to the Bishop.  
Therefore the pastors of several parishes in the primitive Church were subject to the authority and jurisdiction of the bishop.   
First he taketh exception against the conclusion, saying that I do not conclude that which he looked for. What he looked for, I know not, nor care not; the thing which I propounded to prove, was, that the Bishops in the primitive Church were superior to the Presbyters in the power of jurisdiction or government. Which is most evidently proved by this argument a relatis: If the Presbyters were inferior and subject to the jurisdiction and government of the Bishops, than were the Bishop's superior to them in the power of jurisdiction and government. What can be more plain? or how could they be, as he absurdly imagineth subject to the jurisdiction and government of the B. if he neither had power to rule and direct them, nor authority and jurisdiction to censure and correct them? His exception therefore against the conclusion is a very frivolous cavil, like all the rest of his answers.  
To the proposition he answereth, by denying the destruction as insufficient, because a fourth thing might be added, and that is the authority of the congregation. But though this might be added according to the fantastical conceit of some fanatical spirits in our time, who make the government of the Church to be neither monarchial, nor aristocratical, but democratical, or rather ochlocratical; yet was it not to be added, because there could be no question thereof according to the judgement and practice of the primitive Church, whereof I spoke. But let him add it if the please; for it may as easily be denied in the assumption, as added in the proposition. The proposition will perhaps seem somewhat the better, and the assumption willbe never the worse. Therefore, this also was a mere cavil.  
As touching the assumption: that part which denieth them to have ruled alone, 
§. 22  as being neither restrained by associates, nor subject to Bishops, he saith he would have granted, but that I proved it. See the spirit of contradiction. What then? will he deny it? No, but hereby he will take advantage to infer his triumphing conclusion, 
Ad pag. 104.  that Bishopsforsooth he Popes, & then say it is my conclusion. But to this their conclusion, which they have published in print in most glorious and vaunting manner five times that I know of, arguing nothing but their gerat malice & small judgement, I have answered before to their shame. How oft must they be told, that we neither make our Bishops supreme governors, as they do their parish Bishop: nor sole, as theirs would be, if they had not the assistance of their Presbyters? And who knoweth not, that it is the supremacy that maketh a Pope: and supremacy they give to their parish Bishop.  
The other part of the assumption, which saith they had not assistants in the parish to restrain them, he denieth. But before he will examine my reason which I brought to prove it, his gravity thought good to cavil with the phrase, which (saith he) soundeth very strangely in our ears. Assistants are for his help whom they assist, not to hinder in the execution of his office; so do the justices of peace assist the judges at the assizes. Therefore he should either, not have called them assistants, or forborn the term of restraining. Where were so many ears, as he speaketh of, there were more heads than one that joined in this work, as I understand there did. But where so many heads were, it is strange there was no more judgement. Are your Presbyteries assisting your parish Bishop, to be compared to the justices of peace at the assizes, who have no right of suffrage or giving sentence? or not rather to the judges assisting the chief judge in every Court? have not all in your Presbyteries or consistories equal right of suffrage, and are not all things carried by plurality of voice? Is it not plain, that the judges in the King's bench, or common pleas, who are assistants to the L. chief justices, are joined to either of them, as to help him in giving right judgement, so to restrain him, that he judge not alone, according to his own pleasure? Is it not evident when more are joined in one commission, that they are joined as well to restrain him that is the chief, that he shall do nothing alone, as to help him in the execution thereof? What a shallow conceit than was this, that assitants might not be said to restrain; seeing their office is, as to help him whom they assist to do right, so to restrain him that he do no wrong.  
Let us now hear what he can say to the reason; which is this: If the pastors of every parish had assistants, than Presbyteries, either of lay-presbyters or of Ministers But they had not presbyteries to assist them, neither of lay-presbyters, nor of ministers. Therefore they had none assistants.  
The Proposition is grounded upon this hypothesis, which I took for granted, that all assistants or coassessours joined with the Bishop or pastor in the government of the Church, that are any where's noted to have been in the primitive Church, were Presbyters. For that which again he addeth concerning the whole congregation, is a very fond conceit. Whoever heard that the whole congregation assisted the pastor in the government of itself? assuredly they which attribute authority to the whole congregation ascribe unto it the chief authority, as in popular states: which the refuter hath before acknowledged, saying, 
a Page 6.  that they subject both the pastors & elders to the whole congregation, turning the world upside down, and making the flock to rule their pastor. And yet how this standeth with their other position, that the pastor is the supreme ecclesiastical officer in every Church. I cannot sell, unless they mean the highest under the Church itself. Which if it be so, then is not the Church according to their conceit assistant to the Pastor, but the Pastor is the Church's deputy and lieutenant for the government of itself, in which government of the Church the Presbyters be his assistants. But whatsoever might be added to the proposition, according to the unstaid fancies of certain innovators, which I respected not, the proposition is necessary according to the practice of the primitive Church whereof only I sp●ke.  

Ad. pag. 105.  But he denieth the assumption also, saying, that they had other Presbyters which were not ministers. But I hope he will unsay that saying, when he shall have read what before hath been delivered concerning their onely-governing Elders. Besides, against their parish-presbyters I alleged the practice of the Churches in Scotland and Geneva. For in Scotland they had not a Presbytery or consistory in every parish, but in such circuits as are answerable to our deaneries. And whereas he saith, that neither I nor he 〈…〉 truly what the practice of Geneva is, but by uncertain reports; he should have spoken for himself. For what I report concerning Geneva, I have read, as in other Authors, so in Beza himself, showing that they have but one Ecclesiastical presbytery, or consistory, for all the parishes both in the city and territory thereto belonging, consisting of eighteen seniors, whereof 6. are Ministers constant, and 12. chosen every year out of their 3. councils of state, viz. 6. out of the council of 200 4 out of that of 60, and 2. out of the 25. as I have noted before. But where he saith that Geneva may well be taken for one parish, seeing it hath no diocesan Bishop, it seemeth he doth not greatly care, what he saith. Belike there is but one parish church, and all the rest, being above 20. be chapels of ease; and who then is the pastor of the whole Church of Geneva? and what be they that are set over the Churches, if they be not the pastors of them? Again, it is not long since Geneva was under a Bishop, and then was it a Diocese, and is it now come to be but a parish? or shall we not rather say, that as the Bishop in his time was Diocesan; so the presbytery now, is not a parishional, but a Diocesan presbytery, and that the whole Church of Geneva consisting of many parishes, is as well a Diocese now, as it was before?  
It remaineth therefore as I said in the sermon, that the ministers of several parishes were subject to the Bishop, whose pastoral care extended itself to all, even theremotest parishes in his Diocese etc.   

CHAP. VI Titles of honour given to BB.  (Serm. sect. 13. pag. 52. Thus have you heard, that the Angels or BB. of the Primitive Church, were for the substance of their calling such as ours be. etc. to the end of the fourth point.) 
Here (I thank him) he compareth me to such as be called jugglers, 
Whether BB. may be called Lords.  because as they can persuade men they see what they do not see: so I would persuade my hearers that they heard which they did not hear. Whether of us doth use more plain evidence of truth, and whether of us tricks of legerdemain, I appeal to the conscience of the Reader; though it be the refuter himself. But good sir, though it was not in me to persuade every one that did hear, yet me thinks I might without offence say they had heard that which they did hear, whether it were true or false. And I hope in God, that which now I have written in defence of that which they heard, will not only satisfy those which are not wilfully addicted to your novelties; but also convict the conscience of the gainsayer: whom I desire in the fear of God, to take heed how they resist a truth whereof their conscience is convicted. 
Acts 9.5.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it is hard to kick against the pricks.  
To that which he objecteth concerning the mentioning of provincial Bishops, whom I did not name before, I answer: that although I did not expressly and by name argue for provincial Bishops: yet divers of my proofs were directly of them, and by a consequence from the greater to the less applied to Bishops: as also by this reason, because every provincial Bishop is a diocesan Bishop, though not chose. To his other cavil of not direct concluding, I have answered already 4. or 5. times.  

Ad page. 106.  But before I ended this 4. point, I thought it needful to prevent an objection which is usually made; that whatsoever the office of the ancient Bishops was, yet they were not called Lords, as ours be. Whereunto I answered, that men were not to be offended at that title, for these two causes:  
1. Because it is a title in the holy scriptures given, both to natural and spiritual Fathers, as I proved out of Genesis 3●. 35.1. Kings. 18.7.13. 2. Because the title of Angels, which the Holy Ghost in this place giveth to them, is a title of greater honour, than the other, by how much the heavenly governors of men under God, are more excellent than the earthly. To the former, besides some insulting speeches, 
Psal. 91.11. Dan. 10.11.  which he will be ashamed of, when he shall find himself put to silence: he answereth, that the word Lord was a term common too all superiors as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek, and Dominus in Latin: which I confess to be true in the vocative case, the words being used as our English, Sir. But otherwise, where the word is to be translated Lord, it is both in Hebrew and Greek a word of like honour with our English, Lord. And therefore it was a great oversight in those, which translating 1. Pet. 3. where Peter saith that Sara called Abraham 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Lord, read, that she called him Sir. For her words, whereunto Peter had relation, were these, Vadoni zaken, and my Lord is old. It were something foolish to say, and my Sir. Yea but saith he, the word Lord with us is appropriated to men of Nobility and special place in civil government. To omit that it is not so appropriated to them, but that even mean gentlemen are so called in respect of the manors which they hold, it appeareth by that which hath been said, that Bishops not only now have, but in the Primitive Church had, as special and as honourable a place in the government of the Church, as the civil magistrates he speaketh of, have in the common wealth. Their calling also being more honourable, I see no reason, why they should be envy an equal title of honour.  
To the latter reason he answereth 2. things. 
§. 2.  First, that the titles of honour now given to Bishops were also inferior to the title of Angels, which the holy Ghost giveth them; and yet then they had them not, nor till Popery (he meaneth the Papacy) was grown to his full height. His simple Reader would think that he speaketh upon certain knowledge, and cannot but believe him, and so be deceived by his confident speeches; but he speaketh at all adventures, as his affection, not as his knowledge lead him. The Papacy came not to the full height until the time of Hildebrand, which was above a thousand years after Christ: when the Pope had gotten the temporal supremacy, and so both the swords. The beginning of that, which our writers call the Papacy, was when the Pope first obtained the spiritual supremacy, which was about the year six hundred and seven. If therefore I shall prove, that Bishops had as honourable titles in the first six hundred years, as they have now with us; I shall evince, that not only before the height, but before the arising of the Papacy, they were called Lords, and by other titles no less honourable than Lord. But I will not desire so large a scope; the most of my proofs shall be contained within three or four hundred years after the death of Christ.  
Alexander therefore the Bishop of Alexandria, writing to Alexander Bishop of Constantinople giveth him this style, 
a Theodor. l. 1. c. 4.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, To my most honourable brother: Not long after, Arius writeth thus to Eusebius of Nicomedia, 
b Th. l. 1. c. 5. , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to my most desired Lord. The same Eusebius 
c Ibid. c. 6.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to my Lord Paulinus Bishop of trevers, using also the same title more than once in the same Epistle of Eusebius of Caesaria, calling him my Lord Eusebius. For though these two whom I last cited, were not sound in the faith; yet their writing showeth, what was the custom of the Church before the Council of Nice. Not long after the same Council, Athanasius succeeded the foresaid Alexander: in his behalf the Bishops which came out of Egypt write to the Bishops assembled in Council at Tyrus, 
d Atha. Apol. 2.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to our most honourable Lords. The Synod held at jerusalem 
e Sozom. l. 3. c. 22.  writing also in his behalf to the Presbyters, Deacons, & people in Egypt, Lybia & Alexandria move them to be thankful unto God, who hath now, say they, restored unto you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, your pastor and Lord. About the same time, certain BB. direct their letters to julius B. of Rome 
f Soz. l. 3. c. 23.  the great Patron of Athanasius, under this style 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the most blessed Lord etc. Gregory Nazianzen 
g Greg. Naz. epist ad Greg. Nyss.  writing to Gregory Nyssen concerning a false report which had been spread, that the BB. had put him by the bishopric, saith, let no man speak untruths of me, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor of my Lords the BB. The council held at Illyricum writing to the Churches and Bishops of Asia and Phrygia etc. hath these words 
h Theo. l. 4. c. 9 , we have sent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, our Lord and fellow minister Elpidius to take notice of your doctrine, whether it be as we have heard 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of our Lord and fellow Minister Eustathius. George the Bishop of Laodicea 
i Soz. l. 4. c. 13.  writeth to certain BB. thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the most honourable Lords. The fathers of the second general Council 
k Constantine p. 1. apud. Theodor. l. 5. c. 9  direct their letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the most honourable Lords Damasus, Ambrose, etc. And in the same epistle, speaking of BB. call them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, most reverend and most honourable brethren. The said Ambrose holding with other BB. a Synod, and writing a synodical epistle to Syricius then B. of Rome, among other BB. Aper a Presbyter subscribed thereunto for his B. using these words: 
l Ambros. Epist. 81.  Exiussudomini Episcopi Geminiani, at the commandment of my L. B. Geminianus. And this was the usual style which Presbyters did use when they did subscribe to Counsels instead of their B. whose place they supplied. As to the Council of Arles, 
m Conc. Arelat. 3.  Desiderius Presbyter directus à Domino meo joanne Episcopo, directed from my Lord john the B. have given my consent, and subscribed: and so three others there mentioned; & in like manner to divers other 
n Turonens. 1. Epaunens'. Valent. Aurelian. 3. Toleta. 3. etc.  Counsels. Whosoever will peruse the Acts of the great Council of Chalcedon, he shall seldom read any B. mentioned without some title of great reverence and honour; as reverendissimus, sanctissimus. And long before that, Socrates 
o Socr. hist. l. 6. in proem.  acknowledgeth, that it was the usual manner in his time, not to speak of BB. without titles of great honour, calling them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, most religious, most holy, or such like. And 
p Chrys. in Ps. 13. apud Caes. Baron. an. 58.2.  chrysostom saith plainly, that Heretics have learned of the Devil, not to give due titles of honour to Bishops. But where he findeth fault with them, for that in stead of those titles which argue their authority, they said, your reverence, your wisdom, and such like; what would he have said to the terms that have been usually given to our Bishops by the Disciplinarians among us? I say, among us: for Calvin, Beza, and others, when they have had occasion to write to our Bishops, have not refused to give them their titles of honour. To omit the rest, Calvin 
q Epist. Calvin. ad Cranmer.  writing to Archbishop Cranmer, useth these titles, Illustrissime Domine, Ornatissime & clarissime Praesul, etc. Zanchius 
r Epist. Dedic. l. the 3. Elohius.  to Bishop Grindall, Reverendissime Antistes. Beza 
s Suru. 131. Septemb. 15. 1589.  and Sadeel to Archbishop Whitgift, Reverendissimo viro, & in Christo Patri, Domino Archiepiscopo Cantuariensi, serenissimae Reginae Consiliario, & totius Angliae Primati, etc.  
His second answer containeth two things: the former, that the title of Angels which the holy Ghost giveth to BB. (for that only I mentioned) is quite besides the purpose, my argument being this: 
The holy Ghost giveth BB. a more honourable title, in calling them the Angels of the Churches, then if he had called them Lords.  
Therefore we should not think much that they are called Lords.  He answereth: The Angels are glorious creatures of heaven, and have some fit resemblance of the Ministers office: Lord, Lordship, and grace, are terms of civil honour, not so well befitting the Ministers of Christ jesus. I confess they do not so well befit them, because they come short of that honour and excellency, which in the name of Angels the holy Ghost ascribeth to them. For they are called not only Angels, that is, messengers and ambassadors of God, as all ministers are, in respect of their ministery; but also each of them is called the Angel of the Church, whereof he is B. in respect of his government, and gardianship of the Church: as the holy Angels of God are said to be their Angels, over whom they are appointed Governors, and guardians. Therefore the name Lord given to them in respect of their government and authority, is a title of less honour, then that which in the same respect is given them by our Saviour Christ. Neither are they therefore civil Lords, because they have that title of Lords common to them with the Lords temporal. For who knoweth not the distinction between the Lords spiritual and temporal, so often mentioned in the Acts of Parliament? And whereas in the second place he would insinuate, that our Saviour Christ expressly forbiddeth these titles of Lordship and grace, Luc. 22. where though he readeth thus, 
t Luc. 22.26.  The Kings of the Gentiles reign over them, and they that bear rule over them, are called gracious Lords; but you shall not be so: yet he is not so ignorant of the Greek tongue, as not to know, that neither gracious nor Lords are there mentioned in the original text. That was an affectionate translation of those, who were too partial in this cause. That very title, which our Saviour speaketh of, two of the Ptolemies, Kings of Egypt, did assume unto themselves, either of them being called Ptolomeus Euergetes, Ptolemy the bountiful or benefactor. But indeed in the language, wherein our Saviour spoke, the word 
u 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nedibim.  which is translated Benefactors, is often used for Principes or Heroes, as Psa. 118.9. It is better to trust in the Lord, then to put our trust in Princes. And that seemeth to have been Luke's meaning, as not only Merceru● 
* In Pagnia. thesaur.  but Beza 
x In Luc. 22.26.  also supposeth. The 70. translate the word, Prou. 19.6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the King; in Psal. 118 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Princes. So Psal. 47.10.83.12.113.7. But 1. Sam. 2.8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Pro. 8.16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is also plain, that the disciples imagining that Christ should be a worldly Monarch, expected, that themselves should be earthly Princes, in great authority about him, every one affecting a nearer place about him than his fellows, as appeareth by the two sons of Zebede, whose ambitious suit to Christ, that they might sit one on his right hand, and the other on his left in his kingdom, gave occasion of this speech, as Matthew 
y Matt. 20.20▪ 25.  noteth. Whereas therefore they both erred in their imagination, thinking that they should be great Princes under an earthly Monarch, and were corrupt in their affection, each one of them ambitiously seeking superiority over the rest, our Saviour seeketh to reform both, telling them that neither they should be earthly Princes, as they imagined, in these words, But you not so; neither ought they to affect ambitiously superiority over others, but that by how much they should exceed others in dignity, they should labour by so much the more to excel them in humility, imitating his example. Neither did our Saviour Christ interdict his Apostles, either superiority of authority over others, or titles of eminent honour. The authority and dignity of being his Apostles, is greater than any, either honour or title, that is given to our BB. Jerome 
z Hier. in Tit. 1.  writing on Paul's style which he assumeth to himself, Tit. 1.1. saith, Where he calleth himself the Apostle of jesus Christ, it seemeth some such thing as of he had said, Pr●fectus pr●terio Augusti Caesaris, Magister exercitus Tiberij Imperatoris. For even as the judges of this world, that they may seem the more noble, take names from the Kings whom they serve and from the dignity wherewith they are puffed up, even so the Apostle challenging to himself great authority among Christians, he signified before hand that he was the Apostle of Christ, that by the authority of the name be might bring in awe those that should read, showing thereby, that all which believe in Christ, must be subject to him.  

§ 27.  Having thus answered the first objection, I did easily foresee, that three other things would be objected: the first, if Bishops may be called Lords, than they may behave themselves as Lords of the Churches: I answered, that although they may not behave themselves as Lords of the Churches, yet being the Angels of the Churches, and spiritual Fathers, to whom a paternal and pastoral authority is committed, may worthily be honoured with the title of Lords. To this he replieth, that we call not Shepherds nor Father's Lords, and therefore the paternal or pastoral authority of Bishops doth not make them capable of such Lordly titles. I answer, that Magistrates, yea Princes, both in Scriptures and profane Writers, are called Pastors, as well as Bishops, and for the same cause are Lords. Neither do I doubt, but that the title of Father, being given by way of honour to him that is not a natural Father, is a word of as great honour at the least, as Lord: and that is the signification of the name Papa, which having been given in the Primitive Church to all Bishops, as a title of eminent honour, is for that cause by the Pope of Rome appropriated to himself.  
The second, there is too great odds between the titles of Bishops and other Ministers, the one being called Masters, the other Lords. I answered, there is no such great difference between Master and Lord, that inferior Minister, which assume to themselves the title of Master, should deny the title of Lord to Bishops. He replieth, as conceiving my speech simply, that there was no great difference between Master and Lord. If you respect their use in relation, as they are referred to their correlatives, there is no difference; if the use, without relation among us, there is great difference; but yet not so great, as that Ministers which assume the one to themselves, should deny the other to Bishops, there being as great difference betwixt their degrees, as their titles. Where he saith, it is not assumed, but given by custom to them, as Masters of Arts; both parts are false: for both it is given to all Ministers, as they are Ministers, though not Masters of Arts, though not graduates; and also I especially meant certain Ministers, who not enduring the title of Lord to be given to Bishops, will neither tell you their name by speech, nor set it down in writing, without the preface of Mastership.  
The third, if Bishops be called Lords, then are they Lords of the Church. I answered, it followeth no more that they are therefore Lords of the Church, because they are called Lords, than the Ministers are Masters of the Church, because they are called Masters: for neither of these titles is given to them with relation, but as simple titles of honour and reverence. No? saith he, let their styles speak, Lord of Hath and Welles, Lord of Rochester, etc. What? Lord of the Cities? nothing less, but Lords of the Diocese. They are Lords of neither, but Lord BB. both of the City and Diocese. And the relation is not in the word Lord, but in the word Bishop, though it be not expressed always, but many times is understood.  
The Refuter having thus weakly, 
§ 28. Ad pag. 107.  frivolously, and fondly shifted off my arguments and testimonies, rather than lie shifted off my arguments and testimonies, rather than answered them, there being not one line in my Sermon hitherto, which I have not defended with evidence of truth against his cavillations; notwithstanding, concludeth with a most insolent brag, as if he had (as his favourites give out) laid me on my back. And therefore as some wrestlers, after they have given one the foil, will jet with their hands under their side, challenging all others; even so he, having in his weak conceit given me a strong overthrow, because he findeth me too weak to stand in his arms, he challengeth all comers, saying, Let him that thinketh he can say more, supply his default. I do unfeignedly confess, there be a great number in this Land (blessed be God) who are able to say much more in this cause then I am: notwithstanding, a stronger propugner thereof shall not need against this oppugner. And because I am assured in my conscience of the truth and goodness of the cause, I promise the Refuter, if this which now I have written, will not convince him, as I hope it will; whiles he will deal as a Disputer, and not as a Libeler, I will never give him over (God giving me life and health) until I have utterly put him to silence. In the mean time, let the Reader look back to that which hath been said on both sides: let him call to mind, if he can, what one proof this Refuter hath brought for the parity of Ministers; what one sound answer he hath given to any one argument, or testimony to my one proposition or assumption which I have produced; and then let him consider whether this glorious insultation proceeded not from an evil conscience, to a worse purpose, which is, to retain the simple seduced people in their former terms of factiousness.    

THE FOURTH BOOK, Maintaining the fifth point, that the Episcopal function is of Apostolical and divine Institution.  

The I. CHAPTER: Proving the Episcopal function to be of Apostolical institution, because it was generally received in the first 300. years after the Apostles.  Serm. pag. 54. 
§ 1. That this treatise of the lawfulness of the BB. calling is not superfluous, though from the former points the same thing may be concluded.  It remaineth, that I should demonstrate not only the lawfulness of the BB. calling. etc. to page 55. li. 7. 
THE Refuter finding himself unable to confute this discourse of the lawfulness of the BB. calling, would feign persuade his Reader that it is needless; moved, and moving thereto by as frivolous reasons as ever were heard of. For though it be true, that this point hath already been proved by one argument, is it therefore needless to confirm the same by a second? Did ever any man meet with such a captious trifler, as would not permit a man to prove the same truth by two arguments, but the one must strait be rejected as needless? but indeed his analysis was forced; as he could not but discern, both by the distribution of the Sermon page 2. and also by the transition here used, neither was this point handled before, but the former assertion, whereby the text was explicated; that the Angels or Bishops of the primitive Church were diocesan Bishops, and such for the substance of their calling, as ours be, superior to other ministers in degree, etc. This which now we are to handle, is the second assertion, being a doctrine gathered out of the text, so explicated. I confess the former doth prove the latter; and that doth commend the method of my Sermon, and both being disposed together may make this Enthymeme.  
The Pastors or governors of the primitive Church, here meant by the Angels, were diocesan Bishops, and such for the substance of their calling, as ours be.  
Therefore the calling of such diocesan Bishops as ours be, is lawful.  
But I contented not myself with collecting the doctrine out of the text, but as the manner of all preachers is, when they have collected a doctrine, which is controversal; I thought it needful to prove, and to confirm the same with other arguments.  
But other arguments, saith he, needed not, if the three middle points were sufficiently cleared: what will he assume? but the three former points were sufficiently cleared? therefore as the first point was bootless, so this last is needless. If he like not of this assumption, he cannot make this conclusion, which notwithstanding he maketh: if he will assume, that they were not sufficiently cleared, as he hath borne the reader in hand all this while, than he must needs conclude against himself, that therefore these other arguments were needful.  
The truth is, though the former points were so sufficiently cleared, as that the refuter had nothing, whereby to avoid the evident truth thereof convicting his conscience, but beggarly shifts and sophistical evasions; notwithstanding, for so much as some of them, with whom I had to deal, are so lead with a spirit of contradiction, as if they were in the contradiction of Chore, (the Lord open their eyes and turn their hearts) I therefore thought it needful, for the more full conviction of the gainsayer, to confirm by other arguments the doctrine which I collected out of the text. But where I had been to blame for not setting down this collection plainly (were it not a point of Art sometimes to conceal Art) the reader is to coy the refuters head, for making so plain a collection for his own conviction, & as they say, for gathering a rod for his own tail. The collection being reduced into a sillogism standeth thus.  
The calling of such as are here meant by the Angels is lawful and good;  
Diocesan BB. such as our be, are here meant by the Angels.  
Therefore the calling of Diocesan BB. such as ours are, is lawful and good.  
The proposition is such as no man of understanding or conscience will make question of, 
Ad pag. 108.  saith the refuter, we ask no more, but to have this assumption confirmed, that the Angels were such, and then you shall not need other arguments to prove this conclusion. But the assumption say I, is that which in the Sermon, and in this defence thereof hitherto hath been proved: how sufficiently I refer to the reader, and I appeal to the refuter.  
This therefore may stand for the first argument.  
I proceed to that which was expressed in the Sermon, omitting what else he hath in this section as being either refuted before, or unworthy to be mentioned now.  Serm. Sect. 2. pag. 55. 
§ 2. The question is of such BB. as were described in the former part of the Sermon, and in the 2. and 3. books of this defence.  All the question now a days is of the lawfulness etc. to pag 56. l. 1. 
All the question, saith he, of the lawfulness had been ended before this time, if the Angels of the Churches had been proved to be such BB. But say I the Angels of the Churches were the BB. of the primitive Church, who in the former part of the Sermon were proved to be such, and those proofs in this defence have hitherto been confirmed in such sort as I hope the refuter will acknowledge himself to be satisfied: 
Ad pag. 109.  if not, yet it is but folly to multiply words concerning the proofs of the former assertion: for they must stand, until the refuter or some other of more strength shall take upon him to assail them: And I doubt not, but they will stand after they have been assailed.  
My argument therefore standeth thus: 
What function hath divine institution and approbation is lawful and good.  
The function of BB. such as were described in the former part of the Sermon, hath divine institution, as being Angels sent of God, and approbation, as being Stars which Christ holdeth in his right hand.  
Therefore the function of such BB. is lawful and good.   
To the assumption he hath nothing to answer, besides the bare deny all thereof, but that which already he hath repeated three or four times since he entered into this fifth point: that diocesan BB. are not meant by the Angels and Stars, and chargeth me, as though I thought it enough to affirm it, & would have my readers to take it upon my bare word: when the thing which I have proved hitherto hath been only this, that the Angels or BB. of the primitive Church were such as in the former assertion were described. But the assumption I prove in the residue of the sermon, first by consequence, & then directly. By consequence, in the next section.  

§ 3. Ad pag. 110. That the function of such BB. is of Apostolical institution.  Serm. Sect. 3. pag. 56. for what function or government is of Apostolical institution, that is to be acknowledged a divine ordinance (in respect of the first institution, as having God the author thereof.)  
The Episcopal function, or government by BB. is of Apostolical institution.  
Therefore it is a divine ordinance, etc. to pag. 61. l. 2.  
The proposition is acknowledged not only by Beza, 
a De grad. c. 23.  who saith, if it proceeded from the Apostles, I would be bold to ascribe it wholly, as all other Apostolical ordinances, to the institution of God, but also by the refuter himself: as needing no proof.  
The assumption I proved by three arguments: wherein I proceeded as it were by degrees: two whereof, saith the refuter, are needless; as if still he held it superfluous to bring more arguments than one. I confess, that any one of these cords are strong enough to bind a stronger man, than this refuter; yet I thought it not needless to use three, knowing that, as Solomon saith, a threefold cord is not easily broken.  
The first of the three I thus propounded: 
The 1. argument, because it was generally used in the primitive Church.  That government which was generally and perpetually used in all Christian Churches in the first three hundred years after Christ, and his Apostles, and was not ordained by general Councils, was undoubtedly of Apostolical institution.  
This proposition I proved, first by two testimonies of Augustine, 
b De Baptism. cont. Donat. l. 4. c. 24 & Epi. 118.  whereunto might be added the like testimonies out of Tertulian, 
c De prescript. advers. haeres. & con. Marc. l. 4.  Constatid ab Apostolis traditum, quod apud Ecclesias Apostolorum fuerit sacrosanctum. T. C. 
d Lib. 2. pag. 2.  saith, the example of the Apostles and general practice of the Church under their government, even without a commandment draweth a necessity.  
Secondly, By reason, showing, that both it is incredible, that all the godly Fathers and Christian Churches would abolish that government which was ordained by Christ and his Apostles: and also impossible, that a government not received from the Apostles, nor ordained by Councils, should at once be set up in all parts of the Christian world. But the refuter saith, 
Ad pag. 111.  I did not need to prove the proposition: for though such a change might be possible, yet it is so unlikely that it is against both Christianity & civility to suspect, that there was any such: for which grant, (though he could do no other) I think myself as much beholding to him, as if he had granted the cause. But thereupon (saith he) we may boldly infer, that if in the Apostles times the government was in the hands of the presbytery, it continued in the Church along time after their decease: from which proposition I may boldly and truly assume & conclude; that after the Apostles times the government was not in the hands of such presbiteries, as the disciplinarians speak of; therefore neither in the Apostles times.  
The assumption consisteth of two parts, the former that the government of the Churches by such BB. was generally and perpetually used in all Christian Churches in the first three hundred years after Christ and his Apostles; the latter, and was not ordained by general Councils.  

§ 4.  The former part I prove by four arguments. The first whereof is this: 

4. Arguments proving the assumption: 1. Because all the Angels or governors of the primitive Church in the first three hundred years after the Apostles were diocesan BB.  If the Angels or governors of the primitive Church in the first 300. years after Christ and his Apostles were diocesan BB. then the government of the Church by such BB. was generally and perpetually used in that time.  
But the antecedent is true, Therefore the consequent.   
He maketh a doubt of the proposition: because he hath not learned, that speeches in disputation indefinitely propounded are generally to be understood for avoiding of clenches: and therefore when I say the Angels or governors, I mean all the Angels or governors; when I say in the three hundred years, I mean throughout that term: even from the death of Saint john, to the end of the four hundred year after the incarnation of Christ.  
The assumption hath been proved at large in the former part of the Sermon and in this defence thereof: first by this disjunction, either the Churches after the Apostles time were governed by diocesan BB. as we say, or by presbiteries, consisting for the most part of Lay-elders, as the disciplinarians hold.  
But never by such presbiteries. Therefore ever by BB.  
Secondly, I have proved that ever since the Apostles times, the Churches have been dioceses and the BB. diocesans, superior to other ministers in degree, having singularity of pre-eminence during life, and majority of power in respect both of ordination and jurisdiction: his answer is, that he hath answered those points of my Sermon, where he hath showed that I proved no such matter: whereunto I reply, 
Ad pag. 112.  that all his answers were but shifts and evasions, and stand fully confuted. But perhaps the refuter will say; if I had understood your proposition as uttered in general terms, as now it is expounded by you; then I would have taken the same exception against the proof of the assumption, which I did against your proposition: for although in some part of that time some BB. were perhaps, such as you described; yet it followeth not▪ that generally and perpetually in the first three hundred years after Christ and his Apostles they were such. That they were generally such in the last of the three hundred years, which is the fourth century after Christ, it thing most fully testified, and most manifestly proved in the proof of the former points, and hath been confessed by the refuter: neither can be denied of any man, who hath any sound learning, joined with a good conscience. Let us then consider, when such BB. had their beginning. Perhaps some will say, they began with Constantine, for than was the greatest alteration in the state of the Church. I answer, the alteration was in respect of outward peace and prosperity, wherewith God blessed his Church, not in the discipline or doctrine of the Church: in respect of the wealth, and better maintenance of the BB. not in the substance of their calling. It is evident that BB. were diocesan before they were actually metropolitans; and metropolitans, before they were patriarchs: for of the combination of dioceses, did follow metropolitans; and upon the consociation of provinces, were patriarchs ordained, and yet long before the Council of Nice 
f Con. Nic. c. 6.  the patriarchs were in use, and the customs of subjecting diverse provinces to them, are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ancient customs. In the same canon it was also decreed, that the privileges or prerogatives of Churches, meaning especially the privileges of being mother Churches, should be reserved to them: which privilege, as I have showed before, belonged to them ever since the Apostles times. When the B. of Antioch attempted to ordain the Metropolitan of Cyprus, the BB. of Cyprus complain to the Council of Ephesus, alleging that ever since the Apostles, the Metropolitan B. of Constantia was ordained by the Synod of the provincial BB. whereupon the Council 
g Conc. Ephe. post adventum Episcoporum Cypri.  not only censured the attempt of the B. of Antioch as an innovation contrary to the rules of the Apostles; but also determineth, first, that no B. should have to do with any country or province which had not, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ever from the beginning belonged to his See: and secondly that every province within itself should retain inviolable such rights as they had, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ever from the beginning according to the custom received of old. If therefore metropolitans and patriarchs were in use long before Constantine's time, who can doubt but diocesan BB. were much more? Long since saith Cyprian, 
h Cyp. lib. 4. epi. 2  in all provinces and in all cities BB. are ordained, in age ancient, sound in faith, tried in affliction, etc. in Provinces, metropolitans, such as himself was; in Cities, diocesans.  

§ 5. That diocesan BB. had not their first beginning after the Apostles times.  Without doubt, if diocesan BB. had their beginning after the Apostles times, then was it shortly after their decease. But that cannot be, first because, as I shall prove in the next reason, they were in the Apostles times: secondly, because, as I said in the Sermon, it is incredible that all the Churches would, and impossible that they could agree in abolishing a government received from the Apostles, and setting up at once in all places of the world, one other uniform government by BB. without the gain saying of any one of the godly Fathers, or worthy Martyrs of Christ. Besides, the succession of BB. from the Apostles times, as I shall show, doth plainly prove their original to have been in the Apostles times. Whereunto may be added the testimony of Eusebius concerning the age succeeding the Apostles times: for having showed that about the twelfth year of trajan, (which was about seven years after the death of Saint john) Primus succeeded Cerdo in the Bishopric of Alexandria, and Alexander evaristus in the Bishopric of Rome; he testifieth, 
i Eus. hist. l. 4. c. 1. & 2.  that in those times both the doctrine 
k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  of Christ and his Church did flourish daily more and more. Likewise in the time of Adrian he testifieth both that the 
l c. 6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Churches shined in all places of the world like most glorious lights, and the faith of Christ in all nations flourished. And in the same book, 
m lib. 4. c. 19.20.21.22.  after he had noted the succession of the BB. of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, showing how Soter succeeded Anicetus at Rome, Agrippinus Celadion at Alexandria, Theophilus Heros who had succeeded Cornelius, and he Heron at Antioch, and having mentioned some other famous BB. as Dionysius of Corinth, and Pinytus of Candy, Philippe, Apollinaris, Melita, Musanus, Modestus, and Irenaeus, he saith, that Hegesippus flourished at the same time, 
n An. 8. Antoni. Christi 169.  whose testimony of the estate of the Church in his time he hath recorded, to this effect, 
o Eus. l. 4. c. 22.  that journeying toward Rome, in many places he had conference with the BB. all which he found to be teachers of one and the same doctrine: and having spoken of the Epistle of Clemens to the Corinthians, he giveth this testimony to the Church of Corinth in particular, that it had continued in the right faith until that time, when he coming to Corinth, saw Primus the B. with whom he conversed there a good while, rejoicing together in the true faith. But when I came to Rome, saith he, I continued with Anicetus, whose Deacon Eleutherius was: but Soter succeeded Anicetus, and after him Eleutherius was B. Now, saith he, in every succession and in every city all things stood as the law preacheth, and as the Prophets, and as our Lord. And afterwards speaking of the heresies which did spring in his time; after that james, saith he, surnamed the Just, had suffered Martyrdom, Simon the son of Cleophas is made B. whom all men preferred for this cause, because he was the Lord's cousin: wherefore they called the Church a Virgin; for as yet she had not been corrupted with vain doctrines: but Thebulis because he was not made B. began to corrupt it, being the broacher of one of the seven heresies which were in the people. So much of the first argument.  

§ 6. The second argument from the two testimonies of Jerome.  The second is taken from the testimony of Jerome, in two places: the former in Titus 1. where he saith thus: before 
p Hier. in. Tit.  that by the instinct of the devil, factions began in the Church, and it was said among the people, I am of Paul, I 〈◊〉 of Apollo's, I am of Cephus, the Churches were governed by the common counsel of the presbyters: 
The 1.  but when every one accounted those for his whom he had baptized, it was decreed in the whole world, that one being chosen from the presbyters, should be set over the rest in every Church, unto whom the care of that whole Church or diocese should appertain, and that the seeds of schisms might be taken away. For full answer to this testimony, he referreth us to another place; and when he cometh thither, I doubt he will not say much to the purpose. In the meantime, he answereth first, to the testimony itself, and then to my inference out of it: to the testimony he answereth, that Jerome maketh the beginning of this constitution of BB. not in the Apostles times, nor in the times immediately succeeding the Apostles. Not the former because otherwhere he saith that BB. were superior to presbyters rather by the custom of the Church, than any ordinance of God. Whereto I answer, that custom himself calleth 
q Ad. evagr.  an Apostolical tradition: and else where most plainly and fully testifieth in many places (some whereof are noted in the Sermon) both that BB. were in the Apostles times, and also were ordained by the Apostles themselves. Not the latter, because it is, as I had told him, against the modest charity of a Christian to imagine, that all the Church would conspire at once to thrust out the government established by the Apostles, and instead thereof to bring in another of their own. But say I, it is most manifest, that BB. were placed in all Churches in the next age to the Apostles: and therefore he must either grant, that the Apostolical Churches received this government from the Apostles, or else confess (according to his usual modesty in setting light by the testimony of all antiquity,) that all Churches conspired to alter the government which the Apostles had established. But of his modesty I would know, when he thinketh this government by BB. began; and whether he must not be forced of necessity, either to lay that foul imputation upon all the ancient Churches, on all the godly Fathers and blessed Martyrs; or to yield that they had received this form of government from the Apostles.  
My inference also he denieth. When as not withstanding the allegation giveth full testimony to the generality, saying, it was decreed in the whole world: and of the perpetuity there can be no question, if the beginning were not latter than I intended. But it is plain, that by jeroms meaning it began in the Apostles times: at the first indeed he saith, before BB. were ordained, the same men were called Presbiteri & Episcopi: and until factions began, the Churches were governed (viz. in the absence of the Apostles) by the common counsel of the Presbyters: which may be true of the most Churches, excepting that of jerusalem, by Ieromes own confession. But when factions began, as those did in the Apostles 
r 1 Cor. 1.  times, whereof he speaketh; the Apostles ordained, and in the whole Christian world it was observed, that for avoiding of schism one should be chosen from among the presbyters, who should be set over the rest, and to whom the whole care of the Church, that is, the diocese should appertain.  
As for the reasons whereby he proveth the consequence feeble, they are exceeding weak. First, because jerom speaketh not of the times immediately succeeding the Apostles. It is very true: for he speaketh of that which was done in the Apostles times, as hath been said: secondly, saith he, because he saith it was decreed in the whole world, which could not well be without a general Council, unless it soaked in by little and little, till at the last it over-flowed all places. The decree which he speaketh of, could be no other but of the Apostles: for as hath been said, what was generally observed in the Churches in the first three hundred years, before there was a general Council to decree it, proceeded undoubtedly from the Apostles. Now it is more than evident, that long before the first general council, there were not only Diocesan BB. but metropolitans also, yea patriarchs: that which he talketh of soaking in by little and little, agreeth not with the general decree, whereof Jerome speaketh, whereby what is instituted is ordained at once. Neither can he assign any time after the Apostles, when BB. had either less charges, or less authority, then in the end of the first three or four hundred years. Their Dioceses oft times as hath been showed, were lessened in process of time, but seldom or never enlarged. Neither is it to be doubted, but that their authority among Christians was greater before there were Christian Magistrates, than afterwards. For before, they called and held their Counsels by their own authority, they heard and judged all causes among Christians, they punished all kinds of faults 
s Conc. Ancyr. c. 16.20.21.22.23.24.25. Et Neocaes. c. 2. & 3.  by Ecclesiastical censures.  
The other testimony of Jerome, is out of his commentary on Psal. 45. which I have mentioned before. 
§ 7. The second testimony of Jerome in Psal. 45.  That the Church in steed of her Fathers, which were the Apostles, had sons which were the BB. who should be appointed governors in all parts of the world.  
He saith first, this testimony is an allegory upon the 45. Psalm, and not a history of the times. Which is a frivolous evasion. For it is an exposition of the Prophecy by the history or event, and so not only he, but Augustine also expoundeth the place.  
Secondly, he allegeth, that Jerome doth not say, that the Church had BB. as soon as the Apostles were gone: which also is frivolous. For he signifieth that the BB. did succeed the Apostles in the government of the Church, which else where he plainly professeth, saying, that 
t Ad. evagr.  BB. are the successors of the Apostles. If any other had come between them and the Apostles, those other should have been the Apostles successors, and they the predecessors to the BB. Besides, others of the Fathers in plain terms testify, that the Apostles committed the Church every where to the BB. and left them their successors: which in the successions also of BB. in the Apostolical Churches is plainly declared. Simeon the son of Cleophas succeeding james, Evodius, Linus, Timothy, Tittu, etc. substituted by the Apostles, Peter and Paul, and succeeding them in the government of those Churches wherein they were placed.  
Thirdly, 
Ad pag. 113.  he saith, Jerome applied the Psalm to the practice of the times wherein he lived, not expounding the meaning of the Prophecy, which if he had done he must have acknowledged that such BB. were by the ordinance of God. Who could be so shameless as to say, that Jerome expoundeth not the meaning of the Prophecy when he commenteth thus: Pro patribus tuis nati sunt tibi filii. Fuerunt O Ecclesia Apostoli patres tui, quia ipsi te genuerunt: nunc autem quia illi recesserunt à mundo, habes pro his Episcopos filios, quia à te creati sunt: sunt énim & high patres tui, quia ab ipsis regeris. He therefore expoundeth the meaning of the Prophecy, applying it to the state of the Church immediately after the decease of the Apostles, and not only to Ieromes times. Why but then Jerome must be thought to have held the function of BB. to be a divine ordinance: that followeth not; for he might hold them to be prophesied of, as he also confesseth, Es. 60. and yet esteem them but an apostolical ordinance, being neither immediately ordained of God, nor yet provided as generally & perpetually to be necessarily observed, as those things which are said to be simply divini juris. 
§ 8. The third argument consisting of two parts: the first affirmative, that all Councils, Histories and Fathers give testimony to BB.   
My third argument consisteth of two branches; the former, affirmative, that the Counsels, Histories, and Fathers with one consent give testimony to the government by BB: the other, negative, that not any one pregnant testimony of any sound writer, or example of any one orthodoxal or apostolic Church (viz. in the first three hundred years after Christ and his Apostles) can be produced to the contrary. To the former he answereth, that the Counsels, Histories and Fathers, either bear witness of their own times, which is nothing to the purpose, seeing the ancientest 
u Note his reason: the testimonies of the Fathers to no purpose, because the ancientest Councils were in the fourth age.  Council was in the fourth age of the Church, or else judge of the BB. in former times, by that which they saw then in practice, taking all that had the same name of BB. to have been partakers of the same authority.  
If the Fathers did bear witness only of their own times, it were sufficient for the proof of my assertion, seeing there were divers in all the term specified of three hundred years after the Apostles, which give testimony unto it: as in the first age after the Apostles (to omit them of the two latter) Ignatius, Hegesippus, Irenaeus, Clemens, Tertullian, do give plain testimony unto it; and two of them, as hath been showed, to wit, Ignatius and Irenaeus, were not only Diocesan, but also Metropolitan BB. But the Fathers, histories and councils, do not only speak of their own times; but also relate what was done in the Apostles times, and immediately upon their decease. Do they not testify with one consent, as I partly show in the two arguments following, that there were BB. in the Apostles times, appointed and ordained by the Apostles themselves? do they not say, that the Apostles committed the Churches to them, and left them to be their successors in the government of the Church? is not this one of the chief things which Eusebius propoundeth to himself in his history, 
w They be the first words of Eusebius. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  to set down the succession of BB? chiefly, of those who next succeeded the Apostles in the Apostolical Churches? But let the Reader judge of the Refuter, and his cause, by that which followeth.  
The Fathers discerned not, or knew no difference between the calling or authority of the BB. which were in their own time, and those which had been before them, but thought and wrote of them as being alike, the chiefest of them in every age from the Apostles, being BB. themselves. The refuter and his fellows coming thirteen or fourteen, yea almost fiveteene hundred years after some of them, will needs have a difference; and rather than it shall not stand, all the Fathers must be condemned as Idiots, for not seeing that which these learned men do see. I greatly marvel with what face, or rather with what conscience the refuter could avouch these things.  
The Nagative part of my reason, 
§ 9 The second part of the third argument negative, that no instance can be given to the contrary.  he saith, is directly false in both the parts of it, as well for testimonies as examples. But I desire the reader to have an eye to the refuters dealing, so shall he easily discern to what poor shifts he is driven: first consider, what was the assumption of my first Syllogism, which by these four arguments I do prove; to wit, that in the first three hundred years after Christ and his Apostles the government by BB. was generally and perpetually used. This I prove in this third reason, by the testimonies of Antiquity, both affirmatively, that all antiquity, viz. Councils, Fathers, Histories, with one consent give testimony to it: and also negatively, that no testimony or example of antiquity, no ancient Council, Father or History, no example of any ancient orthodoxal or Apostolical Church, can be produced to the contrary. 
All the refuters instances either false or impertinent.  This any reasonable man would take to be my meaning.  
Now consider his instances, wherein he spendeth above six leaves; and if any one of them be both true and direct to the purpose, then say that I have no judgement.  
First for testimonies: We have pregnant testimonies, saith he, of the ancients, and of many sound writers in these latter ages, who affirm, that BB. and ministers were all one in the Apostles times, and that one minister exercised not authority over his fellow ministers, as BB. since have done and still do. First, consider the persons of the witnesses, which he is about to produce, and then the things which they are to depose▪ for whereas I never meant to extend the negative part of my reason, further than the affirmative: and therefore as I said that the Councils, Histories, and Fathers, do all give testimony to the Episcopal government, so I meant that no pregnant testimony either of Councils, Histories or Fathers, (which I comprised under the general name of sound writer) could be produced to the contrary: he, for instance allegeth a company of new writers in this present age, as if they were competent witnesses to depose in a matter of fact, or to testify what was done or not done in the Church fourteen or fifteen hundred years ago: or as if when I challenge them to show any one testimony of antiquity to the contrary, it were a sufficient instance, to oppose against me a sort of new writers, who for the most part also are parties in the cause. But yet what shall these witnesses testify? forsooth two things: First, that in the Apostles times BB. and ministers were all one: whereunto in the first place I answer, that this deposition is not to the purpose. In this argument I speak of what was in the first three hundred years after Christ and his Apostles; but he will make his witnesses to depose what was in the Apostles times: perhaps he will say, the conscience must build itself upon the practice of the Apostles times: (but say I) in this reason I prove, that the Episcopal government was in use in the Apostles times, because it was generally and perpetually used in the next three hundred years after the Apostles times; which consequence himself hath granted ●gainst the assumption therefore he should bring his witnesses, if they had any thing to say; and not to be so absurd, as by them to deny my conclusion again, the Ancients that say BB. and Presbyters were all one in the Apostles times, speak of that part of their time, when as in the most places there were no BB. or at least not chosen from among the Presbyters: for before there were such BB. the same persons indeed were called Episcopi & Presbyteri: but when BB. were chosen out of the Presbyters, which they also confess was done in the Apostles time (as namely at Alexandria) they profess, 
Hier. ad evagr.  that then those which were so chosen and placed in a higher degree above the Presbyters, began to be called BB.  
The other thing, which he will have his witnesses testify is, that in the Apostles times one Minister did not exercise authority above another as BB. since have done: to which assertion, I am sure no sound writer will depose▪ for I pray you, were not the Apostles ministers? were not Timothy and Titus ministers? were they not also superior to other ministers? did they not exercise authority over them? If Timothy therefore and Titus were superior to other ministers and exercised authority over them; why may not BB. who succeed not only them (whether they were BB. or not) but also the Apostles in the government of the Church, be superior also to other ministers, and exercise authority over them?  
But come we to his witnesses, 
§ 10. The refuters instances out of the old writers. Ignatius, justin Martyr, Tertullian.  whereof he would seem to have great store: howbeit, he will content himself with a few, and he will pass by Ignatius, justin Martyr, and Tertullian, as having done their service already: ●et the reader understand, that this is a most vain flourish: for he is not able to produce any one testimony out of any one of the Councils, Histories or Fathers, that speaketh against the government of the BB. in the first three hundred years, in respect either facti or juris, that is, as either denying that the Church was so governed then, or that it ought to have been so governed. And as for Ignatius, justin Martyr, & Tertullian▪ the greatest advantage he could have by them, was to use their names: for there is not a word in them sounding against the government of BB. but pregnant testimonies for them: especially in Ignatius and Tertullian, whom I have often quoted in this cause.  
It is true, that the refuter did allege these Authors as witnesses to prove that fond and unlearned conceit, that the ancient Churches were no other but Parishes, to prove that which is more fond, that there is and aught to be no other visible Churches endued with power of Ecclesiastical government, but Parishes. But the vanity of his conceit, and the weakness of his allegations, have I hope been sufficiently laid open before in the defence of the second point. Passing therefore by them, the refuter will begin with Cyprian, 
a Cyp. l. 3. Epi. 19  who affirmeth that the managing of the Church business, even in his days belonged to the Counsel of himself and the rest of the Presbyters, omnium nostrûm concilium spectat, and therefore durst not take it to himself alone, praei●dicare ego & soli mihi re● omnem vendicare non audeo. Here let the reader consider with me, first, the person of the witness which is produced, and then the thing which is witnessed: was not Cyprian himself, not only a Diocesan, but also a Metropolitan B.? did not he in judgement allow the function of such BB.? directly he saith that BB. 
b l. 4. Epist. 9  are the successors of the Apostles, and that they answer to the high Priest in the law: that the Lord jesus, when he appointed Apostles, 
c l. 3. Epist. 9  ordained BB. The Deacons must remember, saith he, that the Lord himself chose Apostles, that is, BB. but Deacons were chosen by the Apostles themselves after the Ascension of the Lord, as ministers of their Episcopal function, and of the Church. Doth not he teach 
d li. 3. Epist. 2. & 13. l. 4. Epist. 2.  that in one Church, meaning a whole Diocese, there may be but one B.? & that to set up a second is to make a schism, and to rend in pieces the body of Christ? doth he not often plead for the superiority of BB. over the Presbyters, showing 
e li. 1. Epist. 3. l. 3. epi. 9 & 14. & 15.  how they ought to reverence and obey them, and that the contrary is the source of all schism? Neither do heresies, saith he, 
f li. 4. Epist. 9  arise or schisms from any other beginning then this, that the Priest of God (meaning the B.) is not obeyed, neither one Priest for the time in the Church, and one judge for the time in stead of Christ is acknowledged: whom if the whole brotherhood according to God's commandment would obey, etc. How oft doth he speak of the vigour 
g li. 3. Epist. 9 & 16. li. 1. Epist. 3.  of the Episcopal power, and of the authority of his chair, whereby he acknowledgeth, even those of the Clergy might be either excommunicated or deposed. Is it not likely therefore think you, that Cyprian would testify against the function or authority of BB.?  

§ 11. Cyprians testimony examined.  But let us examine the allegation itself. There were some in the Church of Carthage, that had fallen by denying their faith in time of persecution; and returning to the Church again, would in all hast be reconciled and received to the communion: whereof some by their importunity prevailed with some of the Presbyters, whom as I noted in the Sermon, Cyprian 
h li. 3. Epist. 14. , being absent, reproved by letter, that they not regarding their Bishop set over them, nor the 
i Epi. 15. & 16.  honour due to him, nor reserving to him the honour of his Episcopal office, and his chair, had without his appointment (though absent) reconciled them and received them to the communion: others procured the Martyrs and Confessors to write to Cyprian in their behalf; that when peace should be restored to the Church, peace might upon the examination of their cause be given to them. Cyprian 
k li. 3. Epist. 15.  therefore writeth to the Martyrs commending them, that whereas the Presbyters should have taught them what appertained to the discipline of the Church; they were to learn of these Martyrs, to refer their petitions and desires to the B. and then willeth them to set down in writing particularly, whom they desired to be received: he writeth also to the people, 
l li. 4. Epist. 16.  signifying, that he had received letters from the Martyrs in the behalf of those which had fallen, promising when God should grant peace unto them that he might return to them, the behaviour and repentance of them which had fallen should be examined in their presence: and having signified his great dislike of the Presbyters act, who not reserving unto him the honour of his Priesthood and chair, had without his allowance communicated with them which had fallen. In the end, he desireth that they which had fallen would patiently hear his counsel & expect his return, that when through God's mercy we shall come unto you many of my fellow BB. being assembled together, may according to the discipline of the Lord, in the presence of the confessors, examine the letters and desires of the blessed Martyrs: he writeth in like manner to the 
m Epi. 17. & 18  Clergy, that is, to the Presbyters and Deacons; willing them, for as much as still his return was delayed, that in the case of necessity they should not expect his presence, but for such, as should be in danger of death, to lay their hands upon them, and reconcile them; especially, such as had been commended by the Martyrs; as for the rest, he would have them stay, till he being restored to the Church, and they all being assembled together, might determine what was to be done. But being importuned again by letters from the Confessors, who had desired him, and by him the rest of the BB. to grant peace, as themselves did to them which had fallen; he writeth again to the Presbyters and Deacons that letter, which by the refuter is cited; saying, 
n L. 3. Epist. 19  concerning those (which had fallen, and by the Confessors have desired to be reconciled) until it be certainly known, what course they have taken since their fault committed, seeing it is a matter which belongeth to the Council and judgement of us all, I dare not prejudicate, and challenge to myself a thing which is common; and therefore appointeth that course to be taken, which I mentioned out of the last Epistle: and to the same purpose writeth to divers BB. and by name to Calidonius 
o L. 3. Epist. 20. , showing him what order he had taken in this matter, and willing him to signify the same to other BB. that the like course might be taken by them.  
If these letters, all concerning the same businesses, be conferred together, you may observe, first, that Cyprian was a Metropolitan B. having authority to assemble and to direct his comprovincial BB. as may appear also by the Synods held, and Synodical Epistles written by him. Secondly that he speaketh not of Church business in general, but of this particular; which was of so great importance, that he saith 
p L. 3. Epist. 18. , it was the cause not of one Church or of one Province, but of the whole world. Thirdly, that he would not deal alone in this business, but he would call a Synod of his fellow BB. besides his Clergy; and in the presence of the people have the cause of them which had fallen examined. Fourthly, that although he would not deal alone in this business, being a cause of so great moment, but would have it referred to the examination & censure of his fellow BB. besides the concurrence of the people, and his own Clergy in this judgement; notwithstanding the chief stroke in this business was in him; as appear, both by their petitions, and his directions. And therefore the whole carriage of this business doth prove the Episcopal authority of the B. and Cyprians superiority, not only over his own Presbyters, but also over his fellow Bishops, so far is it from impleading the same▪ and further I say, that Cyprian, because his coming to the Bishopric was much resisted by Felicissimus and his complices, and the time wherein he lived troublesome and dangerous: therefore though he might (as Jerome 
q In Tit. 1.  speaketh of all Bishops) rule alone as Moses, yet as Moses, he voluntarily used the assistance of others, having as himself 
r lib. 3. Epist. 10  saith, from the beginning of his Bishopric determined to do nothing by his own private sentence, without the counsel of the Clergy, and consent of the people: whereby it appeareth, that his using of the Clergies counsel, and consent of the people, was not of necessity, but voluntary: and therefore when he saw cause, and did find himself not to need either the counsel of the Clergy, or consent of the people, he would sometimes do matters of importance, (as namely the ordination of Clerks) alone: as himself signifieth in an Epistle 
s lib. Epist. 5. l●b. 3. Epist. 22. lib. 4. Epist. 5.  to the Presbyters, Deacons, and the whole people. In ordaining of Clerks I do use before hand to consult with you, and by common counsel to weigh the manners and deserts of all: but human testimonies are not to be expected, when we have divine suffrages; and therefore signifieth that he had without them ordained Aurelius and others to be Clerks. But suppose, that of necessity Cyprian was to use the advise, or expect the presence and conscience of his Clergy, in dispaching matters of importance; would this be an instance against the Episcopal government in those times? did the fourth Council of Cathage 
t Con. Carth. 4. cap. 22. & 23. , set forth these two Canons, the one, that a B. without the Council of his Clergy should not ordain Clerks: requiring also that the assent or connivence and testimony of the people should be had? the other, that a B. should hear no man's cause but in the presence of his Clerks, and that the sentence of the B. should be void which was not confirmed by the presence of his Clergy, and yet no man doubteth, but that when that Council was held (which was about four hundred years after Christ) the sway of Ecclesiastical authority, both for ordination, and jurisdiction was in the Bishop. But I have vouchafed too long an answer to so weak an allegation.  

§ 12. The testimony of Ambrose in 1 Tim. 5.  In the next place he mentioneth Ambrose his testimony, which was, as he saith, debated at large in the first point. It was debated indeed, but nothing to this present purpose. Ambrose saith, that the B. was wont to use the advise of his Presbyters; though in his time it was grown out of use: and the matter debated between us, was, whether those Seniors, were Ministers, as I proved, or Lay-elders as the refuter pretended; but whether they were the one or the other, the authority and government of the B. was no more impaired by using their counsel, than the authority of a Prince by using the advise of his counsellors: until such time and in such cases as by the Canons and Canonical law their consent was required as necessary.  
These two allegations, if they had been reduced into syllogisms, would have made very loose inferences: and so would the testimonies of jerom, 
The testimonies of Jerome answered.  who every where almost, saith the refuter, speaketh for us. This is vauntingly spoken, and yet the truth is, that as no where's indeed he speaketh for them; so none of the Fathers is more plentiful of pregnant testimonies, than he is, for BB. as partly hath been showed already, and more shall be declared hereafter. Of the testimonies which the refuter citeth, three 
u Ad Ocean in Tit. 1. Ad evagr.  are all to one purpose; that at the first in the Apostles times, BB. and Elders were all one: that is, the same men, who were called Presbyters, were also called BB. (but by the way, where were the Lay-presbiters then? were they also called BB.?) and that till factions did arise, the Churches were governed by the common counsel of Presbyters. To these allegations I have already made answer, which I do briefly repeat; that in the Apostles times before BB. were ordained, the Churches were governed by the common counsel of the Presbyters, as under the Apostles: and until the BB. were elected from among the Presbyters in the several Churches, the names of Presbyters & Episcopus, were confounded, but when BB. were chosen out of the Presbyters, as they were not at the first (for the first BB. were Apostles, as james; and Apostolical men, as Mark, Timothy, and Titus, Linus, Evodiu●, etc. and were not called Episcopi, but Apostoli) then, 
(w) Hier. ad evagr. Theodor. in 1 Tim. 3.  for distinction sake, he which was chosen from among the Presbyters and placed in a higher degree, began to be called Episcopus, even in the Apostles times: the name of Apostle being left to them who principally were so called. But what will the refuter conclude from hence? There was a time whiles the Apostles lived, when the same men were called Presbyters and BB. that is, the names were confounded.  Therefore in the three hundred years after the Apostles the Churches were not governed by Diocesan BB. 
But as the allegations were impertinent, 
§ 13. A fourth testi. +mony of Jerome misalledged advers. Lucifer.  so the other adverse. Lucifer, is not only impertinent, but also misalledged. The Bishop's preferment, saith Jerome according to the refuters allegation, was not by necessity of law, but granted to him to honour him withal. In that Dialogue, there is a controversy between the true Christian, and the Luciferian: the true Christian would have those which were baptized by Arians, to be baptized again, before they should be received again unto the communion: because by their baptism, who believed the Father alone to be God, the Son a creature, and the holy Ghost the servant of both, the holy Ghost was not communicated: the Luciferian held, they might be received without baptism, by imposition of hands, whereby the holy Ghost should be given them, which before they had not received: and to that purpose allegeth the practice of the Apostles, who by imposition of hands gave the holy Ghost to those whom Philippe the Deacon had baptized; and the custom generally received of the Church, that BB. by imposition of hands do communicate the holy Ghost to them that are baptized. The true Christian replieth, that BB. use to impose hands only on those who were baptized into the true faith, and that by the baptism given by a Presbyter of Deacon, the holy Ghost also is conferred. But, saith he, if here you demand why he that is baptised in the Church receiveth not the holy Ghost but by the hands of the B. whom we hold to be given in true baptism; understand, that this observation is derived from that authority that the holy Ghost after the ascension of the Lord descended upon the Apostles: and the same thing we find done in many places, ad honorem potius Sacerdotij, quam ad legis necessitatem; more for the honour of the Episcopal function, then for the necessity of a law. For otherwise, if only at the prayer of the B. the holy Ghost doth descend, then lamentable is their case, who in Villages and Towns, and in other remote places, being baptised of Presbyters and Deacons, do depart out of this life, before the B. visit them: the safety of the Church dependeth on the dignity of the B. etc. as hath been oft alleged.  
That which Jerome speaketh of this one prerogative of BB. the refuter extendeth to his whole preferment, or pre-eminence; and saith, he hath it not by any necessity of law, but is granted to him to honour him. The pre-eminence of the B. in general, Jerome supposed to be of such necessity as that the safety of the Church dependeth upon it; but for this particular of giving the holy Ghost, he saith, there was no such necessity: because in the Baptism by a Presbyter, or Deacon before the B. imposeth his hands, the holy Ghost is bestowed.  
But as I said, this testimony is also impertinent, not concluding that for which it is brought. For it is a strange inference: their pre-eminence was given not of necessity, but to honour them; therefore the Church was not governed by them in the three hundred years after Christ, & his Apostles. Neither is it impertinent only to his purpose, but also it concludeth for me: for if BB. had their pre-eminence in the primitive Church, as here it is presupposed: then their government is proved to have been in use: but whether it were by an honour voluntarily given them, or by necessity of law, that in this present point is not material.  

§ 14. Ad pag. 114.  After Jerome, he citeth Augustine in an Epistle to Jerome, granting that the office of a B. was greater than another Minister, 
The testimony of Augustine Epist. 19  through a custom of the Church, that had gotten the upper hand, and not otherwise. If by the custom of the Church the office of a B. was become greater before Jerome and Augustine's time, then BB. had this pre-eminence in the three hundred years after the Apostles; so far is this testimony from disproving the government of BB. in those times. But neither is it truly alleged: for he speaketh not so much of the office, as the names; and that not otherwise is added by the Refuter: and the granting he talketh of, was not a yielding upon necessity, but a modest session from his right. Augustine towards the end of the Epistle earnestly desireth Jerome, that he would boldly correct him, wherein he should think it needful: Quanquam enim secundum honorum vocabula, quae iam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit, Episcopatus Presbyterio maior sit, tamen in multis rebus Augustinus Hieronymo minor est; licèt etiam â minore quolibet non sit fugienda vel dedignanda correctio. For though according to the names of honour, Bishopship is greater than Priesthood, that is, is a name of greater honour, or is honoured with greater titles, notwithstanding in many things Augustine is inferior to Jerome: howbeit correction is not to be shunned or disdained from every one that is inferior.  
In that Episcopatus is a name of greater honour than Priesthood, it is to be ascribed to the use and custom of the Church; for at the first they were confounded. Again, might not some one of our BB. in King Edward's time, have used the same words, writing to Calvin, as well as Augustine used them towards Jerome? would therefore the Refuter infer, that in the times foregoing, there had not been Diocesan BB. or that they ought not to be superior to other Ministers? Surely, howsoever Augustine in modesty, or any other being a B. was loath to prefer himself before Jerome, or any other man of renown, being but a Presbyter, by reason of his great learning and renowned piety; yet were it a saucy part for him that is but a Presbyter, to think himself equal with a Bishop. Jerome was far from it: and therefore in his Epistles to Augustine, giveth him titles of great honour, using this inscription: 
a Aug. ●. 2. Epist. 17. & 18.  Domino verè, sancto, & beatissimo Papae Augustino, etc. And this farewell, the Lord preserve you, Domine verè sancte & suscipiende Papa: and the like I have said before of Calvin 
b Ad Cra●●er. .  
From Augustine, he maketh a large step to Erasmus 
c Erasmus in 1. Tim. 4. , who saith, Of old there was no difference between a Presbyter, a Priest, (but that the Refuter left out, for fear of excluding his lay-elder) and a B. And then he leapeth back again to Theodoret, 
Theodoret. Beda. Sedulius. etc.  Beda, Sedulius, Oecumenius, Primasius, Theophilact, etc. who affirm the same. And do not I myself profess the same in this Sermon? do I not also prove it in the Sermon of the dignity of the ministery, that in the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles these two words Presbyter & Episcopus, were confounded, and the same men were called Presbyteri & Episcopi? what will he conclude thereof? that therefore in the three hundred years after the Apostles the Church was not governed by BB? or that the office of a B. and a Presbyter, were at any time confounded? nay, can he prove so much as the names after the Apostles time were usually confounded? Ignatius, who lived in the Apostles times, every where distinguisheth them; and so do the after Writers, as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Eusebius, etc. saving that to BB. they give sometimes the more general name of Presbyters, or 
d Sacerdotes.  Priests: which is not to be marveled at, seeing the Apostles, Peter and john, do call themselves Presbyters.  
Yea, but some Protestant Writers, whom afterwards he will cite, have understood Jerome and the rest as the Refuter doth: and not they only, but Michael Medina a Popish Writer, is of opinion, that they held the same error with Aerius. This is a strange kind of arguing, which our Refuter useth, to bring new Writers to depose what the old have testified. Are not their testimonies extant in print? may we not read them with our own eyes, and weigh them in our own judgements? that we leaving the records themselves, should seek to the d●positions of new writers to know what the old have testified? but of the error of them, who suppose Jerome, and some other of the Fathers, to have been of the same judgement with Aerius I have spoken before, neither doubt I now to affirm that they joined in opinion with Aerius, no more than I do: for they writing on Phil. 1. 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1. 1 Pet. 5. do say, that in these places the names Presbyter & Episcopus, were confounded, which places myself have alleged to the same purpose.  
After he had alleged what he was able out of the old Writers, 
§ 15. Allegations out of the new Writers.  and yet never a word to the purpose; he proceedeth to the new Writers, who as he saith were called out of the thickest mists of Popery, to the light of the Gospel: heaping up a sort of testimonies without order, and without judgement, and mingling also some testimonies out of the canon law, and some Popish Writers among them. And because to follow him, were to run the wild-goose race, I will reduce their testimonies to certain heads, and then give him an answer to them all. Some therefore are brought to testify, that in the Apostles times BB. and Presbyters were all one, (the which is true, for the same men were called Presbyters and BB:) as Heming. and Zauch. in Phil. 1.1. Isidor. and Dist. 21. c. Cleros. ex Isidor. Duaren. de ministr. & benef. l. 1. c. 7. Gloss. ord. Card. Cassander, the councils of Constance and Basill, Chemnitius, Lubbertus, D. Fulke. D. Willet. D. Morton. Some, that there was no difference between B. and Presbyter till after the Apostles times: but afterwards BB. were set over Presbyters: as Danaeus. Some, that at the first there were no such BB. as were afterwards: and when they were brought in they were not monarchs of the Church, etc. as Chamier. Some, that iure divino Episcopi & Presbyteri be all one: as junius and Phil. Morney, and D. Whitak. which is true concerning the use of the words in the Scriptures. Some that Episcopatus is not a distinct order from Presbyteratus iure divino, as D, Holland: whose not writings, but speeches, he citeth upon report. 
Some, that B. and Presbyter by the word of God is the same, not in name only, but also in office: as Sad●●l. Some, that in the Apostles times the Churches were governed communi presbyterorum consilio, but after the Apostles they chose one to be B. as Musculus.  
Some that Christ made ministers equal, & that there was at the first no contention, (which how true it is appeareth by Christ's appointing twelve Apostles and seventy Disciples, and by the contention among the Apostles themselves for superiority, whiles Christ was with them,) as Bullinger. Some, that as the Apostles were equal, so their successors: which is true; for the BB. are equal among themselves, though superior to other ministers, as the Apostles were to the seventy Disciples,) as D. Whitakers. Some, that Aerius was not an heretic for saying that according to the use of the scriptures Episcopus & Presbyter, is all one, which is true, neither had he been an heretic if he had said no more, and that Ambrose, chrysostom, Jerome, and Augustine, were of the same judgement, as B. jewel.  
Some, that in the Apostles times there were only two degrees of ministers, Presbyters and Deacons, as D. Humphrey.  
Some, that Bishops were not in the Apostles times, as Sadeel.  
Some, that BB. he superior to Prebiters by man's decree, and not by scripture: by custom of man, not by the authority of God: by man's law, and not by Apostolical institution, as Heming, in Phil. 1.1. Bulling. junius, B. Pilkington, the Canon law falsified de iure positivo, as Cusanus: not by God's law, as D. Raynolds: no otherwise but by custom, as Sadeel.  
Some, that Episcopus and Pastor of one flock was at the first all one. as D. Raynolds.  
Some, that there was always one principal, which by common use was called a B. being chief, though not alone, both in government and ordination, as D. Fulke.  
Some, that BB. be in a higher degree of superiority, but not Princes; that not they only are Pastors, that they have the right of consecration, though not only, as D. Willet.  
Some, that the sole and supreme authority in a B. is tyranny, as Bullinger.  
Some, that the government of the Church by the first institution was not Monarchical, but Aristocratical, as Chamier.  
Some, that elections were not in corners, nor by one, as Gualther.  
Some, that Presbyters may ordain, as being all one with BB. in office, as Sadeel.  
Some, that Priests had voices and seats in Councils (as indeed they have with us) as the council of Constance and Basill.  
Some, that such Archbb. as are above metropolitans, were not ordained by Christ, and his Apostles, as D. Bilson; who also is alleged as having been of the Refuters mind, because he citeth Jerome in Tit. 1.1. & ad evagr.  
Some, that there were two sorts of Elders, as junius.  
Some, understanding Ieromes words of the time when factions began, not of the Apostles times, but afterward, as junius.   
These are all his witnesses, 
§ 16. His allegations out of new Writers answered.  besides some, with whose names only, without their testimonies, he thought best to make a simple flourish. Now if any one of these allegations were reduced into the form of a Syllogism, concluding the contradictory to my assertion, viz. that some ancient Councils, Histories, or Fathers do testify that in the three hundred years after Christ and his Apostles, the government by BB. was not generally and perpetually used, it would appear to every one how ridiculously our refuter argueth. As for example: 
Danaeus, Musculus, junius, etc. do testify, that in the three hundred years after Christ and his Apostles the government by BB. was not generally received.  
Therefore some ancient Councils, Histories, or Fathers, do testify so much.   
Yea, but you speak of sound Writers in general, will he say, and so I conclude: Therefore some sound Writers do testify so much. But it is plain say I, that I mean the ancient.  
But to his argument such as it is, I answer: first, that if these Writers had testified that which is contained in the antecedent, yet had not they been competent witnesses in a matter of fact fourteen or fifteen hundred years before their time, the greatest part of them being also parties in the cause. But indeed not all, no nor any one of his witnesses doth testify that in the three hundred years after the Apostles the government of Bishops was not generally received; but all his allegations accommodated to that conclusion, are most ridiculous. As for example: in in the Apostles times Bishops and Presbyters were the same. Therefore in the three hundred years after the Apostles, the government by Bishops was not received. Bishops were ordained not by God's law, etc. Therefore they were not in the first three hundred years: and so of the rest.  
But some body will say, though these testimonies be impertinent to the present purpose, and I must needs confess, that your Refuter did grossly abuse his unlearned Readers in making such a flourish with them: notwithstanding, some of the allegations contain assertions contrary to some points in your Sermon. Of whom, in steed of answer, if I should ask this question, whom he conceiveth to be adversaries to us in this cause? he would answer, those that stand for the pretended discipline. And who be those? Calvin, Beza, Danaeus, lunius, Sadeel, and the most of those whom the Refuter hath alleged. If they be adversaries in this cause, is it to be wondered that they have delivered contrary assertions? and if they be parties in the cause, are their testimonies to be admitted? Verily, he might better have alleged M. Cartwright, and M. Travers, than some of those whom he did cite, being more parties in the cause then they, as not only having written in defence of their discipline, but living where it is practised; but that he knew the simple Reader, who cannot be ignorant that T. C. and W. T. are parties, was ignorant that these outlandish Writers were adversaries unto us in the cause, to whose assertions, seeing it is folly to oppose the authorities of learned men, who are on our side, whom the Refuter would reject as parties; I oppose the testimonies of antiquity, and the reasons contained in this book; desiring the Reader in the fear of God to give credit without partiality to that side on which there is better evidence of truth.  
And thus having turned over, 
§ 17. Ad pag. 125. Allegation of Examples.  and as I suppose overturned more than five leaves, which he blotted with these testimonies; I come to his examples, of which he having not any one between the Apostles times and ours; therefore giveth instance in the Churches of our time, and in the time of the Apostles. But mark I pray you, what was my assertion, which he would seem to contradict. Was it not this, that no example of any Orthodoxal or Apostolical Church can be produced, to prove that in the three hundred years after Christ and his Apostles the government by Bishops was not generally received? No: saith he, what say you then, to the Churches of Helvetia, France, low Countries, etc. 
* I omit here how shamefully he belieth the Doctrine of the Churches of England, Wirtemberge, and Sweveland, as opposite to the government of BB. quoting Harmon. Confess. Sect. 11. The Church of Sweveland is so far from opposing itself to the spiritual authority of Bishops, that it doth not contradict the secular power and sovereignty of such Bishops as be Princes.  in our time? and to the Church of Corinth, Cenchrea, Ephesus and Antioch in the Apostles times? Marry this I say; that the Refuter is a very trifler, who pretending to give instance of some Church within three hundred years after the Apostles times contrary to my assertion, thinks to satisfy his Reader either with examples of some Churches in our age, or of those in the Apostles times, whereof this present question is not.  
I confess that the Churches in the Apostles times at the first had not bishops excepting that of jerusalem. Notwithstanding, before the death of Saint john, the Churches had not only Bishops but divers of them a succession of Bishops, and such were two of those which he nameth, to wit, Antioch and Ephesus: for at Antioch there were Bishops successively in the Apostles times. Evodius and Ignatius. And at Ephesus, before the Angel, (to whom that Epistle is directed Apoc. 2.1) Timothy. About the year one hundred seventy and four 
a Euseb. Chron. anno 174.  Dionysius was B. of Corinth, and before him was Primus, who was of the same time with Anicetus, Anno one hundred fifty six: before whom there was a succession from the Apostles time, as 
b Euseb. hist. l. 4. c. 21. & 22.  Hegesippus recordeth. As for Cenchrea, that never had a peculiar Bishop of her own, but was subject as other Towns and Parishes of Acha●a to the Bishop of Corinth. As touching the Churches after the Apostles times, the Refuter hath nothing to object, but what before he hath alleged out of justin Martyr, and Tertullian, in whom there is not a word against Bishops. justin Martyr, 
c Apol. 2.  speaketh but of one governor in each Church, whom he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (that is, the B. saith Beza) speaking so plainly for the singularity of pre-eminence of one B. in each Church, that T. C. 
d Lib. 1.14.  who would persuade that in the several Churches there were more Bishops than one, saith, that even in justines' time there began to peep out something which went from the simplicity of the Gospel, as that the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which was common to the Elders, with the Ministers of the word, was it seemeth appropriated unto one. And whereas this place of justine was alleged 
e Lib. 2.621. , to prove the Bishop's superiority over the Presbyters (for even Beza 
f Bez. in 1 Tim. 5. & in Phil. 1.  confesseth he was the Precedent of the Presbytery, who afterwards was called a Bishop) he answereth; if it should be granted that justines' Precedent had superiority over the Ministers, yet how fond is it concluded, that it is Lawful, because it was? And as I have answered his allegation before 
g Lib. 1. cap. 11. § 3.  out of Tertullian 
h Apologer. c. 39  for lay-elders, wherein is nothing that maketh against Bishops: so have I cited pregnant places in his writings, giving testimony not only to the government of BB. in his time, but proving a continued succession 
i Praescrip. contr. hear.  of them from the Apostles to his time. It is plain therefore that the refuter with the help of all his collectors, is not able to produce any one example of an orthodoxal and Apostolical Church in the first three hundred years after the Apostles times, wherein the Episcopal government was not received: so that my argument standeth firm and sure in all the parts of it.  
To my fourth reason concluding the perpetuity of the Episcopal government in the ancient Churches, 
§ 18. Ad pag. 126. The fourth argument from the succession of BB.  from the succession of BB. deduced from the Apostles times until the Council of Nice, remaining as yet upon authentical records, Eusebius 
k Euseb. hist. & Chron. , every where carefully setting down this succession, and Irenaeus 
l Iren. li. 3. c. 3.  and Tertullian 
m Tertul de prescript.  proving the derivation of the orthodoxal doctrine from the Apostles to their time by the personal succession of BB. in the Churches teaching the same truth.  
He objecteth, 
Augustine Epist. 24. Christiana societas persedes Apostolorum ac successiones Episcoporum certa per orbem propagatione diffunditur.  and saith the objection is worth the answering, that I deceive them with the name: he confesseth there was a succession of BB. but the first were not like the latter: for though the latter were Diocesan Bishops yet the former were not. Belike they were first Parish BB. and then titular Diocesan BB. and then ruling Diocesans, than Lord Diocesans, than metropolitans, than patriarchs: which being objected upon ridiculous grounds 
n li. 3 cap. 1. §. 10 & 12.  (heretofore confuted) I held scarce worth the mentioning in the Sermon. It is apparent by this succession, that within the compass of every Diocese there was only one B. at a time, there having been no more in any Diocese at the end of the first or second hundred, than were at the end of of four hundred years: and therefore this succession doth evidently prove a perpetuity of Diocesan BB. from the Apostles times downwards. And thus the former part of my assumption is manifest. Wherefore (as I said in the Sermon) this to a moderate Christian might seem a sufficient commendation of the Episcopal function, though no more could be said for it: that in the best times of the primitive Church, it was borne of so many thousand godly and learned Bishops, received in all true Churches, approved of all the orthodoxal and learned Fathers, allowed and commended of all the famous Councils.  

The Episcopal function not first ordained by Councils.  The latter part▪ that the Episcopal function was not first ordained by general Councils, I prove by undeniable evidence: but this proof the refuter had no mind to deal withal, because it also proveth the former part by such an argument as he could not tell how to answer: & that was this, that the first general Council 
o Conc. Nic. c. 6.  of Nice, was so far from first ordaining Bishops or metropolitans, that it acknowledgeth patriarchs to have been long before that time in use, and confirmeth the ancient 
p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  custom of subjecting divers Provinces to them. For there were Diocesan Bishops before there were metropolitans actually, and metropolitans were long before patriarchs, and patriarchs had been long in use before the Council of Nice, and yet that Council was held within two hundred and thirty years after the Apostle times.  
Wherefore seeing the proposition of my syllogism was so evidently true, 
The conclusion.  as that the refuter could not deny it, viz. that government which was generally and perpetually received in all Christian Churches in the first three hundred years after Christ and his Apostles, and not ordained by general Councils, was undoubtedly of Apostolical institution: and seeing the assumption was proved by four or five unanswerable arguments, that the government by such Bishops as were described in the former part of the Sermon, was generally and perpetually used in all Christian Churches in the first three hundred years after Christ and his Apostles, and not ordained by general Councils; therefore the conclusion is of necessary and undeniable truth, that the government of the Churches by such Bishops was undoubtedly of Apostolical institution.  

§ 19  After I had thus concluded affirmatively to prove my assertion, I propounded another syllogism, 
A syllogism concluding against the pretended discipline upon the same ground●.  concluding negatively against the pretended discipline: therein intending to provoke and challenge him that should take upon him the refutation of my Sermon, to bring some proofs for their government in the first three hundred years after Christ. The syllogism was this: 
That government which no where was in use in the first three hundred years, is not of Apostolical institution.  
The government of the Churches by a parity of ministers and assistance of Lay-elders in every parish was no where in use in the first three hundred years.  
Therefore it is not of Apostolical institution.   
The proposition is as certain as the former; the assumption I have already proved in the former syllogism. For if the government by Diocesan BB. was generally and perpetually received in those three hundred years after the Apostles: then is it manifest, that this government, which they speak of, was no wherein use. But because it is infinite to prove such a negative by induction of particulars, which might be disproved by any one instance by them which hold the affirmative; therefore I left the proof of the affirmative to the refuter. Let us see then how he answereth; forsooth by opposing the like syllogism, saying: 
That government which was generally in use in the first three hundred years, is of Apostolical institution.  
The government of the Churches by a parity of ministers and assistance of onely-governing Elders in every parish, was generally in use in the first three hundred years.  
Therefore it is of Apostolical institution.   
And then braggeth that his proof for their discipline is as good as mine against it. Where the refuter doth not so much bewray his ignorance in the laws of disputation, as the badness of his cause; choosing rather to boast, that their government was generally and perpetually used, then to give any one instance to prove it. what needed this general assertion, unless it were to beguile the simple who are lead with shows, when one particular instance would have served? But that the reader may understand, that this my assumption was undoubtedly true, I will make the refuter this fair offer; that if he can bring any one pregnant and approved example of a Christian Church governed by a parity of ministers, and assistance of onely-governing Elders, I will promise to suscribe to their discipline. wherefore let not the reader be carried away with vain shows, neither let him believe, that their pretended discipline was instituted by the Apostles, until they be able to show (as they never will be) that it was sometime and some where practised within three hundred years say a thousand four hundred if you will after the Apostles.   

The II. CHAPTER. Proving the function of BB. to be of Apostolical institution, because it was used in those times without their dislike.  Serm. Sect. 4. pag. 61. Now I proceed to the second degree, ascending to the Apostles times, from whence in the second place I argue thus: That government which even in the Apostles times was used in the Apostolical Churches and was not contradicted by them, was undoubtedly of Apostolical institution, etc. ad pag. 65. 
WHere I take this proposition for granted (namely of the adversaries) he saith, 
His answer to the proposition.  I reckon without mine host: & yet confesseth it to be true according to their opinion who hold there may be but one government in the Church, and that instituted by the Apostles; which is the general opinion of the Disciplinarians, confessed in effect by himself, Pag. 130. Yea but I say afterward, in favour of the Disciplinarians (therein clawing a Churl, according to the homely proverb, as appeareth by this refuter) that though the government by BB. is the best; yet we doubt not but where this may not be had, others may be admitted, neither do we deny but that silver is good, though gold be better. If therefore, saith he, there be divers kinds of government which may be admitted, then might there be a government in the Churches in the Apostles times not contradicted by them, which yet was not of Apostolical institution. whereto I answer: first, that I did not say simply, that other governments may be admitted besides that which was ordained by the Apostles, but where that cannot be had. But whiles the Apostles lived, that which they ordained might be had. Again, if any in the Apostles times should of their own heads have altered the form of government established by them, and consequently have set up a worse, it cannot be thought, that either the Apostles would have allowed it, or that all Churches would have retained that government, which they had not received from the Apostles. Besides, it is incredible, that in the Apostles times any form of government was used in the Apostolical Churches, but that which was ordained by the Apostles: and therefore the proposition is more than manifest.  
Now followeth the assumption: whereof are two parts, the one, that the government by BB. was used even in the Apostles times, the other that it was not contradicted by them.  
The former I prove by two arguments: the one because the seven Angels were in the Apostles times, and they were BB. for the substance of their calling such as ours be: and therefore such BB. were in the Apostles time.  

§ 2. Ad pag. 128. His answer to the assumption.  Ere the refuter will answer to the matter of the assumption, he propoundeth two things worthy his observation: the one, that I confine the number of the Angels to seven, which neither the text doth (saith he) nor himself ever did till now: Did not I before observe in the Sermon, that there was but one Angel in each of the seven Churches; and doth not the text say, that the seven Stars are the Angels of the seven Churches? I have spoken of this point before, only let the refuter call to mind this argument among the rest.  
The text saith the Stars were seven.  
The text saith that the Angels be the Stars.  
Therefore the text saith the Angels be seven.  
The other is, that I shun the term Diocesan, in which notwithstanding the whole question consisteth: for no man doubteth, that the government was by BB. in the Apostles times, seeing that both ministers and ruling Elders were called BB. doth he not speak against the light of his own conscience, when he saith I avoid the name Diocesan, seeing in express terms I said, they were for the substance of their calling such as ours be? If I had only said Diocesan, he might have excepted in behalf of the learneder sort of Disciplinarians; that they doubted not but that the Angels were superintendents of the City and country adjoining; but all the question (would they say) is, of the superiority, whether they had a singular pre-eminence for term of life, a superiority in degree, a majority of power in respect of ordination and jurisdiction: when as therefore I say, that for the substance of their calling they were such BB. as ours are, I do say, not only that they were Diocesan, but also that they were superior to other ministers in degree, etc.  
But whence I pray you, hath the refuter this confidence so boldly to affirm, that their ruling Elders were called BB.? Calvin and M. Travers, etc. confess that BB. signify only preaching Elders, and are your Lay-elders now become BB? the people may have joy of such guides that cease not to broach such fancies.  
After he hath played a little with the assumption, 
§ 3. His answer to the former part of the assumption and the proofs thereof.  he plainly denieth it: what think you, saith he, M. D. bringeth to prove it? Nothing saith the refuter, but that which hath already been answered: if that were true, yet that nothing is more than the refuter will ever be able to disprove: and that is this, that the seven Angels were BB. all do confess: that they were such BB. as ours be for the substance of their calling, I proved in the first four points of the Sermon: yea but saith he, I have proved that for the substance of their calling they were but ordinary ministers: let the reader therefore in God's name judge secundum allegata & probata, according to the evidence which hath been brought on both sides and where he saith, I quickly have done with the scriptures, because they indeed afford but slender show, etc. I answer first, that I had no reason to insist longer in this proof, unless I would have repeated the former part of the Sermon again: was it not sufficient to refer them to the former part where this point was professedly handled? neither is he ignorant, but that in demonstration of the latter part of the assumption▪ I bring other proofs out of the scripture. But feign he would disgrace our cause with the reader as though we had no proofs in scripture: which ill becometh him, that hath not one syllable in the scriptures, or other monuments of antiquity to prove their Presbiterian discipline.  
But it is untrue, that I bring nothing to prove the assumption, but what was before answered. For I bring two other arguments, to prove that these seven Angels were such BB. The former, though this great analyser either did not, or would not see it: that two of these Angels were Polycarpus and Onesimus, Polycarpus the B. of Smyrna, and Onesimus the B. of Ephesus, and what is said of two, is to be understood of the rest. That Polycarpe was in these times the B. of Smyrna, I proved by the testimony of the Church of Smyrna 
a Eus. l. 4. ca 15. , testifying that he had been the B. of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. And of Bullinger 
b in Apoc. co●. 9 , who noteth, that Polycarpe had been B. of Smyrna thirteen years before the revelation was given, and so continued for many years after. Whereunto may be added those authentical testimonies which after are alleged, that he was made B. of Smyrna by S. john. That Onesimus was B. of Ephesus at this time▪ I prove by the testimony of Ignatius who lived at the same time, who in his Epistle to the Ephesians mentioneth their B. Onesimus.  
The latter argument proving that these seven Angels were BB. is, because from them all a succession of BB. was continued in those seven Churches to the Council of Nice, and afterwards: for to omit, that the ancient BB. of these Churches are sometimes occasionally mentioned 
c Eus. l. 5. ca 24. & lib. 4. cap. 26. Sozo. lib. 4. c. 24. , as Polycrates of Ephesus, Thraseas of Smyrna, Melito of Sardes, etc. it is evident, that the Bishops of these Churches subscribed to diverse of the ancient Councils, as to the council of Nice, Menophantes B. of Ephesus, Eutychius of Smyrna, Artemidorus of Sardes, Thomasion of Philadelphia, Serras of Thyatira, Nunechius of Laodicea▪ to the Council of Chalcedon, Stephanus of Ephesus, Aethericus of Smyrna, Eutropius of Pergamus, Helladius of Thyatira, Florentius of Sardes, Megalus of Philadelphia, Nunechius of Laodicea. To this argument the Refuter answereth nothing in particular.  
With these two arguments the refuter joineth that which I propounded Pag. 63. concerning the succession of Bishops in some Churches within the Apostles times, being indcede the second argument, whereby I proved the assumption, that in the Apostles times were BB.  
To all these he answereth, 
§ 4. Ad pag. 129.  first jointly, and then cavilleth with some of them severally. His joint answer to them all, I reserve until I come to that second argument. The Epistle of Smyrna, which himself heretofore alleged as authentical, being now alleged by me, so hard is my hap, is grown suspicious: and why I pray you? for the Refuter travailed of a point of learning, which he desired to be delivered of. Forsooth because it useth the word Catholic, which is not to be found in any of the Epistles of Polycarpus, or Ignatius, nor seemeth to have been in use until the end of the second age. Clemens Alexandrinus I think is the ancientest in whom it can be found. How many Epistles of Polycarpus this Refuter hath read I know not; for my part I have seen no more but his Epistle to the Philippians 
d Inter Orthodoxographa. . Indeed Suidas 
e In Polycarpo. , who noteth him to have been the Disciple of S. john, and the successor 
f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  of Bucolus, who was the first B. of Smyrna, saith▪ he wrote an Epistle to Dionysius the Areopagite, and to other Churches; which Epistles, if the Refuter have, he should do well to communicate them; if not, how can he tell that the word Catholic was not used in them? But to the point, was not the Creed of the Apostles as ancient as this Epistle, which writeth of the martyrdom of Polycarpe, who was put to death in the seventh of Aurelius Antonius, about the year one hundred sixty and nine? and yet that mentioneth the Catholic Church. Again, was not this a high point of learning, to suspect this Epistle to be counterfeit, because it useth a word which he confesseth, is used by Clemens Alexandrinus, who lived at the same time, though wrote not perhaps more than twenty years after?  
Where I proved, that Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, or at least that testimony which I cited concerning Onesimus their Bishop, not to be counterfeit, because Eus●bius 
g Euseb. l. 3. c. 35.  mentioneth that Epistle, and those words; he saith, this argument is none of the sufficientest: but I always thought, if Ignatius his Epistles were counterfeited, that this happened to them since Eusebius time. It sufficeth me, that the testimony which I alleged, was not in Eusebius his time, who lived within two hundred years after Ignatius, suspected as counterfeit. For if Eusebius, and those in his time, knew no cause to suspect that Epistle; I know no reason, besides his own suspiciousness, why the Refuter should suspect it.  
The second argument, whereby I prove the former assumption is this, 
§ 5. The second argument, proving the assumption.  that it is with great consent testified by Authors 
h Iranaeus. Eusebius. Epiphanius. Augustine. etc. , of best credit in the Church of God, that in the Apostles times, reckoning until the death of S. john, that is, to the year of our Lord one hundred and one, there were not only BB. but also a succession of BB. in diverse Churches: as at Rome, Linus, Anacletus, Clemens, evaristus: at jerusalem, james the just, and Simeon the son of Cleophas: at Antioch, Evodius and Ignatius: at Alexandria, S. Mark, Anianus, Abilius, Cerdo: hereto he saith, that he hath formerly shown, that if not all, yet the most of these witnesses do affirm that those BB. were ordinary ministers, without any such supreme power (he ought to say if he would leave his calumniating superiority in the power) of ordination and jurisdiction. But this is one of his usual brags, uttered with what conscience I know not: for what one of these hath he or what one among all the ancient Writers can he bring to make good his assertion?  
Now the answer, which he maketh to these arguments jointly, 
His joint answer to the former reasons.  is, that the seven Angels, and these Bishops whereof there were, as I said, successions in the Apostles times were Bishops indeed (no marvel for so were the lay Elders) but not Diocesan: for what though long after the Apostles times they were so, doth it follow thereupon, that therefore they were so in their times? If ever there had been within the compass of a Diocese more Bishops than one at once since the Apostles times, or if it could be truly alleged, that the circuit of the Bishop's charge was enlarged from a Parish to a Diocese; then were there some colour for this exception, but these conceits I have disproved heretofore, and therefore doubt not most confidently to conclude, that if the successors of these seven Bishops, or of the others whom I named, as having been Bishops in the Apostles times, were in the end of three hundred years Diocesan Bishops; then were their first antecessors such. Neither is his example of the Duke of Venice to the purpose; unless he could prove, that the latter Bishops within the first three hundred years had usurped or used, as they were Diocesans, a greater and larger authority than had belonged to their Predecessors.  
The latter part of the assumption remaineth to be proved, 
§ 6. The latter part of the assumption, that the Episcopal function was not disallowed by the Apostles.  where I said that the Bishops were not contradicted by the Apostles, but approved by them. He objecteth, that this proof is needless, seeing the Bishops were such as he fancieth: but till he can disprove the former part of my Sermon, and of this Treatise; he must give the Reader leave to think they were such, as they have been manifestly proved to be: but this needless accusation, being commonly used by the Refuter against such passages of my Sermon as are most material; maketh me conceive there is somewhat in this point, that he could wish had been spared, or at least whereabout he meaneth to spare his answer. That this passage was not needless, but very material, appeareth hereby. For if I had only said, that BB. had been in the Apostles times, and therefore were of their institution, it might have been objected, that there were abuses crept into the Churches in the Apostles time, whereof notwithstanding the Apostles were not Authors: wherefore in this place I show that Bishops not only were in the Apostles times, but also were approved by them. That they were in respect of their function approved, I prove, by the examples of the 7. Angels approved by S. john, or rather by our Saviour Christ; of Epaphroditus the Apostle or B. of the Philippians, (who therefore is not mentioned in the inscription of that Epistle, because the Epistle was sent by him) commended by S▪ Paul 
k Phil. 2.25.29. , as his compatner both in his function and in affliction, and the Philippians commanded to have in honour such. james 
l Act. 15. & 21. Gal. 1.19.  the Just, B. of jerusalem, approved of all. Archippus 
m Col. 4.17. Philem. 1.  the B. of Colossa approved of Paul, Antipas 
n Ap. 2.13.  who had been B. of Pergamus commended by the holy Ghost. To none of these hath the Refuter any thing to say, 
Ad pag. 130.  but to Epaphroditus, whom he would not therefore have thought to have been a Diocesan B. because Paul calleth him his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, fellow workman, nor that the Apostle meant to equal him to himself in the Apostleship: for Epaphroditus was none, etc. Though that word doth not prove it, neither was it alleged to that end, but as one of the titles of commendation given to Epaphroditus; yet the word Apostle, which I alleged, doth prove it; neither should the Refuter have balked that, to lay hold upon another, unless it were to deceive the simple. It is therefore to be noted▪ that as the twelve patriarchs of Christ's Church, which were sent into the whole world, some going one way, some another, were called the Apostles of Christ, and not the Apostles of any Church in particular (excepting james, who was the Apostle of the jews) so those Apostolical men, who were set over particular Churches as the Bishops thereof, were for a time called the Apostles of those Churches. So Paul calleth Epaphroditus the Apostle of the Philippians, and therefore it was malepertly said by the Refuter, that he was not an Apostle. But of this more 
o Chap. 3. § 12.13.14.  hereafter.  
Before I ended this point, I thought it needful to meet with that objection which ordinarily is made out of Jerome, 
§ 7. That Jerome acknowledgeth BB. to have been in the Apostles time.  by them who understand him as if he had said, that Bishops were not ordained in the Apostles times. But I show both by the place itself which they allege, and by conference of other places in Jerome, that he plainly confesseth BB. to have been ordained in the Apostles times. Jerome 
p In Tit. 1.  therefore confesseth in the place which is usually objected, that when factions began to arise in the Church, some saying I am of Paul, I am of Apollo's, I am of Cephas (which was in the Apostles times, 1 Cor. 1.) it was decreed in the whole world, and therefore by the Apostles (for who should in the Apostles times make such a general decree but the Apostles? yea, and Jerome himself calleth the Episcopal function a 
q Ad evagr.  tradition Apostolical) that one being chosen from among the Presbyters, should be set over the rest, unto whom the care of the whole Church should appertain. Whereunto I added his confession of the same truth in other places. For he confesseth that james 
r Catalogue. script.  the Just, shortly after the Passion of Christ was made Bishop of jerusalem, and continued B. there thirty years, even until his death. In the same Catalogue it is confessed, that Simon succeeded the said james in the Bishopric, and that Timothy was B. of Eph●sus, and Titus of Crect, and Polycarpe of Smyrna in S. john's time; that Linus 
s In Clement. , Anacletus and Clemens were BB. of Rome. He confesseth also, that at Alexandria 
t Ad evagr.  ever since S. Mark there had been BB. chosen successively: that S. Mark was the 
u Proaem. in Mat.  first B. of the Church at Alexandria, and that Anianus 
w Catalogue. in Marco.  succeeded him. After whom there were two more Abilius and Cerdo in the Apostles times. It is most plain therefore, that Jerome acknowledgeth BB. to have been in the Apostles time.  
Now let us see, what trick the Refuter hath to avoid such plain evidence. Forsooth because these testimonies were as he saith, (not knowing indeed, nor greatly caring what he affirmeth) brought in by me out of order, and some of them come to be handled again: he will answer generally and briefly, that the Bishops Jerome speaketh of, were not Diocesan Lords; but such as himself describeth, where he showeth the custom of the Church of Alexandria, etc. Whether they were called Lords, or not, it is not greatly material; seeing they were called the Angels, and the Apostles of the Churches, which are titles of greater honour; neither doth it appertain to the substance of their calling; in regard whereof I defend the ancient Bishops to have been such as ours are. And such doth Jerome describe them in the place which the Refuter 
x Ad evagr.  meaneth. For he plainly noteth the Bishop to have been but one in a whole Church or Diocese, to whom the care 
y In Tit. 1.  of the whole Church did belong; superior also to the Presbyters in degree, etc.  

§ 8. The refuters argument for the Presbyterian discipline.  The Refuter having answered my second argument, in such sort as you have heard, taketh his turn to reply and that thus: 
That government which even in the Apostles times was used in the Apostolical Churches, and was not contradicted by them, was of apostolical institution.  
The government by common consent of Elders was used even in the Apostles times, in the Apostolical Churches, and not contradicted by them.  
Therefore the government by the common consent of Elders was of Apostolical institution.   

The Proposition (saith he) is sure on our side, though it was not of his. See ●ee, homo homini quantum praestat, that which is weak in my hand, is strong in this. The truth itself belike is so partial, as that it is true only in his mouth.  
For the strengthening of the assumption (saith he) besides that which before I answered Sect. 3. (which was beside the testimony of Cyprian and Jerome before answered, an allegation of some new Writers, who are parties in the cause) I will add the testimonies of B. Whitgift, D. Bilson, D. Sutcliffe, and D. Downame himself, all speaking to the truth thereof.  He should have done well to have cited these testimonies; so would it have appeared, that we spoke according to the truth, but not according to his meaning, which is untrue.  
But I answer to his assumption, and first to the former part of it, by distinction. If by Elders, he meaneth the only governing Elders, as well as Ministers (as he doth, or else he saith little for the pretended discipline) I answer, that the Church was never governed by the common Counsel of such Aldermen: neither did Cyprian and Jerome testify it, nor D. Bilson, D. Sutcliffe, or D. Downame confess it.  
If by Elders, he mean only Ministers, as Jerome did, when he said, at the first the Churches before factions did arise, were governed by the common counsel of Elders, two things may be questioned: first, whether this government of theirs were unsubordinate, according to the new discipline; and secondly, whether the Apostles did intend, that the Churches should be so governed still. Whereunto I answer, according to the evident light of truth, that the Presbyters governed the Churches, as under the Apostles, and that but for a time, until the Apostles substituted BB. or left them as their successors, committing the government of the several Churches unto them.  
To the second part of his assumption I answer, that the Apostles contradicted that government (which he speaketh of, by common counsel of Elders ruling without a B.) not so much by words as by deeds: when ordaining BB. in several Churches, they committed the whole care thereof as Jerome 
a In Tit. 1.  speaketh, or at least, the chief care and authority, as Ignatius 
b Ad Trall.  testifieth, to them. And so leaving the Refuter to roll the stone he speaketh of, I proceed to my third argument.   

The III. CHAPTER: Proving that the Apostles themselves ordained Bishops.  Serm. Sect. 5. pag. 65. But yet I proceed to a further degree, which is, to prove that the Apostles themselves ordained BB. and committed the Churches to them, and therefore that the Episcopal function is without question of Apostolical institution, etc. to 38. years, pag. 69. 

His answer to the preposition  THE refuter would feign have me seem to prove idem per idem, but that he could not but discern that I argue from the ordination of the persons, to the institution of the function: against which consequence, though himself say, that without question it is good; yet I confess he might have taken more just exception, than he hath hitherto against any, which was not of his own making: so far is it from concluding the same, by the same. For he might have said, though they ordained the persons, yet Christ instituted the function, and that is the judgement of many of the Fathers, who hold that our Saviour Christ in ordaining his twelve Apostles, and his seventy two Disciples, both which sorts he sent to preach the Gospel; he instituted the two degrees of the ministery BB. answering to the high Priest, and Presbyters answerable to the Priests. Again, those Fathers who affirm the BB. to be the successors of the Apostles; do by consequence affirm, that Christ when he ordained Apostles, ordained BB. and Cyprian 
c li. 3. Epist. 9  in plainetermes saith so much, that our Lord himself ordained Apostles, that is to say, Bishops. For the Popish conceit, that the Apostles were not made Priests till Christ's last supper; nor BB. till after his resurrection, as it is suitable with other their opinions devised to advance the Pope's supremacy; so it is repugnant to the judgement of the ancients, & contrary to the truth. Seeing the very Disciples, who were inferior to the Apostles, were authorized before Christ's last supper, to preach & to baptise. Neither had they, or needed they, any new ordination, whereby they might be qualified to administer the Sacrament. But of this matter I will not contend: for whether the function were first ordained by Christ or instituted by the Apostles; Christ is the author thereof, either immediately, according to the former opinion; or mediately, according to the latter. And those things are said to be of▪ Apostolical institution, which Christ ordained by the Apostles.  
The antecedent of my argument, 
§ 2. That the Apostles ordained Bishops.  viz. that the Apostles ordained BB. and committed the Churches to them: was in the Sermon explained, and proved, by showing the time when, the places where, the persons whom, the Apostles ordained BB. As concerning the time; 
The time when in respect of the Church at jerusalem.  I said there was some difference between the Church of jerusalem, and the rest in respect of their first Bishop. For there, because shortly after Christ's passion a great number were converted to the faith (for we read of three thousand converted in one day) and because that was the mother Church, unto which the Christians from all parts were afterwards to have recourse; the Apostles before their dispersion, statim post passionem Domini, strait ways after the passion of our Lord, ordained james the just Bishop of jerusalem, as 
d Catal. scrip.  Jerome testifieth.  
Here my refuter maketh me to argue thus; culling out one part of my argumentation from the rest; james was ordained Bishop by the Apostles, therefore the Apostles ordained Bishops. And then denieth the consequence, because though james being an Apostle had Episcopal power in respect of ordination and jurisdiction, yet it would not follow that the Apostles ordained Diocesan Bishops in other Churches. But my argument is an induction, standing thus. The Apostles ordained BB. at jerusalem, and in other Churches, (which afterwards particularly I do enumerate) therefore they ordained BB. That they ordained BB. at jerusalem, I prove, because they ordained james the Just, and Simon the son of Cleophas, BB. of jerusalem. That they ordained james B. of jerusalem, I prove in this section. That they ordained Simon the son of Cleophas B. of jerusalem, and Bishops in other Churches, I prove afterwards, according to the order of time: Beginning here with jerusalem because that Church had first a Bishop.  

§ 3. That james was B. of jerusalem.  Now that james was by the Apostles made B. of jerusalem, I prove by these testimonies, first, of Jerome 
e Catalogue. scrip. ; whose words are these, james who is called the brother of our Lord, & f●●named the just, strait ways after the passion of our Lord was ordained by the Apostles the Bishop of jerusalem. This is that Jerome, on whose only authority almost the Disciplinarians in this cause rely; alleging out of him, that Bishops were not ordained till after the Apostles times.  
Secondly, of Eusebius, and of the most ancient histories of the Church, whose testimonies he citeth to this purpose: first, therefore he saith in general 
f Hist. l. 2. c. 1.  that the histories 
g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  before his time did report, that to james the brother of our Lord, surnamed the just, the throne of the Bishopric of the Church in jerusalem was first committed. Then particularly, he citeth Clemens 
h Ex hypotypos. 6.  Alexandrinus, testifying that james, Peter and john, after the ascension of our Saviour did choose james the just Bishop of jerusalem. Afterwards Hegesippus 
i Euseb. l. 2. c. 23. & Hieronym. Catalogue. ex Hegesippi 5. hypomnem▪  (who was near the Apostles times as Jerome speaketh, being as Eusebius saith in the very first succession of the Apostles,) to the like purpose. Eusebius 
k An. 33.  himself in his Chronicle translated by Jerome, hath these words; james the brother of our Lord is by the Apostles made the first Bishop of jerusalem. Again, in his history 
l lib. 3. c. 7.  he not only saith, that james called the brother of our Lord was the first Bishop of Ierus●●em; but also testifieth 
m lib. 7. c. 19 & 32.  upon his knowledge, that the Episcopal throne or chair, wherein james sat as Bishop of jerusalem, and wherein all the BB. of that See succeeded him, was yet in his time to be seen, being preserved as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as a worthy and sacred 
n Vid. Ruff. transl. l. 7. c. 15.  monument. And finally, both in his history 
o Euseb. hist. l. 3. c. 11. l. 4. c. 5.22. l. 5. c. 11. l. 6. c. 10 etc. l. 7. c. 32.  and Chronicle he setteth down the succession of the Bishops of jerusalem from james unto Macarius, whom he noteth to have been the thirty ninth Bishop of jerusalem, reckoning james the first, and Simon the second, and justus the third, Zacheus the fourth, etc.  
Epiphanius 
p Epiph. haer. 66.  also testifieth, that james the Lord's brother was 
q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the first Bishop of jerusalem, and setteth down the same succession of the Bishops, from james unto Hilarion, noting the years of the several emperors reign, unto which they continued Bishops. The same concerning james is witnessed by chrysostom 
r In Act. homil. 3. & 33. in initio , by Ambrose 
s Ambr. in Gal. 1.19.  on the Epistle to the Galathians; Paul saw james at jerusalem, because there he had been ordained B. of the Apostles. By Dorotheus 
t Dor. in synops. , by Augustine 
u Aug. contr. Crescon. l. 2. c. 37. , and (to omit all other testimonies of particular men) by the general Council of Constantinople 
(w) In Trul. c. 32. , affirming that james, who according to the flesh was brother of Christ our Lord 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , was the first to whom the throne of the Church of jerusalem was entrusted.  
§ 4. These testimonies for a matter of story (me thinks) should suffice: let us then see, what the refuter objecteth. First, that which he objected against the consequence is more direct against the antecedent; 
The refuters exceptions.  & that is, that if the Apostles ordained james B. of jerusalem, than they gave him the Episcopal power; but they gave him no power which the Lord had not before invested in his person, as an Apostle; therefore they did not ordain him B. I answer by distinction; the power of order (if I may so term it) james had before, as those who are Bishops, sine titulo; but the power of jurisdiction was committed to him when he was designed Bishop of jerusalem, and had the Church of jewry in particular assigned to him. For though our Saviour Christ bade the Apostles to go into all the world; yet his meaning was not, that every one should traverse the whole world: For if every one had been to travel over all the world, great inconvenience, disorder, and confusion would have followed thereof. Therefore the Apostles, who by our Saviour were indefinitely appointed to go into all the world, by the direction of the holy Ghost, before their dispersion from jerusalem, divided the world among themselves; in such sort, that one being assigned to one part, & another to another, every man walked within his own compass, and according to his own Canon 
y 2 Cor. 10.13.15.16. vide Chryso. in 2 Cor. 10. & gloss. ordin.  or rule, and did not usually build upon the foundation of another, nor enter one into another's labours. Now, as they were careful to provide for other parts of the world; so would they not all forsake jewry and jerusalem, but assign one of their company to take charge thereof. Who, though he were an Apostle, yet being assigned to the peculiar Church of one nation, might not unfitly be called, as he was indeed, the B. thereof. And hence it is, that although the Apostles were commanded to go into all the world, yet james stayed at jerusalem until his death. Secondly he taketh exception against the evidence which I brought; first, because it is not testified in the Acts of the Apostles, 
Ad pag. 132.  that they made james B of jerusalem. As though the Apostles did nothing, but what is recorded in the Acts; and as though we should deny credit to the ancientest writers, and such as be of best credit, reporting with one consent a matter of fact not registered in the Acts. But though the act of making him B. be not set down in the Acts; yet the story so speaketh of his continuance 
z Act. 15. & 21.  at jerusalem, of his assistance of Presbyters, of his presidency in that Council where Peter and Paul were present; that it may appear their testimony is true, and agreeable to the scriptures, who have reported him to be B. there.  
The next exception is, that I produce none of the Apostles Disciples to testify it. And what one of them, whose writings are extant could I allege, whom, you would not reject as counterfeit? Clemens 
a Clem. Epist. 1.  the Disciple of the Apostles, not only writeth an Epistle to james translated by Ruffinus, calling him the Bishop of Bishops governing the holy Church of the Hebrews in jerusalem, but also in his book of recognitions 
b R●●●gn. lib. 1.  translated likewise by the same Ruffinus, and dedicated to james the brother of our Lord, calleth him usually the B. yea, the chief of Bishops: which titles, how the Pope can digest, I know not. But suppose, that none of the disciples of the Apostles in those few writings of theirs which be extant, had given testimony to this matter: were not the testimony of Hegesippus, and Clemens, who both lived in the very next age to the Apostles, sufficient? It is not to be doubted, but that james his being B. of jerusalem was a thing as notorious, and as certainly known among Christians in those times; as there is no doubt made among us now, that D. Cranmer was Archbishop of Canterbury in King Henry the eights time.  
In the third place he would seek to descredit all Histories in general; because the most learned B. of Ely, in a Sermon preached when he was of Chichester, truly noteth, what might be objected against historians of latter times. But Eusebius is free, as I suppose, from that imputation, and much more Hegesippus, and Clemens, in whom also that cavil of his hath no place, that they spoke of Bishops which had been before, according to the condition of them in their times. For such was the estate of jerusalem, and of the jews in their times; as that the condition of the Bishops there was rather impaired, then increased. Neither were they, nor any other, whom I cited, so simple, but that they knew as well as the refuter, that james was an Apostle; neither did they know any reason, which the refuter would seem to know, why his being an Apostle should hinder his being the Apostle, or Angel of that Church. For so were the Bishops at the first called.  
Fourthly and lastly, 
§ 5. His fourth objection that james could not be B. of jerusalem.  he giveth all my witnesses the lie: saying plainly, that james was not Bishop of jerusalem, neither could be, so that their testimony is not only false, but impossible. But how is this proved? forsooth because two or three late writers (worthy men I confess, D. Whitakers, Bishop jewel, D. Raynolds) do deny, that he was Bishop there. If they all had denied ●t, as they did not; yet without any disparagement to them, the affirmation of so many ancient writers in a matter of fact, agreeable also with the scriptures, proved by the succession of the Bishops of jerusalem, remaining yet in divers good authors upon record, besides other evidence, may overweigh their denial. But what if they all did not deny it? to D. Raynolds I know not what to say, the refuter only maketh a show with his name, neither alleging his words, nor quoting the place. He citeth Bishop jewels defence of the Apology, pag 300. telling Harding out of Clemens Epist. 1. that james was no otherwise B. of jerusalem, then over all the other Churches; where is no such matter. Indeed in the 300. page. of his reply unto Harding, 
B. jewel doth not deny james to have been B. of jerusalem.  in the fourth article; I find the first Epistle of Clement alleged, but Bishop jewel misalledged and falsified. For having maintained against Harding, that he was not able to prove the Pope to have been called in ancient times the universal B. he showeth, that as much in effect, yea, and in express terms had been given to others; as to the B. of Alexandria, called by some the judge of the whole world; to the B. of Constantinople, called universal or ecumenical Patriarch; to james the B. of jerusalem. Hear B. jewels words, Clement unto james B. of jerusalem writeth thus: Clemens jacobo fratri Domini, Episcopo Episcoporum, regenti Hebraeorum sanctam Ecclesiam Hierosolymis, sed & omnes Ecclesias quae ubique Dei providentia fundatae sunt. Clement unto james the brother of our Lord, the B. of BB. governing the holy Church of the jews at jerusalem, and besides all the Churches that be founded every where by God's providence. These be all his words, saving that he saith, if Harding had so good evidence for the B. of Rome, he would not thus have passed it over in silence. Which if you compare with the refuters allegation, you may well wonder at his dealing. Doth not B. jewel himself in plain terms call james the B. of jerusalem? and that which is said of his governing other Churches, is not his saying, but Clements, if it be truly printed in the copies 
d Tom. 1. Concil. per Cragg. Merlinum joverium.  which B. jewel did follow. Neither would it follow of those words alleged, as they are, that he was no otherwise B. of jerusalem then over all the other Churches. The B. of Constantinople, though he were called universal or ecumenical Patriarch; yet was he the Diocesan B. of the Church of Constantinople alone: and that was his peculiar Diocese. So if Clement had meant that james had been the governor of all Churches, yet the Church of jerusalem was his Diocese, wherein Simon and the rest of the Bishops of jerusalem did succeed him, and thereof he had his denomination. The Pope himself, though he claim to be universal Bishop, yet is he specially Bishop of Rome; and his cathedral Church is the Church of Lateran, of which he is Bishop. Howbeit, in the edition of that Epistle set forth by Sichardus, and printed at Basill together with his recognitions anno 1526. we read thus. Sed & ominibus Ecclesiis quae ubique sunt. By which copy, if it be true, james is not signified to be the governor of all Churches; but Clement's Epistle is directed not only to james, but to all Churches, etc.  
Yea but D. Whitakers by eight arguments doth prove, 
§ 6. Whether D. Whitak. doth prove by 8. arguments that james neither was, nor could be B. of jerusalem not the 6. latter  that he neither was, nor might be B. of jerusalem. I promise you, this maketh a fair show, if it be true. But this also is a manifest untruth. For the arguments that he useth, are to prove, that Peter was not Bishop of Rome. Yea but the same are as effectual to prove that james might not be Bishop of jerusalem: and therefore to these eight arguments he doth refer 
e de Pont. q. 3. s. 9 c. 3. R  me. But this also is untrue. For six of these eight, are such, as the refuter with all his sophistry cannot with any show of truth apply to St. james. For his third argument, taken from Peter's long absence from Rome, after he was according to their opinion B. there cannot be, applied to james, who was resident at jerusalem; as the Acts, besides other witnesses, testify. Nor the fourth, that if Peter were B. then had he two Bishoprics. For he had been by their own doctrine as well B. of Antioch, as of Rome. But no such thing can be objected against james. Nor the fifth that while Peter lived Linus was B. of Rome: so he was indeed by the appointment of Peter and Paul, as Irenaeus teacheth. But whiles james lived none was B. of jerusalem, but he. But after he was dead, Simon was chosen to be his successor. Nor the sixth, that the authors which mention Peter's going to Rome, note this to have been the end, not to be B. there, but to oppose Simon Magus. But the cause of james his staying and continuing at jerusalem was to take charge of that Church, which, during his life, had no other B. Nor the seventh, that if Peter were B. of Rome then would he have professed himself the Apostle of the Gentiles, neither would he have convenanted with Paul, that he and Barnabas should take care of the Gentiles, but himself, and james, and john, of the Circumcision. For james as he is said to have been B. of jerusalem; so he professeth himself to have been the Apostle of the jews. For beside, that he writeth his Epistle 
f Erasm. argum. in Epist. jacobi. jacobus quum erat Hierosolymitarum Episcopus scribit & caeteris judaeis etc.  to the jews; he, and Peter, and john, gave the right hand of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas, that themselves would be for the Circumcision And for as much as Peter and john traveled to other parts, james always abiding at jerusalem; it is more than probable, that the Church of jewry was peculiarly assigned to him. Neither is it for nothing that both in the 15. of the Acts, he is noted as Precedent, or chief in that Council, and in the 2. Chapter to the Galathians. Paul speaking of such Apostles, as were at jerusalem, he giveth the precedence to james before Peter and john. Nor the eight, for they that say Peter was Bishop of Rome, say Paul was also, meaning that they were both founders of the Church, but Linus was the B. to whom they both committed the Church as 
g lib. 3. c. 3.  Irenaeus saith. But they which say james was B. of jerusalem, mention him alone. Neither was he founder of that Church: but Christ himself, who was the minister of Circumcision.  

§ 7. That the 2. first reasons do not conclude that james was not B. of jerusalem.  But it will be said, the two first reasons of the eight do prove that james was not B. of jerusalem. That cometh now to be tried. The first reason is this. 
Bishops have certain Churches assigned to them.  
The Apostles had not certain churches assigned to them.  
Therefore the Apostles were not Bishops.  The assumption is to be distinguished according to the times. For when Christ gave them their indefinite commission 
h Mar. 16.15. , go into all the world, he assigned no Provinces, nor parts of the world to any. Notwithstanding, before they were to go abroad, he willeth them to stay at jerusalem, till they had received the holy Ghost, who should direct them what to do; and we may be assured, that he did not direct them to go confusedly, but distinctly, some to one part of the world, some to another. Howbeit, when they ceased to travail in their old days, and rested in some chief City where they had laboured; they were reputed Bishops of that place, where they rested: though some of them perhaps were not properly Bishops. And this is true of Peter, and of the most of the Apostles. But herein james differeth from the rest: for to him at the first, before their dispersion, the Church of jerusalem was assigned. Neither did he travail, as the rest, from one Country to another, being not confined to any one Province; though in the end of their travels some of them made choice of some special place, where they rested, exercising (no doubt) a patriarchal authority, as it were, in that circuit, where they had travailed, and planted Churches. Thus john rested at Ephesus, and others in other places. That assumption therefore, which is true of the rest of the Apostles, is not true of james: and were to be denied if the Syllogism were thus framed. 
BB. had certain Churches assigned to them:  
james had not a certain Church assigned to him:  
Therefore he was not B.  This assumption I have disproved. And therefore though that argument may seem to conclude sufficiently against Peter's being B. of Rome; it concludeth not against james his being B. of jerusalem. And beside, between james and the rest this difference may be noted; that whereas they having planted Churches, when they saw their time, committed the same to certain BB. (so Peter and others of the Apostles committed Antioch to Evodius; Peter and Paul committed Rome to Linus; Paul committed Ephesus to Timothy; Crect to Titus; john committed Smyrna to Polycarpus, and divers other Churches in Asia to other Bishops, as Eusebius 
i Lib. 3. c. 23.  reporteth; yet james abiding all his time at jerusalem, committed that Church to no other; though when he was dead, the Apostles committed it to Simon, whom they ordained his successor.  
The second reason applied to james.  
If james were B. then by the same reason other of the Apostles were BB.  
But the other Apostles were not Bishops properly; Therefore not james.  
Why I should not grant this consequence, I have showed sufficient reason in setting down the difference between james and the rest of the Apostles. Therefore that reason also, howsoever it may take place as touching Peter, in whom no such difference from the rest of the Apostles can be truly noted: yet it holdeth not against james his being B. of jerusalem.  
If the Refuter, or any other be not as yet persuaded of this point; to satisfy him in the main point, that the Apostles appointed and ordained Bishops; I will be content to suppose, that james was not B. of jerusalem, because it might be supposed and granted, without any great prejudice to the cause: seeing it is manifest, that the same ancient Authors, who testify that the Apostles appointed james B. of jerusalem, do also witness; that after his death, the Apostles who were then remaining, ordained Simon the son of Cleophas to be B. there, as hereafter 
k Cap. 4. §. 20.  shall be showed.  

§ 8. By this instance of james, BB. proved to be superior to other Ministers in degree.  After I had proved that james was B. of jerusalem, I endeavoured to confute the opinion of the learneder sort of Disciplinarians, who do hold (as before hath been showed) that Bishops were not superior to other Ministers in degree, neither had superiority for term of life, but for a short time. And to this end objected the same conceits, that by this instance of james they might plainly be refuted. Hereunto the Refuter replieth, 
Ad pag. 133.  that I devise 
l He museth, as he useth.  those objections to make myself work: when as indeed they be the two main points wherein Beza differeth from us. But, saith he, who ever conceived any such thought of the Apostle james? I am sure there is not a syllable, nor a letter of him at all in the place he quoteth out of Beza: the more wrong he doth him, etc. All this ado ariseth from the misprinting of one letter in the margin, (c) being put for (p.) For in the 
m Degrade. minist. c. 3. pag. 23.  23. page of that book, in the end of the third chapter, he hath this saying: though I grant that james the brother of our Lord was in order first in the Church of jerusalem; yet it followeth not, that he was in degree superior either to the Apostles, or else to his fellow Ministers. Which saying, as it seemeth, I should not need to have confuted, if all the Disciplinarians were of our Refuters mind, who censureth that speech as untrue and unreverent. But yet, that he might let his Reader see, that he is able to defend any thing against me; he saith, if a man would speak so untruly and unreverently, he might easily maintain it against the answer that M. D. bringeth. They must remember, saith he, that he was an Apostle, and his honour and degree by his Bishopric not impaired. As if the question were not of him, as a B. not as an Apostle. His superiority in degree proceeded from his Apostleship, and yet as a B. he might be superior in order only. This trick of fast and loose was not worth the showing, unless it could have been done more cleanly. To return these tricks of fast and loose to such a shifting Sophister, as I have proved the Refuter to be; it is plain, that Beza speaketh simply of james, as the chief in the Church of jerusalem, as well in respect of the Apostles, as the Presbyters there. And therefore considereth him as an Apostle, as well as a B. And if he had intended any such distinction as the Refuter imagineth, he should have conceived, that james his honour and degree by his Bishopric was impaired, and that the Apostles in choosing him to be B. of jerusalem, should rather have depressed him, then done him honour. But they thought it a singular honour to be the Apostle or Bishop of that Church which Christ himself had founded. And therefore as Clement noteth, the chief of the Apostles, Peter, james, and john, though Christ had vouchsafed to them greater honour than the rest, yet would not arrogate 
n Euseb. l. 2. c. 1.  to themselves that honour, but preferred james the just the brother of our Lord thereunto; and when it was void again by his death, they made choice of Simon the son of Cleophas for the same cause 
o Euseb. l. 3. c. 11. & l. 4 c. 22. ex Hegesippo. , because he also was the Lord's kinsman. The grave censure of the Refuter is, that Clement's speech is unsavoury, and the respect carnal which Hegesippus and Eusebius allege. Thus is he able, as it were with a breath, to blow away these worthy Authors, Hegesippus, Clemens, and Eusebius; they are not able to stand before him. But why unsavoury? when the Apostles were to be dispersed into divers parts of the world, was it not a special honour for one amongst them, without that travail & wandering, whereto the rest were subject, to be set over the mother Church of Christendom, which Christ himself had founded, to be the Apostle of that people which had sundry prerogatives above all other Nations, and in respect of that place to have a precedence before the other Apostles, 
Ad pag. 134.  as james had, Act. 15. Gal. 2? And why carnal? were not they bound in respect of that love and reverence which they did owe to our Saviour Christ, to prefer his near kinsmen according to the flesh, being at the least equal with others? It is certain, that james 
p Hier. Catal. in jacobo. in Epist. ad Gal. c. 1. & Euseb. l. 2. c. 23. ex Hegesippo.  for his admirable piety was wonderfully honoured, not only among Christians, but also among the unbelieving jews; as might easily be showed, in so much that josephus 
q Orig. contr. Celsum l. 1. Euseb. l. 2. c. 23. Hier. cattle. in jacobo.  imputeth the destruction of jerusalem to his death, as to a principal cause.  
But, saith he, if it had been arrogancy in them, why not in him? That which had been arrogancy in them to have arrogated to themselves, was no arrogancy in him to undertake being imposed upon him. Yea, but if it were so great a privilege, why might it not have advanced him to a higher degree above the rest of the Apostles? because the Apostleship being the highest degree of the ministery, this was the greatest honour to have a priority and precedence in that degree. Yea, but I deny him to have been B. when I say, that whereas before the Apostles had jointly governed the Church of jerusalem, that charge which before they had in common, they being now to depart committed to him in particular; but their charge was of Apostles, not of Bishops. As though the charge of Apostles is not by the holy Ghost called 
r Act. 1.20.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is Bishopric; and as though james, who before was an Apostle absolutely, did not by this designment become the Apostle of the jews. Neither was this a clipping of his wings, as it pleaseth the Refuter to speak, more than of the rest of the Apostles, when by mutual consent every man's Province as it were, circuit and charge was assigned to him. But I spoke not without book, delivering mine own conceits as the Refuter every where doth: but what I said, I received from their own, and almost only Author Jerome, which he received also from 
s Catal. script. in jacobo.  Hegesippus. Hegesippus, saith he, who was near the Apostles times in the fifth book of his Commentaries speaking of james, saith, james the brother of our Lord surnamed the just, received the Church of jerusalem, post Apostolos, after the Apostles.  
As touching the other point, 
§ 9 By this instance of james BB. proved to have had their singular pre-eminence for term of life.  though the Refuter would scarcely vouchsafe to touch it as being impertinent; notwithstanding, it not only confuteth the conceit of those who hold Bishops were but for a short time, and not for term of life; but also proveth plainly that james was B. of jerusalem. I therefore showed that he continued at jerusalem, 
t Act. 15. & 21. Gal. 1. & 2. Hieron, Catal. Euseb. hist. & Chron.  as the superintendant of that Church until his death, ruling the same by the space of thirty years, after that manner as his successor after him ruled it eight and thirty years. Yea, but this doth not prove that he was B. Neither was it so much alleged to that end, as to show the pre-eminence which he had was not (as Beza saith of all the ancient Bishops, which he acknowledgeth to be divine) for a short time, or by course; but for term of life. And yet it proveth the main point also, that he was B. and as the Geneva translators confess 
u In Act. 21.18.  superintendant of that Church. For if he were not the Apostle of that Church, that is to say the B. why did not he after the example of other Apostles travail into other parts, but continued there ruling that Church by the space of thirty years, until his death? Forsooth he did not stay so much to rule that Church, for that might have been otherwise performed, as to convert the multitudes of jews which should resort thither. Where, he saith, the Church might otherwise have been governed, it is nothing to the purpose, unless he can show, that it was otherwise governed. There is no doubt, but that Church had a Pastor assigned to them by the Apostles, who would not leave that mother Church as a flock without a shepherd. But what Pastor had it, if james who continued there, and ruled it for thirty years were not the Pastor thereof? There is no doubt to be made, but the cause and end of his staying there thirty years, was the same of his successor Simons staying there thirty eight years, and of his successors every one until their death. Wherefore was it not great pity that the Refuter did forget himself to spend so much time in things that were so impertinent?  
§ 10. When the Apostles ordained BB. in other Churches.  Serm. Sect. 6. pag. 69. As touching other Churches, we are to observe, that the Apostles did not at the very first planting of them appoint BB. unto them, etc. to pag. 72. li. 17. 
The difference in respect of the time, which before I noted betwixt jerusalem and other Churches, I do in this section explain; showing, that the Apostles did not at the first planting of them appoint Bishops to them, as presently after the ascension of Christ, they appointed a Bishop over the Church of jerusalem: yielding these reasons, because as yet there was neither that choice, nor yet that use of them among a people which was to be converted, before it needed to be governed; and showing what course they did take, before they appointed Bishops, namely, that first they ordained Presbyters 
w Act. 14.23. etc.  to labour the conversion of the people, to feed them being converted, and to attend them in common, governing them after a private manner, and as it were in foro conscientiae. And this is that, which Jerome 
x In Tit. 1.  saith, that the Churches at the first before Bishops were appointed over them, were governed by the common counsel of the Presbyters. But the Episcopal power which consisteth specially in the right of ordination, and in the sway of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction committed to one; I said the Apostles each of them retained in their own hands, as was manifest 
y 2 Thess. 3.14. 1 Cor. 5. , whiles either they continued near them, or meant not to be long from them. All which while, Bishops were not so needful, the Apostles providing for the necessity of those Churches, either by their presence, or by their letters and messengers. And this I noted to be the cause, why in the writings of the Apostles, Bishops are so seldom (though not so seldom as some imagine) mentioned, and the name with Presbyter confounded. But when as they were to leave the Churches altogether, either by departure from them or by death (that the Churches should not be left fatherless, they fulfilled that in Psal. 45. according to Augustine's and Ieromes exposition, in steed of Fathers, that is, the Apostles, there shall be children borne unto thee, whom thou shall make Princes over all the earth, that is, Bishops succeeding the Apostles in the regiment of the Church) At their departure they left substitutes, and at their death appointed successors, to whom they committed the government of the Churches, furnishing them by a singularity of pre-eminence, both with the right of Ordination and with the power of jurisdiction, as well over the Presbyters, as the people of each City with the Country adjoining. And these I said at the first were called, sometimes the 
a Apoc. 1.2.3.  Angels of the Churches, sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
b Heb. 13.17. , Praepositi, Rulers, Heb. 13.17. (which text in the ancient 
c Can. 39  canons called the Apostles, and in the second Epistle of Ignatius 
d Ad Trall. , as also the name praepositi in Latin Fathers from thence is appropriated to BB.) sometimes the Apostles of the Churches, etc.  

§ 11. The Refuter answereth by snatches.  To all this the Refuter answereth by snatches, as he doth to the residue of the Sermon; for which cause I think it expedient to repeat the points delivered in the Sermon, that his dealing may the better appear.  
And first he snatcheth at those words where I said, that until the Apostles were to leave the Churches altogether, Bishops were not so needful, as after their departure and death, 
Ad pag. 135.  which is most manifest. Belike, saith he, they were needful before, but the Apostles would put off the matter till there was no remedy, and I cannot much blame them if it be true which D. Bilson 
e Cap. 12. pag. 224.  saith that they were to keep the power of imposition of hands to themselves, unless they would lose their Apostleship. It is more marvel therefore that they would ordain any Bishops at all, as long as they lived, then that they would defer the doing of it so long as they could. Which words, as they contain a mere cavil at my words, not worth the answering; so a mere belying of that reverend B. who saith, that the Apostles could not lose that (viz. the power of imposing hands and delivering unto Satan, which the Fathers call Episcopal power) unless they lost the Apostleship withal.  
Secondly, he objecteth want of proofs. What proof bringeth he that the Apostles ordained such Bishops in other Churches? neither one text of Scripture, nor any testimony out of the ancient Writers, only authoritate praetoria, he telleth us Pythagoras like, they did so, etc. Here, in complaining of the want of proofs, he giveth sufficient proof of a bad conscience. In this section I did but in general (having noted the difference of the time) declare, what course the Apostles took, first in deferring the choice of Bishops; and afterwards in appointing them. The proofs do follow in the sections following, showing the places where, and the persons whom the Apostles ordained Bishops. That imputation of speaking Pythagoras like, he hath often laid upon me, and yet not so oft as unjustly, who have in this Sermon and in this Treatise delivered nothing almost without plentiful proof or sufficient authority.  
Thirdly, he carpeth at the names, wherewith I said the first Bishops were called, ask what is all this to the matter. Would he prove they were Diocesan Bishops, because they were called by these names? what a notorious caviller is this? may nothing be spoken but by way of proof? may nothing be said by declaration, or explanation, or prevention? I knew it was objected, that Bishops are not mentioned in the scriptures, the name Episcopus Bishop, being given to Prebyters: and therefore that is not like, they were ordained by the Apostles, of whom no mention is in the Scriptures. For prevention of this objection, or assoiling this doubt, I declared first, that the Bishops in the writings of the Apostles are called, sometimes the Angels of the Churches, sometimes their rulers, sometimes their Apostles. Yea, but in my former Sermon I gave all these names save only the name of Apostles to all ministers. The former Sermon is of ministers in general, including the Bishops, and divers things there spoken of ministers in general, do principally belong to Bishops. All Pastors are rulers or rectors of their several flocks, but the Bishops are rulers both of them and their flock. All ministers are called Angel●, but the Bishop alone is the Angel of each Church or Diocese, etc.  
But by what authority saith he, 
§ 12. Whether Bishops are called the Apostles of the Churches.  is the title of Apostle appropriated to BB? he would have said, communicated to them with the twelve. For I know no man so foolish, as to appropriate it to the Bishops. This reason I rendered, why they be called the Apostles of the Churches; because they succeeded the Apostles in the government of the particular Churches: whereof I gave instance Phil. 2.25. where Epaphroditus, who was the B. or Pastor of Philippi, is therefore called their Apostle. Therefore? saith he. Who saith so? Ambrose, Jerome, Theodoret, Calvin, Thomas Aquinas, if we will believe D. D. but if we will look upon the books themselves, not one of them saith so. Calvin, Aquinas, and some other indeed, as Lyra, interlineall gloss, Lombard, Anselm, etc. are of mind that Apostle there signifieth teacher and no more. Calvin saith thus 
g Calvin▪ in Phil. 2.25. , The name of Apostle here, as in many other places, is taken generally for proquolibet evangelista, for any Evangelist. But by their Evangelist, he understandeth their Pastor, and so calleth him divers times, using that word upon that occasion six or seven times in that place. Paul sendeth to them Epaphroditus, ne Pastore carerent qui recte compositum statum tueretur, lest they should want their Pastor who might maintain their well ordered state. On these words, verse 26. He had a longing desire towards you all, and was pensive, because you had heard that he was sick: Calvin noteth, a sign of a true Pastor, that when he was far distant from them, notwithstanding was affected with the care and desire of his flock; and when he understood that his sheep sorrowed for his sake, was pensive for their sorrow. In like manner the godly carefulness of the Philippians for their Pastor is noted on the 27. where Paul signifieth, what grief he should have conceived, if Epaphroditus had died; Paul saith he was moved with the loss of the Church which he saw would have been destituted optimo Pastore of a very good Pastor in so great want of good men. On the twenty eight he saith, Paul did the more carefully send him, because he was sorry that for his occasion he had been withheld from the flock committed to him. On the twenty ninth he observeth how desirous Paul is, that good Pastors may be much esteemed, etc. let the reader therefore judge, whether Epaphroditus were not in Calvin's judgement the Pastor of the Philippians. By the Apostle saith Ambrose 
h Ambr. in Phil. 2. , he was made their Apostle, that is Bishop, as Ambrose 
i Ambr in Eph. 4.11. & 1. Cor. 12.28.  expoundeth the word in other places, Apostoli Episcopi sunt, the Apostles are Bishops. But according to the refuters sense, he had been an Apostle, not of Paul's making, but of their own. Jerome 
k Hier. in Phil. 2.  writing on those words, my fellow Soldier and your Apostle, fellow Soldier saith he, by reason of his honour, because he also had received the office of being an Apostle among them. And on those words, have in honour such, not only him saith he, qui vester est Doctor, who is your Doctor, by which word in Ieromes time, Bishop most commonly was signified, etc.  
Theodoret 
l Theodor. in Phil. 2.  saith thus, he called him Apostle, because to him the charge of them was committed. Wherefore it is manifest, that those which in the beginning of the Epistle were called Bishops were under him, as having the place of Presbyters. And from this place, as afterwards I noted, Theodoret 
m Theod. in 1 Tim. 3.  gathereth, that at the first, they, whom now we call Bishops were called Apostles. Thus Epaphroditus was the Apostle of the Philippians. Thomas Aquinas 
n Th. Aquin. in Phil. 2. ; he calleth him brother, saith he, by reason of his faith; fellow worker in the labour of preaching, fellow soldier, because they had suffered tribulation together, your Apostle, that is Doctor. Hic fuit Episcopus Philippensium, He was the Bishop of the Philippians. And so saith Bullinger 
o In Phil. 2. , Philippensium Episcopus erat.  
With what face therefore could the Refuter deny, that any one of these Authors did say, that he was therefore called the Apostle of the Philippians, because he was their Bishop and Pastor? And so are they to be understood, who expound the word Apostle by Teacher. As chrysostom 
p Chrysost. in Phil. 2.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and those whom the Refuter nameth. For they did not, by Apostle understand every common Teacher, or teaching Presbyter, but specialem doctorem saith Anselm 
q In Phil. 2. , instructorem praecipuum their chief instructor, sayeth Dionysius Carthusianus.  
These authors, 
§ 13. The exposition, that they were called Apostles because they were the messengers of the churches, refuted, with the reasons thereof.  and more, as they do all give testimony with my exposition; so against that interpretation of the word Apostle, which the refuter bringeth: who would have him called Apostle, not in respect of any sacred function, which he performed towards them, but because he was their Messenger to the Apostle. And of this judgement, he saith, are Primasius, Haymo, Caietan, and two others, which be as much parties in this cause as himself, Beza, and Piscator. And Calvin acknowledgeth it to agree with the place. Primasius 
r In Phil. 2.25.  saith, that Epaphroditus had received gradum Apostolatus, the degree of Apostleship among them. Calvin doth indeed mention that interpretation▪ but so, as he preferreth the other; sed prior sensus meliùs (meo judicio) convenit: But the former sense in my judgement agreeth better. He could not think, that both senses, being so different, agreed to the text. Yea but he hath two reasons to prove his to be the more likely sense. First, as the words following in the same Verse and Chapt. 4.18. do show, how he ministered to him; so the same phrase is used to the like purpose, 2 Cor. 8.23. where the brethren sent with Titus to receive the Corinthians benevolence, are called Apostles, that is, messengers of the Churches. I acknowledge, that Epaphroditus brought a gratuity from the Philippians to Paul to supply his necessity, being a prisoner in Rome. And the brethren likewise who accompanied Titus, were to receive the benevolence of the Corinthians; but it is unlikely; that either he, or they, were called the Apostles of the Churches in that regard. It appeareth by divers of Ignatius his Epistles, that when the churches did send one upon a Christian Embassage, the B. commonly was entreated to take that Embassage upon him. In like manner the Philippians, being to send as it were upon Embassage to Paul, Epaphroditus their B. undertook that voyage He being therefore both their B. and their Ambassador, it is more likely, that he was called their Apostle because he was their Bishop; then for that he was their Ambassador. For it is unlikely, that the name of that sacred function of the Apostles of Christ, who also himself is the Apostle of our profession, should be used in the Scriptures to signify the messengers of men. Besides, in both places, the Apostle intendeth by this title highly to commend Epaphroditus, and the others; but this had been but a small commendation, that they were messengers of the Churches. Again, if they in 2 Cor. 8. were called the Apostles of the Churches, because they were their messengers; then those Churches should have sent them: but it is evident, that Paul himself sent them, for as it was required of him, Gal. 2: so had he undertaken, to procure a supply for the relief of the brethren in judaea, who were oppressed with famine. And to that end having before dealt with the Corinthians, sendeth Titus and two others, to receive their contribution.  
His second reason is, 
§ 14. The second reason answered.  that it standeth not so well with the properties of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth a messenger, to entitle any man (in regard of his ministerial function) their Apostle to whom, as his from whom he is sent. And therefore among all the titles Paul taketh to himself to magnify his office, 
Ad pag. 136.  he never calleth himself their or your Apostle, but an Apostle of Christ, and an Apostle to them. We may therefore say of M. D. as junius doth of Theodoret, the clearest witness he allegeth, he is deceived by the equivocation of the word Apostolos, which sometimes in a common and general sense is given to any one that is sent as a messenger, and sometimes more specially ascribed to those that were employed (as the Apostles) in an extraordinary and high Embassage from Christ.  
Here the Refuter whiles he goeth about to discover my ignorance (as though I knew not the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as he) bewrayeth his own. For it is evident, that in the Scriptures the word is used with reverence as well to the parties to whom, as to the party from whom, the Apostle is sent. Thus Paul calleth himself the Apostle of the Gentiles 
s Rom. 11.13.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and saith, that Peter had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Apostleship of Circumcision 
t Gal. 2.7.8. , meaning that he was the Apostle of the jews, because to himself was committed the Gospel of uncircumcision, as to Peter of the circumcision. So Angels have relation, not only to the sender who is God, but to the parties to whom they are sent, and are called their 
u Mat. 18.10.  Angels. And even as Angels absolutely spoken, is a title of all ministers who are sent of God, but used with reference to the Churches whereto they are sent (as the Angels of the seven Churches) do signify the Bishops or Pastors of the same churches; so Apostoli, absolutely used is a title of all Ambassadors 
(w) Ro. 16.7.  sent from God with authority Apostolical, though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, given to Paul 
x Act. 14.14.  and Barnabas and the twelve Apostles; but used with reference to particular Churches, doth signify their Bishops. And in that sense Epaphroditus is called the Apostle of the Philippians. And howsoever the word may signify any messenger with relation to any sender; yet in the scriptures it is not used to signify messengers sent from men, neither is to be translated otherwise then Apostle. For though our Saviour do seem to speak indefinitely 
y john 13.16.  john 13.16. of the Apostle and him that sendeth him; yet it is evident, that he meaneth himself who sent, and the Apostles who were sent.  

§ 15. Ob. Though Epaphroditus were B. yet no Diocesan.  But admit saith the refuter, that Epaphroditus were Bishop or Pastor of Philippi where about I will not strive, how shall it be proved that Philippi was a Diocesan Church? etc. This is written, as the most of the book, to blear the eyes of the simple. For I cannot think he which would undertake this cause, was so void of judgement, as the refuter here would show himself to be, if he wrote sincerely. For I pray you, what was the point which here I had in hand? was it not to show, that the Bishops at the first in the Apostles times were called Apostles? and do I not prove it by this instance, that Epaphroditus being the Bishop of the Philippians, is therefore called their Apostle? Admit it be so, saith the refuter, yet how shall it be proved, that Philippi was a Diocesan Church, and how weakly with that, doth M. D. infer, that he was a Diocesan Bishop, like to ours for the substance of his office. All men see he deceiveth his reader with the like equivocation in the word Bishop, which in the Apostles times by his own confession was common to all Pastors, though afterwards appropriated to some special persons: as if he should have said, I grant that which here you do prove, but yet that followeth not hereon, which you intended not. That the Churches were Dioceses, and the Bishop's Diocesan, like to ours for the substance of their office, I proved before in the former part: here, I am so far from inferring or proving it, that I presuppose it, as sufficiently proved before. But this is the poor shift, which the refuter usually flieth unto, when he hath nothing to answer. He persuaded himself (such was his judgement) that in the question of parishes and Dioceses he had the upper hand: and therefore, when he is foiled in any of the points following, he flieth to that as his refuge; yea but though this be so as you say, yet the Church was not a Diocese, nor the Bishop a Diocesan. But how little reason he hath to imagine Philippi one of the 
a Act. 16.12. Sedul. in Phil. 1. Philippi Metropolis Macedoniae.  chief Cities of Macedonia, to have been a parish Church; may be gathered by that, which before hath been said of the like Cities. Where he saith, I go about to deceive the reader with the like equivocation of the word Bishop he doth me wrong. But he and his consorts deceive the readers, when they would persuade them, that because in the Apostles writings and for some part of the Apostles time, the names Episcopus & Presbyter were confounded, namely until Bishops began to be chosen from among the Presbyters; that therefore the offices were confounded. For here I show, that when Presbyters were called Episcopi, those who ever since the Apostles times have been called Bishops, were then called the Agels, and the Apostles of the Churches, to whom, as I noted before out of 
b in 2. Phil. 2.25.  Theodoret, those who were then called Episcopi, that is Presbyters, were subject.  
For as I said in the Sermon, 
§ 16. When & how long BB. were called the Apostles of the Churches.  whiles the Episcopal power was in the Apostles and Apostolic men, those who had that power were called Apostles; and therefore Ambrose by Apostles in some places 
c Eph. 4.11. 1 Cor. 12.28.  of Scripture, understandeth Bishops: and to the like purpose Cyprian: 
d l. 3. Epist. 9  Apostolos, id est, Episcopos & praepositos dominus elegit, the Lord chose Apostles, that is Bishops and Governors. For as Theodoret 
e Theodor. in 1 Tim. 3.  hath well observed on 1 Tim. 3. In times past, saith he, they called the same men Presbyters and Bishops, and those who now are called Bishops they named Apostles. But in process of time, they left the name Apostle to those who are properly called Apostles, and the name of Bishop they gave to them who had been called Apostles. Thus Epaphroditus was the Apostle of the Philippians, Titus of the Cretians, and Timothy of the Asians. Which testimony, if it be conferred with some before cited out of Jerome, the truth concerning this matter will appear to be this. Whiles the Bishops were Apostles and Apostolic men (for such were the first Bishops) the Angels of the Churches were also called the Apostles of the Churches, other Ministers being then called Presbyteri & Episcopi indifferently; but when the first Bishops being dead, their successors were to be chosen out of the Presbyters, (which Jerome noteth to have been done at Alexandria ever since the death of S. Mark, and was done in all other places where were no Evangelists, or Apostolical men remaining) than they left the name Apostle, and for difference sake called him the Bishop. Wherefore as I said in the Sermon, it was not long, that the name Episcopus was confounded with Presbyter. For Ignatius, (who was a B. above thirty years in the Apostles time, after that Evodius had been B. of Antioch above twenty years before him) appropriateth the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to a Bishop; and usually distinguisheth the three degrees of the Clergy, as the Church ever since the Apostles hath distinguished them, by these three names, Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon.  
Yea, but we may gather out of Theodoret's testimony, saith the Refuter, that the report which M. D. maketh of Ignatius his appropriating the name of Episcopus to a Diocesan Bishop, is without any sufficient warrant. For seeing Ignatius lived in the Apostles times, and died within six years after S. john, and Theodoret saith, that in process of time the name of B. was imposed; it is not likely Ignatius should be the imposer of it. No man includeth the process of time within the compass of six years any man will think. The process of time, whereof Theodoret speaketh, was as appeareth by conference of him with Jerome in the Apostles time. At the first, towards the beginning of the Apostles time, the Governors of the Churches were called Apostles; but in process of time, when the first Bishops who had been Apostles or Apostolical men were dead, and now were to be chosen out of the Presbyters, which was towards the latter end of the Apostles times; then they began to be called Episcopi, Bishops. And that this was so, appeareth not only by Ignatius, who continually useth the word as the first and highest degree of the Clergy, Presbyters as the second, and Deacons as the third: but also by other monuments of antiquity which I mentioned in the Sermon.  
I have the longer insisted on this point, because it is of great consequence. For hereby it appeareth first that when the name Presbyter and Episcopus were confounded, yet the offices of Bishops and Presbyters were not confounded. Secondly, that Bishops being then called Apostoli, were superior to other Ministers who were called Presbyteri & Episcopi. And lastly, that such Bishops as were superior to other Ministers, were in the Apostles times, and mentioned in the Apostles writings.   

The FOUR CHAPTER. Showing the Places where, and the Persons whom, the Apostles ordained BB: but chiefly, that Timothy was B. of Ephesus, and Titus of Crect.  Serm. Sect. 7. pag. 72. But we are also to show the places where, and the persons whom, the Apostles ordained BB. and first out of the scriptures etc. to all ordained there, pag. 75. 
IN this section and the two next following, I prove that Timothy and Titus were by S. Paul ordained Bishops: the one of Ephesus, the other of Crect, and maintain the same assertion against their objections. Afterwards, I show out of other the ancientest monuments of antiquity, that other BB. of other places, were ordained by the Apostles.  
This, saith the Refuter, is the last supply to maintain the former antecedent, by showing the places where, and the persons whom the Apostles ordained Bishops. If this fail he is undone. As who should say, that all which hitherto hath been said, hath by him been very learnedly and sufficiently refuted. When as in truth he hath not been able to confute any one sentence or line of the Sermon hitherto, with soundness of reason, or evidence of truth. And the like assurance I have of that which followeth.  
Now that Timothy and Titus were by the Apostle ordained Bishops: I prove by a twofold reason, which I joined together, & is thus to be dissolved: the former standing thus.  
If in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus it be presupposed that Paul had ordained Timothy and Titus Bishops of Ephesus and Crect, then is it true, that they were by him ordained BB. of those Churches.  
But the antecedent is true: Therefore the consequent.  
That the antecedent is true I prove by this reason; because it is presupposed in the Epistles, that the Apostle had committed to them Episcopal authority, both in respect of Ordination, and jurisdiction, to be exercised in those Churches. Against which consequence this only thing can be objected, that the Episcopal authority might be committed to them not as ordinary Bishops or Pastors of those Churches, but as extraordinary governors or Evangelists, which afterwards is answered.  
To this argument the Refuter answereth not. 
Ad pag. 137.  The second he frameth thus: 
If the Epistles written to Timothy and Titus be the very patterns and precedents of the Episcopal function, whereby the Apostle informeth them, and in them all Bishops how to exercise their function, than Timothy and Titus were Bishops.  
But the antecedent is true: Therefore the consequent.   
First, he taketh exception against the proposition, saying, though it make a goodly show yet was it confuted long ago by M. Cartwright. Whose confutation either he thinketh to be insufficient, or else he doth but kill a dead man in seeking with a new onset to disprove the consequence. First, for the consequence itself, I avouch thus much; that from that antecedent, I might not only have inferred that particular, that therefore these two to whom the Epistles were written were Bishops: but in general, that the function of Bishops; whose authority and office is described, and the manner of the execution thereof prescribed in the directions given to Timothy and Titus in these Epistles, hath warrant in the word of God: and when they can make as good an argument for their lay-elders, out of the Scriptures, I will subscribe to their Presbyterian discipline.  
Of T. C. answer to that consequence, 
§ 2. T. C. answer refuted.  I have taken special notice heretofore; and did greatly wonder, that he could satisfy himself with such a frivolous answer. And I do no less wonder at the Refuters either lack of judgement, who took that answer for good payment, or want of consideration and care of T. C. credit in referring us to so sleight and frivolous an evasion. For whereas D. Whitgift 
h Pag. 404.  argueth thus, That Timothy was Bishop, the whole course of the Epistles written unto him declareth, wherein is contained the office and duty of a Bishop, and divers precepts peculiarly pertaining to that function; T. C. 
i Lib. 2. part. 1. pag. 312.  answereth, that by this reason he might as well prove that Timothy was a deacon, or a widow, an old man or an old woman, seeing in those Epistles the Apostle wrote of their duties. Yea, rather that he was a Deacon, considering that there is nothing in the description of a Deacon which agreeth not to him, but in the description of a Bishop that which he requireth of not being given to wine, and not being a young Christian, could have no place in Timothy's instruction. Not to argue with T. C. but to let him rest in peace; can the Refuter be so ignorant, or without judgement, as to think, that D. Whitgift when he spoke of the whole course and tenure of the Epistles, did mean only the description of a B. or Minister set down in the beginning of the third chapter of the former Epistle? if that had been his argument, he had argued thus: Paul directeth Timothy what manner of men to ordain Bishops or Ministers, and likewise Deacons. Therefore Timothy himself was a B. or Minister, or likewise a Deacon. Is it not plain, that by the whole course he understandeth all those directions, which are given to Timothy throughout the Epistles for the discharge of his office, either in respect of the ministery common to all Ministers, or of his Episcopal function, chiefly in regard either of Ordination or jurisdiction, unto which heads the precepts & directions in those Epistles are to be referred? for when he speaketh of the duties of men and women, old and young, he directeth Timothy, and in like manner Titus 
k. Tit. 2.1.15.  what to preach. When he describeth the qualities of Ministers, and Deacons, and Widows; he directeth him what manner of Ministers and Deacons to ordain, and Widows to admit. And whereas D. Whitgift having said, that in those Epistles divers precepts pertain peculiarly to the Episcopal function: T.C. challengeth him to show him any one precept in those Epistles which is proper to a B: It is not hard to show him more than one, as, lay thy hands hastily on no man. Against a Presbyter or Minister receive not an accusation but under two or three witnesses, etc. These are perpetual directions, which were not common, either to other Christians, or other Ministers: therefore peculiar to BB. And this was T. C. confutation of the Proposition: Now let us hear what the Refuter can say.  
The Proposition saith he, 
§. 3. The refuters answer to the Proposition confuted.  is grounded upon a false supposition, and what is that? that the Apostle by describing in these Epistles the rules to be observed in ordination and jurisdiction, intended to inform Timothy and Titus as BB. and in them all other BB. how to carry themselves in those matters. Is this the Supposition, whereon the Proposition is grounded? Alas good man, you know not 
l Vide supr. l. 2. c. 3.  what the Hypothesis or Supposition of an hypothetical Proposition is: this which you suppose to be the Supposition of the Proposition, is plainly the Assumption of the Syllogism, which yourself framed.  
But because the Refuter hath confounded himself with his own hypothetical or connexive Proposition, I will propound my Argument in another form.  
Whosoever describing unto Timothy and Titus their office and authority, as they were Governors of the Churches of Ephesus and Crect, and prescribing their duty in the execution thereof, and that as afterwards I show to be performed by them and their Successors till the coming of Christ, doth plainly describe the office and authority, and prescribe the duty of BB: he doth presuppose them to be BB; the one of Ephesus, the other of Crect.  
But Paul in his Epistles to Timothy and Titus describing unto them their office and authority as they were Governors of the Churches of Ephesus and Crect, and prescribing their duty in the execution thereof to be performed by them and their successors until the coming of Christ, doth plainly describe the office and authority, and prescribe the duty of BB.  
Therefore Paul in his Epistles to Timothy and Titus presupposeth them to be Bishops, the one of Ephesus, the other of Crect.  
This Proposition, because I know not what can be objected against it. T. C. and the Refuter having assailed it in vain, I will once again take for granted.  
The assumption I prove by those particulars, wherein the Episcopal authority doth chiefly consist, both in respect of Ordination, Tit. 1.5. 1 Tim. 5.22. and also of jurisdiction, they being the censurers of other Minister's doctrine. 1 Tim. 1.3. 2 Tim. 2.16. Tit. 1.10.11. and 3.9. and judges of their persons and conversation, 1 Tim. 5.19.20.21. Tit. 3.10. to which proofs he answereth nothing. Whereunto might be added the authority of Gregory Nazianzen 
m In Encomio Athanas. , of chrysostom 
n Hom. 10. in 1 Tim. , of Oecumenius 
o In 1 Tim. 5. , and Gregory 
p Respons. ad August. ad 〈◊〉. , testifying that these Epistles do teach Bishops how to behave themselves in the Church of God.  
Now because the Refuters supposition is the same in effect with his assumption, I will examine first what he objecteth against the assumption under the name of that supposition, and so proceed to his answer which he directed against the assumption.  
The sum of that which he objecteth against the supposition, is this, that though Timothy and Titus were by Paul's direction to do those things, which Bishops arrogate to themselves; yet they were to do them by an higher power, and therefore not as Bishops. Whereto I answer, that they were to be done by a power which was to continue in the Church until the end; and therefore not by a higher power then Episcopal. And secondly, that the power Episcopal, whereby Bishops do these things which Timothy and Titus had in commission, is so much of the Apostolical power as was to continue in the Church unto the end.  

§ 4. His answer to the assumption. Ad pag. 138.  The assumption itself he denieth, saying, these Epistles are not precedents of the Episcopal function, etc. The reason of his denial is this. What though Bishops have now gotten that power into their hands, yet were not those instructions given to Timothy and Titus, as Bishops, (the Apostles dreaming of no such sovereignty) but particularly to Timothy and Titus as Evangelists, and in general to the Presbyters, to whom the charge of those affairs belongeth. To the Evangelists, to administer in all the Churches of those Regions, whither the Apostles sent, or where they left them: to the Presbyters, to administer in their several congregations or Churches. He said even now that Timothy and Titus did those things which BB. do by a higher power, & now he saith he Apostle dreamt not of any such sovereignty, as the BB. have. Where he saith these instructions were not given to BB. but particularly to these Evangelists to perform them in all Churches and Regions where he should place them, and generally to Presbyters, etc. both parts are false. For these directions Paul gave to Timothy and Titus to be observed of them as they were particularly assigned governors of the Churches of Ephesus and Crect, and are such as are to be observed to the end. Neither are these instructions given in general to Presbyters, neither doth the charge of these affairs belong to them. And that these things belong to the BB. I have sufficiently proved before 
r Lib. 3. .  
To make the matter plain, he bringeth in an example, which is worth the hearing. Suppose, saith he, a Democraty, where the commonwealth is governed by the people; it must needs be that in such a place there are laws for the choosing and ordering of Officers. What if this government fall into the hands of the Nobility, which continue the same laws, still in the same cases? What if some mightier than the rest, at the last make himself sole Governor, still observing those fundamental laws, which were at the first established: is it to be said, that those laws are the very patterns and precedents of the Aristocratical, or Monarchical government, whereby the first maker of those laws would inform, in the one, the Nobility, in the other, the Monarchy, and in them, all other, how to exercise that function? The administration of Church matters touching ordination and jurisdiction, was first in the several Churches, or congregations; which by their Presbyteries had the managing of all Church business: in process of time, it came to be restrained to the Clergy only, the B. and his Presbytery of Ministers only; at last, as things grew worse and worse, the B. like a Monarch got the reins into his own hands. Now though the laws of Ordination and jurisdiction remain the same, and the practice also in some sort; yet are they not patterns and precedents either of the second or third kind of government; neither were they given to instruct the Bishop alone, or the Bishop and his Clergy together.  

§ 5. Schismatical novelties broached by the refuter.  Which comparison I desire may be well considered, especially by the unlearneder sort; for hereby they shall discern, what manner of guides they have desired to follow. For, not to contend with him about his politic proposition, not well agreeing with the rules of policy, wherein we are taught, that the appointment of chief Officers being reckoned inter iura maiestatis, doth always belong to them who have the sovereignty; in the whole comparison, but especially, in the reddition, we may behold the trim Idea of discipline, which the fancy of our Refuter and his fellow-challengers hath forged. For he conceiveth, as if he were a Brownist, or an Anabaptist, that the ancient state of the Church was democratical; that the right of Ordination and jurisdiction, was in the whole congregation of every Parish, which by their Presbyteries (consisting for the greatest part of the laity) had the managing of all church-business; that the laws and Canons for Church-government set down in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, were first provided for this popular state of the Church. Howbeit, by the usurpation of the B. and his Clergy, the popular state was turned into an Aristocraty, the B. and his Presbytery of Ministers only managing the Church affairs. Lastly, in process of time, this Aristocraty was turned into a Monarchy, the B. like a Monarch having got the reins into his own hands. Now the laws concerning Ordination and jurisdiction are still in force; yet were they not patterns neither for the Monarchical government of the B. alone, nor for the Aristocratical government of the Bishop and his Presbytery of ministers, but for the popular and golden state of every Parish which within itself had authority immediately derived from Christ sufficient for the government of itself in all causes Ecclesiastical. This form is propounded also in the modest and Christian offer of disputation. Have not our forwarder sort of people been well advised think you, to dote upon such leaders as these, who broach such a sort of dreams and dotages, for which they have not so much as the show of any sound proof? Our refuter hath often times objected against me, though most unjustly, that Pythagoras-like, I look to be credited upon my bare word; but what proofs I pray you doth he bring for these schismatical novelties?  
First, 
§ 6. His novelties briefly refuted.  it is here presupposed, that every Church endued with power of Ecclesiastical government, was a Parish, & all Church officers Parishional. Which dotage I have before refuted. Secondly, that the form of Church-government was democratical, or popular, the chief authority being in the people. Which hath authority (to be exercised partly by themselves, & partly by their Presbytery) to elect, ordain, deprive & depose their Pastor or B. for the proof whereof the chief burden must lie upon Mat. 18. dic Ecclesiae, which hath been before examined. Beza, making mention of one Morellius, who pleaded in like manner for the popular government, giveth him this style 
t de grad. Ministr. c. 23. pag. 155 , Democraticus quidam fanaticus, showing that these who plead that cause, are lead with a fantastical & fanatical spirit. For is it not a frenzy to urge the people's supremacy in Church-government? is there any show in scripture, or in reason, that the sheep should rule their Shepherd, or the flock their Pastor?  
But for the confutation of them, I refer them to other Disciplinarians, from whom they had their first grounds; seeing by this fancy they seek to overturn, as well those Churches where the Geneva discipline is established as ours.  
The third dream is, that the laws of Church-government prescribed in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, were provided for the democratical state of the Church. So that when Paul saith lay not thou hands on no man hastily, you must understand the speech directed not to Timothy, to whom the Epistle was written, but to the people, that they should not suffer their Lay-elders when their minister is dead, to be hasty in laying hands on a new. And when he saith do not thou receive an accusation, etc. it must be understood of the people and Presbytery. After two or three admonitions do thou avoid an heretic or excommunicate him, that is, thou people. What of Crect? belike the whole Island of Crect was a Parish too.  
The next fancy is, that the popular state of the several Churches did first degenerate into an Aristocraty, and after into a Monarchy. But it is as clear as the light, that the several Churches were at the first governed by the Apostles or Apostolical men severally, and that either perpetually, as by james, Mark, etc. or but for a time, as by Peter, Paul, etc. and that when the Apostles left the Churches, they committed them to other Apostolical men, such as Timothy, Titus, Evodius, Simon the son of Cleophas, Linus, Clemens, etc. communicating unto them the same authority both for the work of the ministry, and for the power of ordination and jurisdiction which themselves had in those several Churches: and what authority each of them had, their successors in the several Churches had the same. Neither have our BB. at this day, greater authority in managing Church causes, than Timothy and Titus and other the first Bishops had. Who was to ordain ministers in Crect and to govern that Church? did not Paul commit these things to Titus, without mentioning, either of Presbytery, or people? are not all his precepts for ordination and Church-government directed only to Titus for Crect, & to Timothy for Ephesus? and doth not this evidently show, that howsoever they might use either the presence, and consent of the people, or the Counsel and advise of the Presbyters in causes of greatest moment, as Princes also do in commonwealths: yet the sway of the Ecclesiastical government was in them?  
It is therefore most plain, that in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, it is presupposed, that they had Episcopal authority: and that the rules and directions given to them are precedents for Bishops and patterns unto them for the exercise of their Episcopal function.  
And this I prove again in my Sermon by another argument, 
§ 7. Another argument proving that these Epistles are patterns or precedents for Bishops.  which the refuter hath framed thus: 
Those things which were written to inform not Timothy and Titus alone, as extraordinary persons, but them and their successors, to the end of the world, were written to inform Diocesan Bishops:  
But those Epistles were written to inform not Timothy and Titus alone as extraordinary persons but them and their successors to the end of the world.  
Therefore they were written to inform Diocesan BB.   
The assumption (for with that the refuter beginneth) I proved by testimony, 
His answer to the assumption  and by reason. And first, by the testimony of Paul 
a 1 Tim. 6.13.14. , straightly charging Timothy, that the commandments and directions, which he gave him, should be kept inviolable until the appearing of our Lord jesus Christ; & therefore by such, as should have the like authority to the end. 
b in 1 Tim. 6.14.  Hereof Calvin, saith thus, nomine mandati significat quae hactenus de officio Timothie disseruit. Under the name of the commandment he signifieth those things whereof hitherto he had discoursed concerning the office of Timothy. And again, omnino ceriè ad ministerium Timothy refero, I do wholly refer it to the ministery of Timothy. For Paul wrote to this end, to give direction to Timothy, how he should behave 
c 1 Tim. 3.15.  himself in the Church, which is the house of the living God. Which directions he chargeth him Chap. 6. to observe inviolable until the coming of Christ: which could not be performed in the person of Timothy, who was not to continue to the end, but in a succession of them, who should have the like authority until the end. T. C. and other Disciplinarians, having fancied that the Apostles had given direction in that Epistle for onely-governing Elders: hereupon conclude 
d T.C. l. 1.177. l. 2. part. 2. p. 55. , that they are to be continued until the coming of Christ, So that they can conclude upon that charge the continuance of an office not once mentioned in that Epistle: but they cannot, or will not see, how the continuance of that office, which Timothy did bear, for the execution whereof all these directions are given, is concluded upon the same ground.  
The second testimony was of Ambrose 
e Ambr. in 1. Tim. 6.14. , writing on those words of Paul, saying, that Paul is so circumspect; not because he doubted of Timothy his care, but in regard of his successors, that they after the example of Timothy, might continue the well ordering of the Church.  

The proof of the assumption.  The reason whereby I proved, that Paul giveth direction not to Timothy and Titus only as to extraordinary persons, but to them and their successors until the end of the world, was, because the authority which was committed to them, for the execution whereof the Apostle giveth his directions, is perpetually necessary; without the which the Church neither can be governed (as without jurisdiction) neither yet continued (as without ordination) & therefore not peculiar to extraordinary persons; but by an ordinary derivation to be continued in those, who are the successors of Timothy and Titus.  

His answer to the proof of the assumption.  The effect of the refuters answer is, that he could be content to grant this assumption, were it not that he is resolved to deny the conclusion, which followeth thereupon. For first, he granteth Paul's purpose to instruct those that should succeed Timothy and Titus, in the authority which they had, but not in their office. And that this authority was not, nor was to be, in the hands of any one particular man, but the right of it was in the whole congregation, the execution in the Presbytery. So that the power of ordination and jurisdiction might be continued without Bishops, etc.  
It is sufficient for the truth of the assumption, which the refuter granteth; that what Paul did write to Timothy & Titus, he wrote not to them alone as extraordinary persons, whose authority should die with them, but to those also which should succeed them in the like authority until the end.  
But whether the Bishops were to be their successors, or the whole congregation, or the Presbytery, belongeth not to the assumption: but rather to the proposition. Howbeit, that which he saith, either in denying the Bishops to be the successors of Timothy and Titus, or affirming the congregation and Presbytery to have succeeded them in the power of ordination and jurisdiction, is spoken altogether, as against the truth, so without proof.  
I will therefore return to the proposition, 
§ 8. The proposition defended. And that the successors of Timothy and Titus were BB.  which is grounded on this Hypothesis; that Diocesan Bishops were the successors of Timothy and Titus. For if that be true, then is the proposition necessary, though the refuter flatly denieth it. Thus therefore I reason: 
If the successors of Timothy and Titus were Diocesan Bishops, than those things which were written to inform their successors were written to inform Diocesan Bishops:  
But the successors of Timothy & Titus were Diocesan BB.  
Therefore those things which were written to inform the successors of Timothy and Titus, were written to inform Diocesan Bishops.   
Here the refuter, thinking he had as good reason to deny the one part of this syllogism, as the other, denieth both. The consequence of the proposition is feeble saith he, unless it were certain, that the Bishops both de facto were, & de iure ought to have been their successors. That the Bishops were de facto their successors, & of all other Apostolical men in the government of the Churches, I have already proved, and there upon have inferred, that de iure also they were. Because what government was not only generally received in the 300. years after the Apostles, but also was in use in the Apostles times, in the Apostolical Churches, that without doubt was of Apostolical institution.  
The assumption I prove by two arguments: first, by this disjunction.  
Either the Bishops were their successors, or the Presbyteries, or (which the refuter would add) the whole congregation.  
But neither the Presbyteries, nor the whole congregation, which had no greater, nor other authority and power under Bishops, than they had before, under Timothy and Titus.  
Therefore the Bishops were their successors.  
Again, those who succeeded Timothy and Titus in the government of the Churches of Ephesus and Crect, were their successors.  
But the Bishops of Ephesus and Crect did succeed Timothy and Titus in the government of those Churches.  
Therefore they were their successors.  
These reasons the refuter saw not: only he taketh upon him to answer the proofs of this last assumption. 
BB. of Ephesus the successors of Timothy.  And first, for Timothy his successors in Ephesus, it is apparent that not only the Angel of the Church of Ephesus. Apoc. 2.1. whether it were Onesimus, or any other, was one of his successors, and Polycrates 
a Euseb. l. 5. c. 25 Ad Pag. 140.  the Bishop of Ephesus another: But also that from Timothy until the Council of Chalcedon there was a continued succession of Bishops. For whereas in the Council of Chalcedon, Stephanus the Bishop of Ephesus being deposed, some question did arise, whether the new Bishop who was to succeed were to be chosen and ordained by the Council, or by the Provincial Synod of Aisa; Leontius 
b Conc. Chalc. Act. 11.  the Bishop of Magnesia in the Province of Asia, alleged that from St. Timothy to that time there had been twenty seven Bishops of Ephesus, all ordained there.  
To this he answereth nothing, but that which before hath been refuted; that howsoever the latter Bishops of those twenty seven might be Diocesan, the former were not. For it is certain, that both the latter and the former were not only Diocesan, but also Metropolitan Bishops. And where I number the Angel of Ephesus in this rank, he saith, that I tediously beg the question. But I appeal to the refuter himself, first, whether this Angel was not the B. and governor of the Church of Ephesus, secondly whether he did not succeed Timothy in the government of that Church, thirdly, whether he was not one of those twenty seven Bishops mentioned by Leontius in the Council of Chalcedon. And the like may be said of Polycrates, who had been the eight Bishop of his own kindred, saving that concerning him there is more evidence, that he being Bishop of Ephesus was the Metropolitan or primate of Asia. For Eusebius 
c lib. 5. cap. 24.  saith, that he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he was the ruler or chief of the Bishops of Asia; who 
d cap. 25.  by his authority did assemble a Provincial Synod to discuss the question concerning Easter.  
As touching Crect, 
The BB. of Gortyna the successors of Titus.  because there is not the like evidence, the refuter taketh upon him to deliver divers things without book; as if Titus had successors in the government of Crect, it would be available for Archbishops which were not bred a great while after, but it maketh nothing for Diocesan Bishops. Whereto I answer, first, though such Archbishops, as were also called patriarchs, were not from the Apostles times: yet such as are metropolitans, were. And again, if Provincial Bishops may be proved to have been from the Apostles times, much more may Diocesan. For every Metropolitan is a Diocesan, but not chose. And although I do not remember, that I have any where read of the next successor to Titus, yet I read of Gortyna the mother City of Crect, and the Metropolitan Bishops thereof, who were Archbishops of Crect, and successors of Titus; though not his immediate successors. For Dionysius of Corinth, who flourished at the same time with Hegesippus 
e Euseb. li. 4. c. 21. & 23. & 29 , writing an Epistle to the Church of Gortyna, together with the rest of the Churches of Crect, he commendeth Philippe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, their Bishop, for his renowned virtue. And although he called him the Bishop of the Churches in Crect: yet the Diocesan Churches had their Bishops too, as the Church of Gnossus a City of Crect, had Pinytus at the same time her Bishop, which proveth the other to have been an Archbishop. Theodorus Balsamo saith ᶠ, antiquius Nomocanonum versavi, etc. I have perused the ancient Code of Councils, and by the subscriptions I find, that in this Council held in Trullo, Basil the Bishop of Gortyna (which is the Metropolis of Crect) was present. And where he saith, that Crect having many Churches had no one Bishop to govern them, after Titus the Evangelist, till Diocesan Bishops had got the sway of Ecclesiastical matters: I confess it is true, but he must remember, that even in the Apostles times there were Diocesan Bishops. And in the very next age after them, Philippe was Archbishop of Crect. But though there were no direct proof, that Diocesan or Provincial Bishops were the successors of Timothy and Titus; yet it might easily be gathered by other Churches, from whose form of government Ephesus and Crect did not vary. It cannot be denied, but what authority Timothy and Titus had, the one in Ephesus, the other in Crect, the same had Mark at Alexandria, Evodius at Antioch, Linus at Rome, etc. Neither may it be doubted, but that each of these had Bishops to their successors, even in the Apostles times, as before hath been showed: and therefore the refuter should not make it so strange, that Bishops were the successors of Timothy and Titus.  
§ 9 Objection 1. that Timothy and Titus did not continue in Ephesus and Crect.  Serm. Sect. 8. pag. 75. Against this, two things are objected, first that Timothy and Titus may seem not to have been appointed BB. of Ephesus and Crect, because they did not continue there, but were removed to other places, etc. to other in Crect. pag. 78. 
The first objection is thus framed by the Refuter.  
Timothy and Titus did not continue in Ephesus and Crect, but were removed to other places.  
Therefore Timothy and Titus were not ordained Bishops of Ephesus and Crect.  
I answer by distinction. For if by continuing, they understand (as the words seem to import) a perpetual residence without removing or traveling thence upon any occasion; then I deny the consequence, or proposition, which is understood. For by no law, either of God, or man, are Bishops or other Pastors so affixed to their cures, but that upon special and extraordinary occasion, they may, either for their own necessity, or for the greater, or more public good of the Church, travail or remove to other places. It is sufficient that they be ordinarily resident upon their charge. If by continuing be meant ordinary residence, than I deny the antecedent; and do chose affirm, that although upon special and extraordinary occasions they were by the Apostle called to other places, as his or the Church's necessity required: yet these were the places of their ordinary residence. And that I prove, because they both lived and died there. That they continued, or had their ordinary abode there in their life time, I prove by testimony of Scripture, and other evidence. For if Paul required Timothy 
h 1 Tim. 1.3.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to continue or abide still in Ephesus, and appointed Titus 
i Tit. 1.5.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to continue to redress what was wanting in Crect, then were they to continue, or have their ordinary residence there.  
But the antecedent is true in both the parts thereof: Therefore the consequent.  
The Refuter denieth the consequence to be of any force, 
Ad. pag. 141.  unless first it could be proved, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a perpetual abiding in a place without departing from it all a man's life; which needeth not, seeing ordinary residence, which is meant by that term, & which is required in BB. & ordinary Pastors, may be without such perpetual abiding. Secondly, except 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be understood also for the whole term of life. But it sufficeth, that it signifieth to continue in redressing, as the Geneva translation also readeth. For thereby is meant, as I said, that he was not left there for a brunt, but that he should, as things were defective, or wanting, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, continue to redress them, and still keep that Church in reparation. 
Ad pag. 142.  For though the Church were new (as the Refuter objecteth to signify that it should not need any reparation) yet were the Bishops and Presbyters subject to death, and the places of them which died were to be supplied, and the Church subject to personal corruptions, both for doctrine, discipline & manners, which would need reformation.  
And whereas their opinion, who imagine that Timothy was required to stay at Ephesus but for a short time, when Paul went into Macedony, Act. 20. is contrary to that former testimony concerning Timothy: I show, that in all the journeys of Paul into Macedony, mentioned in the Acts, Timothy did accompany him. And therefore, that this voyage of Paul was after his first being at Rome, with which the Acts of the Apostles end, not mentioning any of his travels, and other occurrents, which afterwards happened for the space of nine or ten years. 
Euseb. l. 2. c. 20.  The Acts of which time cannot otherwise be known, but by such of his Epistles as were written in that time, and other monuments of antiquity. The which passage, though the Refuter hath passed by in silence, I thought good to put the Reader in mind of, that he may acknowledge many things to have been done by the Apostles, which are registered in other records of anitquity, though they be not mentioned in the history of the Acts of the Apostles, which endeth with those things which happened above forty years before the death of S. john. Now the Acts of the Apostles, which were performed after S. Luke's history thereof, were in part recorded by Hegesippus, and Clemens, and other ancient Authors, which testify that Paul ordained Timothy B. of Ephesus, and Titus of Crect; and that he, and other Apostles appointed other Bishops in other places. Whose testimonies whosoever do refuse to believe, do themselves deserve no credit.  
To those allegations therefore out of Paul, 
§ 10. That Timothy and Titus lived and died the one at Ephesus, the other in Crect.  I added the credible testimony of divers Authors, viz. Dorotheus in synopsi. Hieron. sive Sophron. in Catalogo in Tito. Isidorus de vita & morte sanctorum. Num. 87. & 88 Vincent. lib. 10. c. 38. Antonius ex Policrate part. 1. tit. 6. c. 28. Niceph. l. 10. c. 11. Who report, that Timothy and Titus, as they lived, so also died, the one at Ephesus, the other in Crect. The Refuter answereth, he may well credit the report of these Authors, and yet not grant that therefore they were Diocesan Bishops of those places. Indeed, if I had argued thus, as the Refuter would have the Reader think, Timothy and Titus died, the one at Ephesus, the other in Crect: Therefore they were BB. there; it had been a loose consequence. But he wrangleth beside the purpose. It was objected, that Timothy and Titus were not Bishops of those places, because they did not continue there. I prove, that they held their ordinary residence there, not only because S. Paul required them both, to continue there; but other Authors also testified, that they both lived and died there. The Refuter answereth, and would have the Reader content himself with this answer, that howsoever indeed it is true that they continued there, yet hereof it followeth not that they were Diocesan Bishops of those places.  
Yea, but saith he, it would be observed, that M. D. granteth the consequence to be good, namely that they were not Bishops of Ephesus and Crect, if they did not continue there but were removed to other places. Now that they were removed himself confesseth, etc. If I had confessed, that they were removed, and also that if they were removed, they were not Bishops. Then I should have granted both the antecedent of the Enthymeme, (which he said before that I denied) and also the consequence. But indeed I denied the consequence, in that sense which the Refuter conceiveth, and yet granted, that though they were sometimes removed; yet they kept ordinary residence, the one at Ephesus, the other in Crect. And therefore their traveling, or removing upon extraordinary occasions, doth not hinder their being BB. Do you indeed grant, that sometimes they were removed? marry that will I prove, saith the Refuter, out of 2 Tim. 4.9. 11.12.21. etc. and thereupon infer, they were not Bishops. But neither are all his proofs good, neither is his inference sound. He would prove that Timothy was not at Ephesus, when the second Epistle was written to him. For first, thither the Apostle sent Tychicus. As if he had said, whether Paul sent Tychicus, there Timothy was not. Belike there was some such Antipathy between them, that one place could-not hold them both. Secondly, because from the place where he was, Paul requireth him to come to him to Rome, & with him to bring the cloak, the books & parchments which he left at Troas. As though Timothy might not as well come from Ephesus to Rome as from some other place, and as though his bidding him to bring the things left at Troas, did not argue, that he was at Ephesus, which is in the same peninsula, rather than else where. But that he was at Ephesus, may be gathered hereby: because the Apostle willeth him, to salute Aquila and Priscilla (whom he left at Ephesus, Act. 18.19.) & the household of Onesiphorus, which also was there. 2 Tim. 4.19. with 1.16. Sedulius understandeth Paul, 
Sedul. in 2 Tim. 4.9.  bidding Timothy 2 Tim. 4.9 to come to him quickly, as requiring him to come from Ephesus to Rome.  
Now hear his inferences, Titus was sent from Candy to Rome, and from thence he was dispatched into Dalmatia, therefore he was not B. of Candy. Timothy was not at Ephesus when the second Epistle was written to him, therefore he was not B. there, etc. He stayed with Paul some time in Rome, therefore he was not B. of Ephesus. These are goodly inferences to oppose to the evidence gathered out of the Epistles, and to the general consent of antiquity, which testifieth that they were Bishops. 
Ad pag. 143.  Whereas therefore he asketh, who dare be so bold or unreasonable as to imagine that Paul had made them Bishops? I say, it is intolerable boldness, and arrogancy, to avouch the contrary. And such is that presumptuous speech, that if Timothy and Titus had been Bishops, it had been a matter neither of good report for them, nor of good example for the ages following that they should be called to other places. For, so long as ordinarily they were resident, their absence at some times upon urgent and weighty occasions, was neither of ill report, nor bad example. Besides, when the Apostle sent Tychicus to Ephesus, and sent for Timothy from Ephesus, he sent the one to supply the absence of the other, as Calvin also hath observed.  Serm. Sect. 9 pag. 78. 
§ 1●. Object. 2. That Timothy and Titus were Evangelists and therefore not Bishops.  The other thing which they object is, that they were Evangelists: but that doth not hinder, etc. to the midst of page 81. 
The second objection saith the Refuter, lieth thus, Timothy and Titus were Evangelists. Therefore they were not Diocesan BB. of Ephesus and Crect.  
This consequence I denied, because their being Evangelists did not hinder, but that when they were assigned to certain Churches, and furnished with Episcopal power, they became Bishops. Against which answer the Refuter objecteth two things. First, that their being Evangelists did hinder their assigning to certain Churches, without which they could not be Bishops. And this he proveth by two reasons. For first, if the Apostle had assigned them to certain Churches, than should he have confounded the offices which (as himself saith, 1 Cor. 12.28. Eph. 4.11.) God had distinguished. Secondly, he should have deprived Timothy and Titus of a higher calling, and thrust them as it were out of the Hall into the kitchen. These are nice points, which none of the Fathers did ever understand: neither did they conceive, but that Evangelists might, without any disparagement to them, be assigned to several Churches, and so become Bishops. For if they held, that the Apostles themselves being assigned to certain Churches, as james was to jerusalem, were BB. much more Evangelists.  

What the Euangelisticall function was.  But for as much as the whole force of this argument dependeth upon the Euangelisticall function which Timothy and Titus are supposed to have had, we will briefly consider, what that Euangelisticall function was, and whether it could hinder them from being Bishops. An Evangelist therefore was he, which taught the evangel or Gospel of Christ, whether by preaching, or also by writing. In the latter sense, there are four only called Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke and john: who though they all preached, yet for the penning of the Gospel are peculiarly called Evangelists. In the former sense the word is taken, either generally, 
We may not think that the 70. after the death of Christ vanished away, but that they were the principal Christians next to the Apostles. And therefore as they were Evangelists, so sometimes are called Apostles.  to signify any one that doth evangelize or preach the Gospel, or specially, signifying the extraordinary function of those in the primitive Church, who went up and down preaching the Gospel, being not affixed to any certain place. And these seem to have been of two sorts: For either they were immediately called of Christ, and by him sent to preach the Gospel, as the 72. Disciples; or they were assumed by the Apostles, to be their companions in their journeys, and assistants in the Ministry. Of the former sort was Philippe, who after he had performed that temporary office at jerusalem, whereunto he and the other six were chosen Act. 6. he returned to his Euangelisticall function, 
Calu. inst. l. 4. c. 4. § 4. fortassis etiam 70. discipuli, quos secundo loco ab Apostolis Christus designabit, fuerunt Euangelistae.  Act. 8. and is expressly called an Evangelist. Act. 21.8. Of the latter sort were Timothy and Titus, while they accompanied the Apostle Paul in his travails, and were not assigned to any certain place. That which the Fathers say of the 7●. Disciples, that they had but the degree of the Presbytery, may of this latter sort much more be verified, who were ordained Ministers of the Gospel by imposition of hands. 
Idem in 1 Cor. 15.7 per omnes Apostolos intelligit ●on solos 12. sed 70. discipulos etiam. Sic Chrysost. et Theodor●t, etc.  Neither did they differ from other Presbyters but in this, that they accompanied the Apostles as their helpers, being not tied to any one place. For neither had they the power of ordination, neither as Zanchy saith did they govern the Churches, 
Zanch. in Eph. 4  now one, than another, as the other Evangelists and Prophets did.  
We see what the office of Evangelists was. 
§ 12. That their being Evangelists did not hinder but that they might be BB.  Now let us see, whether it hindered men from being Bishops. For had Timothy and Titus been such Evangelists, as the four were which preached and wrote the Gospel, or as the 72. who were called and sent by Christ: yet might they, when they ended their travails, and betook them to certain Churches, have been Bishops thereof. For Mark the Evangelist, after he had preached in Egypt and had set up his rest at Alexandria, became B. thereof: in which Episcopal function Antanus succeeded him, and after him Abilius and Cerdo in the Apostles times; much less doth their being of the latter sort. For though the Apostle di● distinctly reckon the functions of the Church 1 Cor. 12. Eph. 4: yet in the former place he doth not so much as mention the office of Evangelists; and in the latter he speaketh of those, who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were called Evangelists as the four Evangelists, and perhaps also the 72; whose functions notwithstanding were not so disjoined, but that as Apostles might be also Evangelists, as we see in Matthew and john; so Evangelists might be Bishops, as we see in Mark. But as for Timothy & Titus, the Greek 
a Chrysost. Theophyl. Oecum. in Eph. 4.  Writers expounding that place, plainly say, they were not Evangelists, but Pastors or Bishops. For they, after they were placed, the one in Ephesus, the other in Crect, did not travail up and down as in former times, when they accompanied the Apostle; but ordinarily remained with their flocks. The Greek Scholiast saith thus. Euangelists● that is, those which did write the Gospel: Pastors● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he meaneth such as had the Churches committed to them, such as Timothy was, such as Titus. And to the same purpose, both chrysostom, and Theophylact, do mention them by name.  
Neither was it a debasing of Timothy and Titus, when they were made Bishops, but an advancement. Forwhereas' before, they were but Presbyters (though called Evangelists in a large sense:) they were now made the Apostles of those Churches, and by imposition of hands ordained Bishops.  
In the second place he taketh exception against those words, where I say, they were furnished with Episcopal power, and denieth that when Timothy & Titus were assigned to Ephesus and Crect, they received any new authority which before they had not, or needed any such furnishing. But were to exercise their Euangelesticall function in those places. For so Paul biddeth Timothy after he had been at and gone from Ephesus 
b ●. Tim. 4.5.  to do the work of an Evangelist. If they received no new authority, why did Timothy receive a new ordination by imposition of hands, whereof the Apostle speaketh in two 
c 1 Tim. 4.14. 2 Tim. 1.6.  places, and which the Fathers understand of his ordination to be Bishop? were men admitted to the extraordinary function of Evangelists, by the ordinary means of imposing hands? or may we think, that any but the Apostles (being not assigned as Bishops to several Churches) had that authority wheresoever they came, which Timothy had at Ephesus, and Titus in Crect? verily Philippe the Evangelist though he converted 
d Act. 8.14.17.  divers in Samaria, and baptised them: yet had not authority to impose hands, whereby men might be furnished with graces for the ministery; but the Apostles Peter and john were sent thither, to that purpose. And whereas Paul willeth Timothy to do the work of an Evangelist, what is that, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to preach the Gospel diligently, and to fulfil his ministery, or to make it fully known, the word Evangelist being there taken in the general sense? Now what his ministery was Jerome 
e Hieronym. & Sedul. in 2 Tim. 4.  & Sedulius declare. Ministerium tuum imple, Episcopatus scilicet, Fulfil thy ministery, that is to say, as thou art a Bishop.  
Now that their being Evangelists did not hinder them from being Bishops, when ceasing from their travailing about, they were assigned to these particular Churches, I proved by the testimony of Zuinglius: 
f In Ecclesiaste.  who saith, that Philip the Evangelist, who had been one of the Deacons, was afterwards Bishop of Caesarea, james the Apostle was Bishop of jerusalem, and divers of the Apostles (which may much more be verified of the Evangelists) when they ceased from their peregrinations, became Bishops of certain Churches, as by the ancient histories is manifest. Whereto the refuter answereth two things, first, that Zuinglius speaketh according to the phrase of the histories and writers before him; therefore say I, according to the truth. Or else we must think that none of the Fathers, or ancient historiographers knew whom to call Bishops and whom not. But the refuter, and his fellows only, have this knowledge. 
Ad pag. 144.  Yea but a certain learned man saith, that when the Fathers call Peter or james or any of the Apostles Bishops, they do not take the name Bishop properly. For Peter I grant, but of james there is another reason, as I have showed before. And although it were true, that Apostles could not properly be called Bishops: yet what is that to Timothy, and Titus, whom I have proved notwithstanding their supposed Euangelisticall function, to have been particularly assigned by Paul to the Churches of Ephesus and Crect; where also they lived and died?  
His other answer is, that howsoever Zuinglius speak of their being Bishops, it is manifest by his writings, he neither thought they were (and so belike spoke otherwise then he thought) nor any other might be a Diocesan B. as by a testimony hereafter alleged, appeareth, where he saith no such thing. I will therefore add another testimony of Zuinglius in the same book: 
Ecclesiaste.  when Paul said to Timothy do the work of an Evangelist, Timothy was a Bishop, wherefore it is certain according to Paul's opinion, the office of an Evangelist and of a Bishop is all one.  
After I had thus answered these two objections, 
§ 13. Other arguments to prove that Timothy and Titus were Bishops.  I brought a new supply of arguments, to prove Timothy and Titus to have been Bishops of Ephesus and Crect. And first, by occasion of his second objection I argue thus: 
The function and authority which Timothy and Titus did exercise in Ephesus and Crect, was either extraordinary, and Euangelisticall, as the Disciplinarians teach; or else ordinary, and Episcopal, as we hold.  
But it was not extraordinary and Euangelisticall; Therefore ordinary and Episcopal.  
The assumption I proved thus;  
The supposed Euangelisticall function of Timothy, and Titus, was to end with their persons, and admitted no succession, being as themselves teach, both extraordinary and temporary;  
But the function and authority, which they had, as being assigned to certain Churches, viz. of Ephesus and Crect, (consisting especially in the power of ordination, and jurisdiction) was not to end with their persons, but to be continued in their successors.  
Therefore the function and authority which Timothy and Titus had, as being assigned to Ephesus and Crect, was not extraordinary and Euangelisticall.   
Here the refuter would make his reder believe, that I having before denied the consequence of the second objection, do also deny the antecedent, and in this place reason against it. But I do not deny they were Evangelists, howsoever I do not conceive their Euangelisticall function to have been such, and so great, as the refuter and other Disciplinarians suppose, and therefore I call it their supposed evangelical function. Now, that I did not intend to deny, or disprove that antecedent, but to bring a new supply of arguments, taking occasion by the last objection; appeareth by those words, which I premised, as it were an introduction to this argument, hereof we may conclude thus. But let us hear what he answereth. Forsooth he flatly denieth the assumption, wherein though he untruly say, that I beg the question, that Timothy and Titus were assigned to Ephesus and Crect, as ordinary Bishop or Pastors of those Churches; for that I do assume but conclude; yet hath he nothing to disprove it, but a mere begging of the question, and denial of the conclusion, rather than the assumption; viz. that they had no assignment to those Churches, but only as evangelists, which doth not touch the assumption: no more than that which followeth. Neither by that (Euangelisticall) office (saith he) did they take the power of ordination and jurisdiction from the Churches, in which by right it is seated; but with the Churches ordained ministers, and redressed such things, as were amiss, though perhaps that right of laying on hands might sometimes be performed by them alone, etc. What is all this to the assumption? which if he would deny, and make this denial good, he should have said, and proved it, that the function and authority which they exercised in Ephesus and Crect, was to end with their persons, and admitted no succession, or was not to be continued in their successors. But he roves, and raves, as men use to do, which being at a nonplus, would feign seem to answer somewhat. And that which he answereth, besides that it is impertinent, is partly also untrue. For when he saith, that Timotie and Titus did not take the power of ordination and jurisdiction from the Churches, etc. First, he would insinuate, that Bishops do; as though herein there were some difference between Bishops and them; when as indeed, neither Bishops, nor they, do take that authority from the Church; but they, and all other first BB. received their authority from the Apostles, and derived the same to their lawful successors. Secondly, he saith, that the power of ordination and jurisdiction by right is seated in the whole Church or congregation: which is not true of any particular congregation, but in case of necessity; wherein both the succession of their own clergy failing, and the help of others wanting, the right is devolved to the whole body of the Church. But let this go among other his Brownistical, or rather Anabaptistiall novelties.  
I proceed to the proof of my assumption, 
§ 14. Ad pag. 145. That their function was ordinary, and their authority perpetually necessary.  which he hath laid forth thus: 
That function and authority which is ordinary, and perpetually necessary, not only for the well being, but also for the very being of the visible Churches, was not to end with the persons of Timothy and Titus, but to be continued in their successors.  
But the function and authority that they had, as being assigned to certain Churches, is ordinary and perpetually necessary, not only for the well being, but also for the very being of the visible Churches:  
Therefore the function and authority which they had, as being assigned to certain Churches, was not to end with the persons of Timothy, and Titus, but to be continued in their successors.   
The assumption is thus to be explained; the function which Timothy, and Titus had, as being assigned to certain Churches, was ordinary; and the authority, which they did exercise, consisting chiefly in the power of ordination and jurisdiction, was perpetually necessary. This assumption the refuter would seem to deny, and yet granteth, that the power of ordination and jurisdiction is perpetually necessary; only he denieth it to be necessary, that there should be in every Church an Evangelist to exercise that authority. So that of the two points in the assumption, the latter he granteth, that the authority which they exercised was perpetually necessary; the other, that the function which they had being assigned to those Churches was ordinary, he toucheth not: but denieth that, which I did not affirm, to wit, that it was necessary there should be an Evangelist always in every Church to exercise the power of ordination, and jurisdiction: Did I affirm this? or rather did I not teach the contrary, when I said that the function whereby they did exercise that power of ordination, and jurisdiction, was not an extraordinary function, as the Euangelisticall; but ordinary, as the Episcopal? Now that the function which Timothy and Titus had, being assigned to Ephesus and Crect, was an ordinary function, & the very same which the Bishops that succeeded them, and all other BB. both in, and since the Apostles times have exercised; it is most certain, for though in them, who chiefly are called Evangelists, there were divers things extraordinary, besides their limitation to no certain place, as their immediate calling from Christ, their extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, as of revelation, and of working miracles, as appeareth by Steven and Philippe: yet in Timothy, and Titus, and others who were called Evangelists, because they were the companions of the Apostles in their journeys, and assistants in their work of the ministry, there was nothing extraordinary, but their not limitation to any certain Churches. For their calling to the ministry was ordinary, and their gifts, though great, yet attained and increased by ordinary means. When as therefore they were assigned to certain Churches, as the Pastors and governors thereof, whereunto they were ordained by imposition of hands, and by that ordination were furnished with power of ordination and Ecclesiastical jurisdiction; their function was the same ordinary function, which their successors, and all other Bishops did exercise.  
But as the refuter said, 
§ 15. Whether it be perpetually necessary that the Ecclesiastical authority should be in one.  it was not necessary, that there should always be an Evangelist in every Church to exercise the power of ordination, and jurisdiction; so perhaps, some more judicious will allege, that though the power of ordination and jurisdiction be perpetually necessary: yet it is not necessary, that this power should always be wholly in some one in every Church, as it was in Timothy, or Titus. Neither did I say it was, but that the power or authority which they exercised, was perpetually necessary; and the function, whereby they did exercise it, was ordinary, being the very same function, which other Bishops, both then, and ever since, have administered. And therefore the refuter doth greatly wrong me, when he saith, that I make this Episcopal power, perpetually necessary, and chargeth me with contradicting myself in another place, where I acknowledge, that where the Episcopal government may not be had, there others may be admitted.  
For the clearing therefore of the whole controversy, and plain manifestation of that which I hold therein; we will make use of a distinction, which the learned use concerning matters of government. In all governments therefore there are these things to be considered: pot●stas, ordo, formae vel modus, titulus, sive applicatio potestatis ad personam, & usus. First the power to be exercised in government; then the order, whereby the inferiors both to be governed & governing are subordinate to the superiors: after, the form and the manner of government, as, whether it be a Monarchy, where the power is in one, or an Aristocraty, where it is in few, or a Democraty, where it is in the multitude: and how each government is ordered: the title, as whether the governors are put in and entitled to their power and authority, by succession, or by election or institution; and after, how they use and exercise their authority, etc. Of these, the two first, that there should be power of government, and order therein, & in the people governed are essential & perpetual, as the immutable ordinances of God. The other, many ways are accidental & variable. But yet, if question be made, what form of government in the commonwealth is the best, & hath the best warrant; I would say the Monarchy, as having divine, both institution, and approbation. But yet so, as where this cannot so well be had, the other forms of government be lawful. Even so in the Church of every country, that there should be a power of Ecclesiastical government to be exercised, & an order or eutaxy, it is the perpetual & immutable ordinance of God, the Church being by his appointment a well ordered society, & as the wise man saith, 
Cant. 6.3.9.  tanquam acies ordinata. But whether the sway of spiritual authority should be in one alone of every Church, or in more, it seemeth not to be so essential; though I must confess, that both in the Church of the jews by the appointment of God it was in one, namely the high Priest, and likewise in the primitive Churches, as hath been showed. And as touching the title, that seemeth also to be variable. For the governors in the Church of the jews came to their places by succession and lineal descent; but in the Churches of Christ, by free election, after Gods first immediate calling.  
Now if we shall inquire, 
§ 16. What form of Church-govenrment to be preferred before others.  what form of Church-government hath the best warrant; hereby we may be resolved. For it is manifest, that our Saviour Christ committed the power of Ecclesiastical government chiefly to his Apostles, and that they being severed into divers parts of the world did govern the particular Churches, which they had collected, severally. And howsoever there were divers things extraordinary in the Apostles, and peculiar to their persons; as their immediate calling from Christ; their unlimited function, having authority to exercise their Apostolical power wheresoever they came; their admirable, & extraordinary gifts, of wisdom, of languages, of miracles; their infallible inspiration, & direction of the holy Ghost preserving them from error: notwithstanding, there were other things in them, which being perpetually necessary for the being, and well being of the Church, were from them to be communicated, or derived to others; as the power to preach the Gospel, and to administer the Sacraments; and public prayer or liturgy: the power to ordain ministers, and Pastors; the power of the keys for government, and exercise of Ecclesiastical censures. Now the power of preaching the word, and administering the Sacraments, was not from the Apostles communicated to every Christian, but to such as they ordained ministers, and by the imposition of their hands communicated that power to them. The power of ordination, and public jurisdiction, was not committed by the Apostles, neither to other Christians, nor yet to all ministers whom they ordained; but after the ordination of Presbyters in each Church, they reserved the power of ordination, and public jurisdiction in their own hands; which after a time they communicated to those whom they set over the several Churches to that very purpose: viz. to ordain Presbyters, and to exercise public jurisdiction; which manifestly appeareth by the Epistles to Timothy and Titus. Thus was Timothy set over the Church of Ephesus, Titus of Crect, Linus of Rome, Evodius of Antioch, Simon of jerusalem, Mark of Alexandria, etc. and what authority was from the Apostles communicated to them, was from them derived to their successors, not only since, but even in the Apostles times. For what authority Evodius had at Antioch, the same after him had Ignatius; and what Linus had at Rome, the same had Anacletus, Clemens, evaristus; what Mark had at Alexandria, the same after him had Anianus, Abilius and Cerdo, and all these in the Apostles times: and what Timothy had at Ephesus, the same had Gaius, who (if Dorotheus is to be credited) was his next successor, 
In synops. in Gai●. Actio. 11  Onesimus after him, and Polycrates, and every one of those twenty seven, mentioned in the Council of Chalcedon, which from Timothy to that time, had been successively the Bishops of Ephesus. These, to my understanding, are plain evidences to warrant the Episcopal function, and to show the derivation of their authority from the Apostles; and to persuade Christians to prefer that form of government before others. For as I added, and will now repeat a reason, which the refuter might more easily elude with a male pert speech, calling it waving and craving, then to answer with soundness of reason, and evidence of truth.  
If the Apostles, while themselves lived, thought it necessary (that is, needful and behoveful for the well ordering of the Churches already planted) to substitute therein such as Timothy and Titus furnished with Episcopal power, then much more after their decease have the Churches need of such governors:  
But the former is evident by the Apostles practise in Ephesus and Crect, and all other Apostolical Churches.  
Therefore the latter may not be denied.  
All which notwithstanding, I do not deny, but that where the government by Bishops cannot be had, another form may be used; because the modus, or form of being in the B. alone, doth not seem so to be of divine ordinance, but that it may upon necessity be altered. But if any shall reply, that howsoever in civil government the form is variable, yet for Church government we are to keep us close to the word of God, and what hath warrant there we are to hold perpetual and unchangeable by men, as some of our Disciplinarians use to argue: I wish them to look to this inference. For if they do not leave that hold, they must needs grant, that the Episcopal function having that warrant in the Scriptures which I have showed, is to be holden iure divine.  
And whereas to confute me, or rather to fight with his own shadow, he saith, that other reformed Churches have continued many years, and may do more, without Bishops: I confess they have, and I wish they may continue to the end in the sincere profession of the truth. But where he saith, that they have continued in more quietness, then ours hath done, or is like to do: for that we may thank him, and other unquiet spirits, who have troubled the peace of Israel, with urging and obtruding their own fancies for the ordinances of God.  
To these reasons I added the testimonies of antiquity, 
§ 17. Testimonies of antiquity that Timothy and Titus were BB. Ad pag. 146.  which with a general consent beareth witness to this truth, that Timothy was B. of Ephesus, and Titus of Crect. Of all which the Refuter maketh very light. All that remaineth to prove, that Timothy was B. of Ephesus, and Titus of Crect, is no more but this; the subscriptions to the Epistles to Titus, and 2 to Timothy, call them Bishops, as also the general consent of the ancient Fathers, and histories of the Church, do. No more (quoth he) but the general consent of antiquity in a matter of fact, agreeable with the Scriptures? Why, the testimony of some one of the Father's affirming it, aught to be of more weight with us, than the denial of the same by all the Disciplinarians in the world. But let us come to the particulars. First, 
First, the subscription to 2 Tim. & to Tit.  I alleged the subscriptions annexed to the end of the Epistle to Titus, and second to Timothy: wherein the one is said to have been ordained the first B. of the Church of the Ephesians, and the other the first B. of the Church of the Cretians. This is something plain. But he asketh me, why I severed them from the consent of the ancient Fathers? was it because I thought them to be of the Canon? I answer, that I did not sever them, but join them in a copulative speech; and if I had been of opinion, that they were of the Canon, I would not have said as I did, it appeareth not only by the subscriptions, but also by the general consent of the Fathers: but chose, not only by the general consent of the Fathers, but also by the subscriptions annexed by the Apostle himself. But though it were not likely (as he hath alleged out of T. C.) that they were subscribed by the Apostle himself; yet is it certain, that they are of great antiquity, and of better credit, than the Refuter and some other Disciplinarians would make them. Indeed, if any other learned man, that were not a party in this cause, had censured these subscriptions; I would have respected their censures; but the cavillations of Disciplinarians against them (who being parties in this cause, are so plainly confuted by them) are to be rejected. Let us therefore hear, what the Refuter objecteth against them. How little credit those subscriptions deserve, it may appear by that under the Epistle to Titus, which is quite contrary to the Epistle itself. And why so, I pray you? the subscription saith, the Epistle was written from Nicopolis, and Paul himself willeth Titus to come unto him to Nicopolis, for I have determined to winter there. But if Paul had been now at Nicopolis, when he wrote, he would have said, not there, but here. Therefore he was but a simple fellow, that was the Author of that subscription. So saith this great Critic. But if you will consider with me, that Paul being, as usually he was, in peregrination; Titus could not well tell where he was, neither had Paul signified in the Epistle where he than was, therefore wrote being at Nicopolis, as any discreet man would in the like case, come to me to Nicopolis, for I mean to winter there: whereas if he had written, as the Refuter would have had him, if he were at Nicopolis; come hither, for I mean to winter here, or come to Nicopolis, for I mean to winter here: might not Titus have said, where Paul; as being uncertain where Paul was, and whether himself was to go. This therefore is too silly a censure, though received from T. B. himself, to overthrow the authority of so ancient a subscription, in which besides the ancient Greek copies, it is also testified in the Syriack, that this Epistle was written from Nicopolis, Athanasius 
a Synops. sacr. script.  speaking of that Epistle to Titus, saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He wrote this Epistle from Nicopolis, for there he wintered. Oecumenius testifieth the same in his argument on that Epistle to Titus. Sedulius 
b In Tit. 1.  likewise, this Epistle he wrote from Nicopolis, and Theophylact. argument. in Epist. ad Tit; the Authors of the Centuryes, cent. 1. l. 2. c. 10. in Tito.  
To the subscriptions I added the testimonies of these Fathers. 
§ ●8. The testimonies of the Fathers.   
First, Eusebius 
c Euseb. l. 3. c. 4.  reporteth out of the Ecclesiastical Histories which were before his time, that Timothy had first the Bishopric of the Church at Ephesus, and Titus of the Churches in Crect.  
Secondly, the ancient Author of the book de divinis nominibus 
d Dionys. de divin. nom.  dedicating the same to Timothy Bishop of Ephesus, if it be Dionysius Areopagita himself, who lived at the same time with Timothy, doth bear an undeniable witness to this truth: or if it be another using his name, yet he plainly signifieth, that in his time it was a thing generally received, that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus.  
Thirdly, Dorotheus 
e In synops.  saith, that Timothy was by Paul ordained the B. of the Ephesians, & he calleth Titus the B. of the Cretians.  
Fourthly, Ambrose 
f Prefat. in 1 Tim. 1.  testifieth the same, Paul instructeth Timothy being already created a B. how he ought to order the Church. And again, 
g In 1 Tim. 1.  he entreateth Timothy his fellow Bishop, etc. Again, 
h In 1 Tim. 3.  Timothy was a B. Hence it is, that Paul directeth him, how he should ordain a B. Likewise of Titus 
i Prefat. in Epist. ad Tit.  he testifieth, that the Apostle consecrated him B.  
Fiftly, Jerome 
k Hier. in 1 Tim. 1.14.  noteth, that Timothy received the grace, which Paul exhorteth him not to neglect, when he was ordained B. And where Paul willeth him to fulfil his Ministry 
l in 2 Tim. 4. , jerom understandeth it of his Bishopric. And in the Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers which is in his first Tome, it is testified 
m Hier. in Catalogue. , that Timothy was ordained of blessed Paul the B. of the Ephesians, and that Titus was B. of Crect.  
Sixtly chrysostom 
n Chrysost. in Phil. 1. , writing on those words Phil. 1. Bishops and Deacons, saith, what meaneth this? were there many Bishops of one City? in no wise; but so he called the Presbyters. For than were the names common, and a Bishop was also called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Deacon or minister. For which cause writing to Timothy being a Bishop, fulfil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, thy ministry. For that he was a Bishop, he saith, do not hastily impose thy hands upon any man, & again, with the 
o 1 Tim. 4.14.  imposition of the hands of the Presbytery] but Presbyters did not ordain a Bishop, & in another place 
p Prefat. in Epi. 1 ad Tim. , he giveth this reason, why Paul wrote to Timothy and Titus, and not to sylvanus, or Silas, or Clemens, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because he had already committed the Churches to them, but the others he still carried about with him. And on the fourth to the Ephesians 
q in Ephes. 4. , he giveth instance in Timothy and Titus as being Pastors assigned to certain places.  
seventhly Epiphanius 
r ●ares. 75. , saith, that Paul 1 Tim. 4. writeth to a Bishop, and that a Presbyter cannot be the same with a Bishop: the divine speech of the Apostle teacheth who is a Bishop and who a Presbyter, when he saith to Timothy being a Bishop, receive not hastily an accusation against a Presbyter, etc.  
Eightly Primasius 
s Prefer. in 1 Tim.  saith, Timothy was a Bishop and Paul's Disciple. That grace 
t in 2 Tim. 1.  was the blessing, which Timothy when he was made Bishop, received by imposition of hands.  
Ninthly Theodoret 
v in 1 Tim. 3. , saith, that Titus was the Apostle, that is, Bishop of the Cretians, and Timothy of the Asians. And out of him Oecumenius 
w prefat. in Tit.  citeth these words: Titus was an admirable Disciple of Paul, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he was by Paul ordained Bishop of Crect. And in another place 
x Praesat. in 1 Tim. , why did Paul having other Disciples, as Silas, and Luke, and others, write only to Timothy and Titus? We answer. Because to these he had committed Churches, but the others he had still with him.  
Tenthly, Sedulius 
y In 1 Tim. 1. , this Timothy was B. in Ephesus, as it is said in the book of histories. And on these words▪ stir up the grace which was given thee by the imposition of hands 
z In 2 Tim. 1.6. , that is, juxta ordinationem tuam in Episcopatum, by thy ordination into the Bishopric.  
11. Gregory 
a Pastor. cur. part. 2. c. 11.  the great; hence it is, that Paul admonisheth his Disciple, praelatum gregi, being the Prelate of a flock, saying attend reading until I come.  
12. Isidor saith 
b De vita & morte sanctorum. 87. & 88 , that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus.  
13. Polycrates 
c Apud Antonin. part. 1. tit. 6. c. 28. § 6. & Vincent specul. l. 10. c. 38.  saith, that Timothy travailing with Paul to Ephesus, was made the first B. there by him in the reign of Nero.  
14. Theophylact 
d Theophyl. in Eph. 4.  understandeth by Pastors, and Doctors, Eph. 4. those to whose care the Church was committed, that is to say, BB. such as Timothy and Titus. And for that cause he saith 
e Praefat. in 1 Tim.  that Paul wrote to them two. Again 
f Prologue. in Tit. , Titus being ordained Bishop is set over the great Island Crect.  
15. Oecumenius 
g Oecum. in 1 Tim. 1. , on those words, I requested thee to remain in Ephesus, saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, here he had ordained him B. And again, in Tim. 5. he speaketh of ordinations, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for he wrote to a B. And of Titus 
h In Tit. 1.  he saith, that Paul left him to ordain BB. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, having first made him a B. And of both, on those 
i In Eph. 4.  words, Pastors and Doctors he saith, Paul meaneth such, as to whose trust the Churches were committed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 BB. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, such as Timothy and Titus.  
16. Nicephorus 
k Lib. 2. c. 34.  saith, that after Paul was first dismissed from Rome, he wrote his former Epistle to Timothy, whom he had ordained before B. of Ephesus. And another Epistle he wrote unto Titus, whom, having before ordained B. of Crect, he had left there.  
To these I might add the testimonies of divers new writers, but I will mention only a few, whose judgements the Disciplinarians will not easily reject. First therefore Calvin 
l Calf in Epist. ad Tim. 1.  in divers places on the Epistles to Timothy, doth note that he was the Pastor of the Church at Ephesus.  
The authors of the Centuryes 
m Centur. 1. l. 2. c. 10. in joan. evang.  say, it is evident, that Paul appointed Timothy the Pastor to the Church of Ephesus.  
D. Fulke 
n in Tit. 1.5.  saith, among the Clergy, for order and seemly government, there was always one principal, to whom by long use of the Church the name of B. or superintendant hath been applied; which room Titus exercised in Creta, Timothy in Ephesus, and others in other places, etc.  
Finally Beza 
o in 1 Tim. 5.19.  himself noteth, that Timothy was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as justine calleth him, that is, Antistes or Precedent in the Presbytery at Ephesus, that is to say according to Bezaes' language, a Bishop.  

§ 19 His answer to these testimonies.  To the testimonies which I produced, the refuter answereth three things, first, in effect this, that though the Fathers call them BB. yet properly they were not Bishops, which bare denial of his, if it be weighed with the testimonies of the ancient, which I named, will prove as light as vanity itself.  
Secondly, that the consent of the Fathers is not so general as I would make men believe, seeing both Ambrose and Ignatius do make Timothy a Deacon. And for proof thereof he referreth us to T.C. whose words are these 
p T.C. l. 2. part. 1.3.14. , all ancient writers are not of that judgement, for not to speak of Ambrose, which calleth Timothy a Deacon, where he opposeth a Deacon to a Bishop: Ignatius 
q Ad Trall.  an ancient writer saith, that he was a Deacon: & that where dividing the ministries of the Church into Bishops and Deacons, etc. doth openly oppose a Deacon to a Bishop. little reason had T.C. to speak of Ambrose, and therefore might well say, not to speak of him. For these are Ambrose 
r in Phil. 1.1.  his words: (with the BB. and Deacons) that is, with Paul and Timothy qui utique Episcopi erant, who verily were Bishops, he also signified the Deacons which ministered unto him. For he writeth unto the people. For if he had written to the Bishops and Deacons, he would have written to their persons: and it had been fit, that he should have written to the Bishop of the place, not to two or three, as he did to Titus, and to Timothy. Ignatius 
s Ad Trallian.  his words be these: What be the Deacons but the imitators of the evangelical powers ministering unto him (that is, the Bishop, as the Angels do to God) a pure and blameless ministery, as holy Steven to james the blessed, and Timothy and Linus to Paul, Anacletus and Clemens to Peter. Distinguish the times, and the answer is easy. Timothy was such an Evangelist, as first ministered to Paul as a Deacon, afterwards was ordained Presbyter, as Ambrose 
t In 1 Tim. 3. ● Timotheum Presbyterum ordinatum significat.  saith, and lastly a Bishop; which is as the same Ambrose 
v In Eph. 4.  saith, primus Presbyter. But doth his serving under Paul as a Deacon, prove that afterwards he was not a Bishop? nay, rather his being a Deacon, and afterwards a Presbyter doth prove he was not such an Evangelist, as the Refuter imagineth. And by as good reason he might prove that neither Linus, nor Anacletus, nor Clemens were Bishops of Rome, because they had served under Peter and Paul, as Deacons. Here is all, that our Refuter can, either by himself, or with T. C. help, object out of antiquity against Timothy his being a Bishop.  
His third answer is, that the Scripture calleth him an Evangelist, 2 Tim. 4.5. and therefore he was no B. which is the same with the second objection, already answered.  
I hope therefore I may be bold with the Readers consent to conclude, that Timothy and Titus were ordained BB. by the Apostle Paul; the one, of Ephesus; the other, of Crect.  Serm. sect. 10. pag. 81. 
§ 20. Examples of other BB. made by the Apostles.  To these mentioned in in the Scriptures, we add others out of other the most ancient records of the Church, whereof some were made BB. by Peter & Paul, some by john the Evangelist and other the Apostles, etc. to pag. 87. l. 1. 
In this section I brought divers most plain and pregnant evidences to prove, that the Apostles ordained BB: noting the Places where, and the Persons whom they ordained. The which, because the Refuter passeth over, as it were in silence, I will briefly recite; that it may appear to the Reader, that the Refuter had cause to be silent, because the evidence of truth did put him to silence.  
First, I showed out of 
a Euseb. Chron. ann. 4 5. hist. l. 3. c. 22.  Eusebius, that about the year forty five Euodius was made Bishop of Antioch, by the Apostles Peter and Paul, as Ignatius 
b Ad Antioch.  who succeeded him in the Apostles times, doth witness.  
Secondly, that Peter and Paul ordained Linus Bishop of Rome, about the year 56, whom Anacletus succeeded, and after him Clemens: testified by 
c Iren. l. 3. c 3.  Irenaeus and 
d Euseb. l. 5. c. 6. & l. 3. c. 4. et c. 13. & 22.  Eusebius.  
Thirdly, that by the appointment of Peter, Mark was the first B. of Alexandria, whom Anianus succeeded in that Bishopric, after him Abilius, and then Cerdo, all in the Apostles times: testified by 
e Niceph. l. 14. c. 39 Greg. l. 6. Epist. 37. Euseb. lib. 2. c. 24. Higher proaem. in Matt. & in Catal. in Marco. & ad evagr. Dor. in synops. Euseb. Chron. an. 65. & 86. & 99  Nicephorus, Gregory, Eusebius, Jerome and Dorotheus.  
Fourthly, that after the death of james the just, Simon the son of Cleophas was by the Apostles which then were remaining, made Bishop of jerusalem: testified by 
f Euseb. hist. l. 4. c. 22. Chron. an. 63.  Hegesippus, and Eusebius.  
Fiftly, that john the Apostle ordained Polycarpe Bishop of Smyrna: testified by 
g Iren. l. 3. c. 3. Eus. l. 3. c. 35. & l. 4. c. 14. Tertull. de prescript. Hier. in Catal.  Irenaeus, Eusebius, Tertullian and Jerome.  
Sixtly, that john after his return from exile, ordained BB. in divers places: testified by 
h Eus. l. 3. c. 23.  Clemens Alexandrinus, and Eusebius.  
Finally, that the Apostles committed the Church, which is in every place, to Bishops whom they ordained, leaving them their successors: testified by 
i Iren. l. 4. c. 63. l. 3. c. 3. & l. 5. Tertull. de prescript.  Irenaeus, and Tertullian, who saith, that as Smyrna had Polycarpe from S. john, and Rome Clement by the appointment of Peter; so the rest of the Churches can show quos ab Apostolis in Episcopatum constitutos Apostoli●i seminis traduces habent; what Bishops they have ordained by the Apostles, the derivers of the Apostolical seed.  
To all this he hath nothing to answer, but that which heretofore hath been fully refuted: that these Bishops were but ordinary Pastors of particular congregations, etc. sa●ing that he taketh also exception against their assertion, who said, that Bishops be the successors of the Apostles. But not only Irenaeus, and Tertullian have avouched so much, but divers others of the Fathers, as Cyprian, Jerome and Augustine. Cyprian 
k Cypr. l. 4. Epi. 9  saith, praepositi, that is Bishops, Apostolis vicaria ordinatione succedunt, succeed the Apostles as being ordained in their steed. And Jerome 
l Hier. ad evagr.  saith, omnes Episcopi Apostolorum successores sunt, all Bishops are the successors of the Apostles. And again he saith 
m ad Marell. de error. Monta. , Episcop●s Apostolis succedere. And Theodoret 
n li. 4. c. 18. , calleth the government of Bishop's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And likewise Basill 
o Epist. 55. ad Ambros. , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the presidency of Apostles, who have delivered to Bishops, as Irenaeus 
p Ire. 3. c. 3.  saith, their own place of government in the several Churches. And this is that, which both Jerome 
q August. & Hier. in Psa. 44. , and Augustine expounding those words of the 45. Psalm pro patribus nati tibi sunt filii, have delivered; that instead of the Apostles, Bishops were ordained governors of the Church in all parts of the world. Which point is duly to be considered. For hereby it is manifest, that the Bishops have received and derived their authority from the Apostles, whose successors they are, not only in respect of doctrine (as all other true ministers) but also in the government of the several Churches. And when the Disciplinarians can show the like warrant for their Presbyteryes, especially of Lay-elders; or our refuter, and his good friends the Brownists, for the chief authority of the people, we will hearken to them. Once, it is evident, that Christ committed the authority and government of his Church to his Apostles, who were to derive the same to others. Wherefore who have any ordinary right, they have received the same from the Apostles. So Timothy and Titus received their authority from Paul, Linus from Peter and Paul, Policarpus from john, etc. And all other the first Bishops from the Apostles, from whom by a perpetual succession it hath been derived to the Bishops which are at this day. But where is any evidence of the like derivation from the Apostles of authority to the people of Lay-elders, I know not.  
Thus have I made good my former proofs, that the Episcopal function is of Apostolical institution.   

The V. CHAPTER. Answering the allegations out of Jerome.  Serm. Sect. 11. pag. 87. Against all this that hath been said to prove that the Episcopal function is of Apostolical institution, the authority of Jerome is objected, etc. to page 89. 
AGainst the testimonies of men, saith the refuter, what is fitter to be objected, than the authority of such a man as of set purpose disputing the question, determineth the contrary to that which was so commonly anouched.  
Which speech, if it be duly examined, just exception may be taken against every branch thereof. For first he would insinuate, that nothing hath been brought to justify the calling of Bishops besides the testimonies of men; when besides the testimonies of men, I have brought good evidence of sound reason, and besides that, better proof out of the scriptures to warrant the Episcopal function, than ever was, or will be brought for the Presbyterian discipline. Again, it were fitter, and to better purpose, against the testimonies of men (if I had produced no other proof) to have brought either testimonies of scripture, or sound reasons; or for want of them, the testimony of so many, and so approved authors, to counterpoise the weight of their authorities, who have been alleged on the contrary part. But scriptures failing, reasons wanting, testimonies of other Fathers being to seek, Jerome alone must be feign to bear the whole burden of this cause. For though some latter writers may be alleged to the like purpose; yet all is but Jerome. Whose not only judgement they follow, but retain his words. Neither doth Jerome so oft dispute this question, or determine the contrary, as the refuter in his shallow conceit imagineth. Or if any where's he doth determine the contrary, against that which was commonly avouched both by himself and others; his determination delivered in heat of disputation ought not to be of so great weight, as what he hath delivered, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in heat of contention but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, dogmatically or historically. For Jerome was but a Presbyter; and there were two things in his time, which might provoke him by way of contention to say more in the behalf of his degree, then doth exactly agree with the truth. The one was, that the Bishops of those times did too much depress the Presbyters. For they might not only in their presence not preach, nor baptise, nor administer the Communion, but also in some places they might not preach at all, nor any where baptise, unless they fetched their Chrism from the Bishop, against which practices of the Bishops Jerome in some places of his works doth inveigh. 
Ad Nepotian. & de ●. ordin. Eccles.   
But that which troubled him most was, that the Deacons in his time, especially at Rome, because they had more wealth (as the fashion of the world is) thought themselves better men than the Presbyters. For the confutation of whom, he seeketh to advance the Presbyters above the Deacons as much as he can; and may seem to match them, more than truth would permit, with the Bishops. For which, the only ground which he hath is this, because the name Bishop and Presbyter were for a while in the Apostles times confounded. Which (God knoweth) is a weak ground, and easily out of his own writings overturned.  

§ 2. The first allegation. Hier. in Tit. 1.  But let us examine the particulars. First it is alleged out of Jerome, that until factions did arise in the Church, some saying I am of Paul, I am of Apollo, etc. the Churches were governed by the common counsel of the Presbyters: but when they began to draw Disciples after them, namely such as themselves had baptized, it was agreed in the whole world, that one being chosen from among the Presbyters, should be set over the rest, to whom the whole care of the Church should belong, and that the seed of schisms might be taken away.  
Whereunto I answered, first, that this speech in respect of the Church of jerusalem is untrue, which was first governed by the Apostles in common, and after committed to james in particular, before we read of any Presbyters there ordained.  

Ad pag. 148.  The refuter replieth, that my consequence is nought, for even whiles the Church was governed in common by the Apostles, it was not governed without the counsel of the Presbyters of the same Church, much less did james afterwards take the whole authority into his own hands, from them. Which exception of his is of no force, because there were no Presbyters ordained in that Church, when it was governed by the common counsel of the Apostles; and I added, which he should have disproved, if he would have said any thing to the purpose, that james was assigned Bishop to that Church, before we read of any Presbyters ordained in, or to that Church. For if james were Bishop of that Church before it had Presbyters, than was not that Church ruled by the common counsel of Presbyters, before they had a Bishop. james indeed after he was Bishop, ordained Presbyters, whose counsel and assistance he did use in the government and instruction of that Church (as other Bishops used to do in the like case) as we read Act. 15. and 21.  
Yea but the whole multitude saith he, as appear by Act. 6.2.5. had the choice of Church-officers. What then? therefore the Church was not governed by the common counsel of the Apostles, or was governed by the common counsel of Presbyters? Because the Greekish jews (which had their Liturgy and scriptures in the Greek tongue) were discontented with the Apostles distribution of the Church's stock, the Apostles therefore to avoid contention and scandal, and to give every one contentment, departed from their right, and willed the whole multitude to choose seven, whom we (say the Apostles) may appoint to this business. Surely, if where the Presbyters are erected, the people, who do contribute to the relief of the poor, are permitted to make choice of overseers & collectors for the poor; it were but a simple consequence to infer hereupon, that therefore the Churches are not governed by the common counsel of Presbyters.  
And to as little purpose, or rather less, is that which followeth. If the Apostles altogether, or james alone afterterwards, had by virtue of their extraordinary calling the power of ordination and jurisdiction in ●heir hands, in that, as in all other Churches; yet the Pastors of the Churches afterwards, being no Apostles, had no such unlimited power; and so Jerome still speaketh truly of the ordinary government of the Church. And so Jerome still spoke untruly, in respect of the Church of jerusalem. I do confess, this was peculiar to the Church of jerusalem, and differing from the order of other Churches: that the Church of jerusalem had a Bishop before it had Presbyters of her own. And therefore though I did not deny his speech to be untrue in respect of other Churches; yet I proved it to be untrue, in respect of jerusalem, by his own testimony. But before I come to the sifting thereof, there are two other things to be noted in this speech of the refuter. For that which he prattleth of james his sole power exercised in the Church of jerusalem, by virtue of his extraordinary calling, is altogether impertinent: seeing Jerome, of whom the question is, 
Catalogue. in jacobo.  confesseth, that he was Bishop, and ruled that Church as the Bishop thereof thirty years. Neither is it true, that the ordinary Pastors of that Church had not the like power therein, which james had. For there is no question, but what authority james had in the government of that particular Church of jerusalem, Simon his successor had the same, and all the Bishops of jerusalem after him.  


§ 3. Ieromes speech untrue in respect of jerusalem.  
Catalogue. in jaco.   Now, that Ieromes speech was untrue in respect of jerusalem, I proved by Ieromes own testimony; affirming, that james strait ways after the passion of our Lord was by the Apostles ordained Bishop of jerusalem. Here the refuter hath found out a quirk, which if it were true, would not yet serve his turn. The quirk is, that Jerome is mistaken by false pointing and reading, for that strait way belongeth not to james his being made Bishop: but is brought to show, that john maketh mention of him, immediately after he hath spoken of our Lord's passion. So that Jerome doth not say, that james strait ways after the passion of our Lord was ordained Bishop of jerusalem, but that john mentioned him presently after he had spoken of the passion of our Lord. Let me lay down the whole sentence, that it may appear more plainly. james saith Jerome, who is called the brother of our Lord, surnamed justus: the son as many think of joseph by another wife: as it seemeth to me of Mary the sister of our Lord's mother; of whom john in his book maketh mention, after the passion of our Lord strait ways, (statim, id est, continenter & immediate ut loquuntur, john 19.25. saith junius) who was ordained Bishop of jerusalem by the Apostles. And this manner of reading is avouched by Sophronius, that translated that book of Jerome into Greek, who maketh the distinction presently after strait ways, severing that word from his ordination by the Apostles. Among many other proofs of his learning & judgement, the refuter giveth this for one. For first, this subtlety he received from junius as he doth profess, but exceedingly dulled by coming through his fingers. For whereas junius referr●th the word of whom to Mary the sister of our Lord's mother, 
Contr. Bellarm. controu. 5. l. 1. c. 15. § 18.  of whom john maketh mention strait ways after the passion of our Lord john 19.25. our learned refuter referreth it to james, & that twice for failing. But though he might be mistaken in the English of Ieromes cuius, yet me thinks so learned a man should have known that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Sophronius, should have been referred to her and not to him. But let that pass. To justify his correction of this place of jerom, he saith this manner of reading is avowed by Sophronius, etc. which is neither so, nor so. For between the Greek and the Latin there is only this difference (in that edition which I have, being as I suppose the best) that whereas in the Latin, there is a Colon at the word filius, which followeth meminit; in the Greek, there is but a Comma; but at the word statim in Latin, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek, no distinction at all. The Latin words are these, ut mihi autem videtur, Mariae sororis matris Domini cuius joannes in libro suo memunt, filius: p●st passionem Domini statim ab Apostolis Hierosolymorum Episcopus ordinatus. The Greek, these, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For the correction itself, I would be loath to contest with junius, neither is that subtlety which he hath found out prejudicial to my assertion, as you shall hear; notwithstanding I must needs say, he was greatly transported with prejudice, when he would refer the adverb statim to the verb meminit, rather than to the participle ordinatus. For though both the Comma and Colon that come between them were taken away, yet the word filius coming also between, clean spoileth his conceit. For can any man of indifferency think, that Jerome being an elegant writer, if he had meant that the adverb statim should have waited on the verb meminit, would have disposed it thus, cuius joannes meminit filius post passionem Domini statim ab Apostolis Hierosolymorum Episcopus ordinatus? But now weigh the refuters judgement. Suppose, that this place were read as junius would have it, and that james were not so presently made Bishop of jerusalem after Christ's passion, as Ieromes words seem to import, but that after the Apostles he took the government of the Church of jerusalem, as Jerome citeth out of Hegesippus; what is all this, but the same that myself set down in the Sermon both in this place also pag. 68 in these words, the Apostles first jointly ruled the Church at jerusalem, but being to go into all the world, and no longer to be accounted members of that particular Church, ordained james to be Bishop. And that charge which before they had in common, they now committed to him in particular. And this is that, which Jerome citeth out of Hegesippus, who saith, james the brother of our Lord surnamed justus received or undertook the Church of jerusalem after the Apostles. And if the refuter will needs expound after the Apostles, to signify after their departing from jerusalem, I must entreat him to take with him the words both of Eusebius, 
Lib. 2. c. 23. Ibid. Eusebius in his Chronicle noteth james to have been made B▪ of jerusalem, in the same year wherein Christ was crucified, that is, according to his computation Anno 33.  who sometimes saith, the throne of that Bishopric was committed to him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the Apostles; therefore before their dispersion; & sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with the Apostles: therefore whiles they were present; and also of Jerome, who plainly saith, that he was ordained Bishop of jerusalem by the Apostles: but chiefly that he will remember, that the words strait ways after the passion of our Lord, are to be joined with the other words, ordained by the Apostles: then will he acknowledge himself satisfied for this point.  
§ 4. Secondly I answered in respect of other Churches; that which Jerome saith, 
In respect of other Churches Ieromes testimony doth not prove that for which it is alleged.  neither proveth that the office of Bishops and Presbyters were confounded, neither doth it hinder, but that the distinct office of Bishops is of Apostolical institution. Both the parts of this answer I explained and confirmed. The former thus: it is true, that for a time the Presbyters by common counsel governed the Churches, but as under the Apostles, who kept in their own hands the Episcopal authority; they, I mean the Presbyters, having neither the right of ordination, nor the power of outward or public jurisdiction. This therefore doth not prove, that the offices of BB. & Presbyters were confounded. The name of B. was confounded with Presbyter, but the office and authority of the B. was as yet in the Apostles; the Presbyters being such then under the Apostles, as they were afterwards under the Bishops. The latter thus: but when the Apostles were to discontinue, from those Churches which they had planted, then were BB. substituted. Whereunto the factious behaviour of the Presbyters (whereof Jerome speaketh) might be some inducement. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Arist.  For parity indeed breedeth faction and confusion; for the avoiding whereof when the Apostles should be absent, BB. were instituted: but when, and where, and by whom, and to what end, let Jerome himself testify. The sum is, that although for a time the Churches were governed by the common counsel of Presbyters; yet this doth not hinder, but that the Episcopal function is of divine institution. For after a while the Apostles ordained BB. as Jerome himself doth most plainly and fully testify, showing the places where, and the persons whom, and the time when, and the end wherefore, they ordained them.  
Now let us see, 
Ad pag. 149.  what the Refuter can reply against this answer. Forsooth as if he knew, or regarded no laws of disputation, he thrusts himself into the answerers' place, and maketh me the opponent, casting my answer into a Syllogism, and bids me prove every part and parcel of it, or else all that I say is to little purpose; himself in the mean while, who should follow the argument which I answered, and take away my answer, goeth about to prove nothing, but himself to be a shifting Sophister. I think it was never heard in disputation, that the opponent having received the answer, and reciting the sum thereof, saying, sic respondes, would cast it into a Syllogism and then bid the answerer prove the parts thereof. But such a disputer am I matched with. And how I pray you doth he reduce my answer into a Syllogism? that which I brought to clear the former part of my answer, is made the argument to prove both the parts in a filthy long Syllogism; and that which I added to prove the latter part, he mentioneth as straggling speeches brought in to no purpose. This is his analysing, which whether it be done of unskilfulness, or wilfulness, I refer it to his own conscience I cannot judge thereof, because I know not the man.  
But if my answer must needs be reduced into Syllogisms, 
§ 5.  I would entreat, 
The Presbyters governing the Church by common counsel, doth not prove that the office of Presbyters and BB. is confounded.  that the parts thereof may severally be concluded, as they were by me severally explicated; and then, that the first Syllogism may be this; If whiles the Churches were governed by the common counsel of Presbyters, the Presbyters did govern the same as under the Apostles, the Episcopal office and authority being not in them but in the Apostles, the Presbyters being such then under the Apostles as they were afterwards under the Bishops: then their governing of the Church by common counsel doth not prove, that the office of a B. and a Presbyter was confounded. But the antecedent is true in all the parts thereof: Therefore the consequent. The consequence I did illustrate by this distinction, the name of Bishop was confounded with Presbyter, but the office was not, for that was not in the Presbyters, but in the Apostles. The consequence when it was worse for the addition of the second part, the Refuter granted; yet he thought good to gather out of it this worthy observation, that if there was a time before there were Bishops. When the Presbyters governed the Churches as under the Apostles; then all that while there were no Diocesan Bishops (the Refuter speaketh sentences) and so no distinction between a Bishop and a Presbyter in office. This, and so, could not well be gathered out of the proposition, being repugnant unto it; for if there were no distinction between the office of a Bishop and a Presbyter, than were the offices confounded. Suppose the commonwealth of jewry, being a Province under the Emperor of Rome, had been governed by the Synedrion or common counsel of the Seniors for a time, until the Emperor had placed a sovereign King over them, as he did Herod; it might be said, that for a time that commonwealth was governed by the common counsel of their Elders, but as under the Emperor, who kept the regal authority in his own hands. Hereof it might not be infered, that the office of the Senators and of a King were confounded. For the sovereignty was in the Emperor, and the Senators might have been the same under their King, which they had been under the Emperor, etc.  
As touching the assumption, he saith, it should have been proved; and I say, if he were able, he should have disproved it. For my part, I was in this place the answerer; and the parts of the assumption be such, as either had been before cleared, or seemed to need no proof. For first, that the Presbyters ruled the Churches as under the Apostles, it is manifest. That the Episcopal authority consisting specially in the power of Ordination, and public jurisdiction, was not in them but in the Apostles; partly was proved before, to wit, that Presbyters never had it; and partly needed no proof, viz. that the Apostles had it. And surely little need had Paul to have sent Timothy to Ephesus, and Titus to Crect, to exercise the power of Ordination and public jurisdiction in those Churches; if the Presbyters had the same before they came. But still I desire some evidence, whereby the derivation of this power of Ordination and jurisdiction, from the Apostles to the Presbyters, or people, may be warranted. Thirdly, that the Presbyters were the same under the Apostles then, which they were afterwards under the Bishops, I take for a certain truth. For if they were the same under Timothy and Titus, that they were under the Apostles; then questionless they were the same under the Bishops, who have no other function, nor exercise any other authority, then that which Timothy and Titus had and exercised in Ephesus and Crect. And these I hope are reasons sufficient to approve the former part of my answer, until the refuter who is the opponent, be able to disprove it. The second part of my answer may be concluded thus. 
§ 6. The Presbyters ruling the Church by common counsel for a time, doth not hinder, but that the Episcopal function is of Apostolical institution.   
If after a while, namely when the Apostles were to discontinue from the Churches which they had planted, the Apostles themselves ordained BB. then the Presbyters ruling of the Churches by common counsel for a time, doth not hinder, but that the Episcopal function is of Apostolical institution:  
But the former is true: Therefore the latter.  
The consequence needeth no proof: the assumption I prove by Ieromes own testimony. For if Jerome do testify, that the Apostles ordained BB. and withal do note the time when, the place where, and the end wherefore, then doth he give plentiful testimony to this truth: But Jerome doth testify, that the Apostles ordained BB. and withal noteth the time when, the place where, and the end wherefore. The time and place he noteth: 
The time in general when BB. were first ordained according to Jerome.  first generally, the time when Bishops were ordained was in the Apostles time: the place where, in all the world: Which two if you join together, it will appear that by Ieromes testimony the function of BB. is of Apostolical institution. For it is utterly incredible, that BB. should be ordained in all parts of the Christian world in the Apostles times, and yet not be of the Apostles ordaining.  
That Jerome held BB. to be ordained in the Apostles time, I prove out of the place alleged; when factions began to spring in the Church, saith Jerome, some saying I am of Paul, I am of Apollo, I am of Cephas; which was in the Apostles times, 1 Cor. 1. and it were fond to imagine, that factions did not begin till after their time.  

Ad pag. 150.  This argument the Refuter would discredit, because Sanders useth the like, and his own answer he would credit with the name and countenance of certain learned men; which is one of his ordinary shifts to blear the eyes of the simple, who many times respect more who speaketh, than what is said. But my argument standeth thus: 
When the factions began, whereof Jerome speaketh, BB. were ordained, as he saith:  
In the Apostles times the factions began, whereof Jerome speaketh:  
Therefore in the Apostles times Bishops were ordained, as he saith.  The effect of the answer which he bringeth is, that Jerome speaking of Schisms which did arise after the Apostles times, alludeth to that speech of the Apostle; not that he thought Bishops were ordained in those times, but that he might show, that schism was the cause of changing the order of Church-government. Which answer might have some show of probability, if Jerome himself did not both in other places, which I cite, most plainly testify, that Bishops were ordained in the Apostles times; and also in the place alleged expressly speak of those factions which did arise in Corinth, and other places in the Apostles times. The factions whereof he speaketh, did arise from hence, that unusquisque eos quos baptizaverat suos putabat esse non Christi, saith Jerome, every one esteemed those whom he had baptised to be his own and not Christ's. Now it is apparent, that this is the very thing which Paul reproveth in the Corinthians, that every one said they were his who 
a 1 Cor 1.14.16.  had baptised them, and therefore thanketh God that he had baptised none of them, but Crispus and Gaius, and the household of Stephanas. For by this means, as Calvin 
b in 1 Cor. 4.14.  also observeth, 
c 1 Cor. 4.6.  the factious and ambitious teachers (whom he meant under the name of Paul and Apollo's) sought to draw Disciples after them. Yea but Jerome in his Epistle to Evagrius, showeth that in the Apostles times Bishop and Presbyter was all one; and that afterwards Bishops were first ordained as a remedy against schism. To this I have answered before, showing that Jerome there proveth that the names at the first were confounded, and the same men were called Presbyters and Bishops until one out of the Presbyters in every Church was chosen, and set above the rest, and called a Bishop. Which Jerome there confesseth to have been done ever since St. Marks time, and therefore in the time of the Apostles. For the first Bishops were not chosen out of the Presbytery of the Churches, whereof they were made BB. but were Apostolical men, I mean either Apostles, or some of their companions and assistants: all which while, the Bishops were called Apostles, as I showed out of Theodoret: the names Presbyter & Episcopus being as yet confounded. And whereas he saith, that I answered even now, the course of government was not changed at the first when factious began, he doth but threapen kindness on me: for I said no such thing. If therefore Jerome teacheth that Bishops were ordained when factions began: and also that in the Apostles time factions did begin; then in Ieromes judgement Bishops were ordained in the Apostles times; but Jerome teacheth both the one and the other, as is manifest by that which hath been said.  

§ 7. The place in general where BB. were ordained according to Jerome. In Tit. 1.  As touching the Place; Jerome saith, in toto orb decretum est, it was decreed in the whole world, that one being chosen from among the Presbyters should be set over the rest, to whom the whole care of every Church should appertain. From whence I reason thus. 
A general decree in the whole Christian world could not be made in the Apostles times without the authority and consent of the Apostles:  
This general decree was made in the Apostles times:  
Therefore not without their authority and consent.  The assumption I prove thus: This general decree in the whole world was made either in the Apostles times, or near their times. But not near their times, for there could no such general decree be made without a general Council. And there was no general council before the council of Nice, before which council there were not only Diocesan and Metropolitan Bishops but also patriarchs.  

Ad pag. 151.  The Refuter answereth, that jeromes' words deceive me. For though Jerome saith it was decreed, yet he doth not mean that it was decreed, but that it came from custom, and that paulatim, by little and little. The Refuters answer therefore maketh Jerome to contradict himself; whose speeches notwithstanding are thus reconciled. For that which he there calleth custom, in another place 
e Ad evagr.  he termeth an Apostolical tradition, and the Apostolical tradition is that universal decree which he speaketh of. And where Jerome saith, by little and little that the roots of descension might be plucked up, the whole care was committed to one: that is to be understood thus; that although it were agreed upon at once, and decreed to be put in practice in the whole world; yet it was not practised at once in the whole world, but first in one Church, as at jerusalem, after in Antioch, then in Rome, after in Alexandria, in all which Churches not only the first Bishops were ordained in the Apostles times, but their successors also, and that by the testimony of Jerome himself as followeth in the next proof.  
For having thus showed in general both the time and place out of Jerome, 
§ 8. Jerome testifieth in particular whom, where, when, & wherefore the Apostles ordained Bishops.  when and where Bishops were ordained, that is to say, in the Apostles times, in the whole world, and consequently that they were ordained by the Apostles: in the next place I declare more particularly out of Jerome, that by the Apostles Bishops were first ordained; noting also the persons whom, and the places where, and the time when, they ordained Bishops. Doth not Jerome plainly testify that james 
f Catal. in jacobo.  was by the Apostles ordained Bishop of jerusalem, before their departure thence: that when he had governed that Church 30. years, Simon 
g Catal. in Simone.  his brother, or kinsman, succeeded him in the Bishopric, who living until he was 120. years old was crucified under trajan?  
Doth not he witness that Ignatius 
h Catal. in Ign.  was the third Bishop of Antioch in the Apostles times? that Mark 
i Proaem. in Mat.  was the first Bishop of Alexandria, and that he dying 
k Catal. in Marco.  at Alexandria in the eight of Nero (that is four or five years before the death of Peter and Paul) Anianus succeeded him?  
Doth he not say, that Cl●mens 
l Catal. in Clem.  was the fourth Bishop of Rome after Peter. For, saith he, Linus was the second, Anacletus the third, all in the Apostles times?  
Doth he not expressly testify that Polycarpus 
m Catal. in Polycarp.  was S. john's Disciple, and by him ordained Bishop of Smyrna? and is it not testified in the same Catalogue that Timothy 
n Catal. in Timoth. & Tit.  was of blessed Paul ordained B. of the Ephesians, and that Titus was B. of Crect?  
Hereunto the Refuter maketh an answer like himself, that he hath often told me, that james, Mark and Timothy neither were, nor might be Bishops. And I have often told him of his poor shifts, whereof this is one. For the question being here, not whether these men simply were Bishops or not, but whether Jerome saith so, or no; I having alleged plain testimonies of Jerome averring that they were Bishops: he, in steed of maintaining his assertion, which was that Jerome testifieth Bishops not to have been ordained until after the Apostles times, giveth Jerome the lie, but answereth not to the point. For if Jerome testify, that these men were Bishops in the Apostles times, how is not he ashamed to say, that in Ieromes opinion there were no Bishops in the Apostles times?  
And where he saith that Polycarpe (and the like no doubt would say of Linus, and Clemens, and Ignatius &c.) was the ordinary Pastor of that one congregation at Smyrna, and no Diocesan Bishop: which evasion I have heretofore avoided, I desire this answer may be compared with the next, which he maketh concerning the end.  


§ 9 The end of ordaining BB. according to Jerome.  
Adverse. Lucifer.   The end, saith Jerome, was to avoid Schism, and acknowledgeth that for the same end they are to be retained; professing, that the safety of the Church dependeth upon the dignity of the Bishop, to whom if a peerless power and eminent above all be not yielded, there would be as many Schisms in the Churches as Priests.  
The Refuter answereth, that some say, the remedy was almost worse than the disease. But first, what is this to the purpose? that the Refuter had rather there should be a Schism in every Parish, than a Bishop of the Diocese? it was Ieromes judgement, that I opposed to their allegation out of Jerome. And if Jerome testify, that in the Apostles times Bishops were ordained to avoid Schism, and that this was a necessary remedy, insomuch that he doubteth not to say that the safety of the Church dependeth upon it; it was as much as in this place either I intended, or could by the adversary be required. Secondly, where Jerome saith, that Bishops were ordained for avoiding of Schism, he meaneth such Schism as the Presbyters (whom he calleth Sacerdotes, Priests) would make, if there were not one in every Church set over them, to whom the care of that whole Church should belong. Now apply the Refuters answer concerning Polycarpus, which is his ordinary answer, that the first BB. were but ordinary Pastors of one congregation, such as we call Rectors or Pastors of several parishes. Were such ordained to avoid schism among priests? or were not such the priests, whose schism was to be avoided by setting one B. in every diocese over them? or could the refuter think, that the ordaining of such ordinary pastors was a remedy worse than the disease? is it not therefore clear, that the Bishops, whom Jerome acknowledgeth to have been in the Apostles times, were not ordinary Pastors of several congregations or parishes, equal to other Presbyters; 
In excelfjiori gradu ad evagr.  but one in every diocese set in a superior degree above the rest to preserve them in unity and to keep them from schism?  
Thirdly, where to the judgement of Jerome he opposeth the testimony of others, who say the remedy was almost worse than the disease, because this superiority of BB. did breed the Papacy: this showeth, that great and sound D●uines sometimes let fall, especially when they write 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unsound speeches grounded on weak proofs. For how is it prou●● that the superiority of Bishops did breed the supremacy of the Pope. Because as at the first one Presbyter was before the rest, and made a Bishop, so afterwards one B. was preferred above the rest, so this custom bred the Pope and his Monarchy. By which reason, all superiority should be condemned as the original of the Pope's supremacy. For might not a man as well say, that as one Presbyter in every parish is superior to the rest according to their conceit; so one Pastor which is the Bishop in every diocese is superior to the other Pastors, etc.  
But indeed the superiority of Bishops is so far from breeding the Papacy as the cause or original, 
§ 10. That the superiority of BB. did not breed the Papacy.  that it was not so much as any direct occasion thereof. Yea so far was it from breeding the ecumenical B. of the whole world, that it did not breed the Patriarckeship in the main parts of the world, nor yet the superiority of the metropolitans in the several provinces. For the superiority of metropolitans did arise as Beza supposeth from the very light of nature directing, and force of necessity urging men to that course: but as I rather think from the institution of the Apostles, after whose times the first original of them cannot be shown. For although actually they were not Primates, till in the several dioceses of the province Bishops were ordained; yet the event plainly showeth it was from the beginning intended that the Bishop of the mother city should be the chief in the province. And you have heard before how in the Apostles times Ignatius the B. of Antioch was the Metropolitan B. of Syria, and in the age following Philippe the Metropolitan B of Crect, and Irenaeus the B. of Lions was the Metropolitan of the churches in France. And although not long after the patriarchs were acknowledged and in the council of Nice established in a godly policy, as Calvin, 
Calu. Iust. l. 4. c. 4. § 4. Bez. Confes. c. 5. § 29. Zanch. de relig. obseru. in cap. 25.  Beza and Zanchius confess, yet neither did the superiority of Bishops breed them; nor they, the Papacy. The true original of the superiority of Bishops metropolitans, and patriarchs in their circuits was the pattern of civil government in the Roman Empire, divided into certain precincts, which the Church did follow. Whereas therefore to each city the country adjoining was subject, the Apostles first placed Bishops in the cities, committing to their charge not only the city but country subject to it, which we call a Diocese, wherein from the beginning, there was never more lawfully than one B. and whereas in every province, wherein were many Cities, there was one Metropolis or mother city, where the ruler of that province was seated; in like manner, so soon as Bishops were placed in the several cities, they acknowledged the B. of their mother city their primate, and chief B. of the Province. And as the whole Empire was divided among certain governors, who were called praefecti praetorio, whereof one was placed in Rome having the government of Italy, Africa and part of Illyricum. A second in Alexandria having the rule of Egypt, Lybia, Pentapolis etc. A third at Antioch, ruling Syria and other countries of the East. A fourth in France governing France, Germany, Spain and Britain; so the divers provinces subject to the praefecti praetorio, at least the three former, were subjecteth to the Bishops of the same sees, who afterwards were called patriarchs; whose Patriarchal authority was ratified in the Council of Nice; 
Con. Nic. c. 6.  to wit, that according to the ancient custom the B. of Rome should have the care sub urbicarum provinciarum as Ruffinus reporteth that Canon, that is as I suppose, of the provinces belonging to that praetorian prefecture, that the B. of Alexandria should have the government of Egypt, Lybia and Pentapolis, and the B. of Antioch the regiment of Syria and other countries in the East. After Constantinople, was built, and made the seat of the Empire, divers countries were subject to the prefecture, and consequently to the Bishopric thereof.  
Neither as I said did the superiority of patriarchs (though perhaps larger, than was absolutely needful, because the Ecclesiastical causes of every province might be sufficiently determined in the provincial Synods) notwithstanding I say, it did not breed the Pope's supremacy. Which did arise from another occasion: which was this. The Bishop of Constantinople, considering that the Churches of Alexandria and Antioch had that prerogative which they had, because they were seats of praefecti praetorio; and Rome, because it had been the seat not only of the praefectus, but of the Emperor himself, (though at that time in respect of civil government it were subject to the Exarch of Ravenna, for which cause the Archbishop of Ravenna contended with the B. of Rome for the superiority) and with all remembering, that Constantinople was the seat of the Empire; contended therefore, that as the Emperor, who had his seat at Constantinople, was the Monarch of the world, so himself might be acknowledged the universal B. or ecumenical Patriarch. The which ambition, though it were condemned by Gregory the B. of Rome as Antichristian (for there is no universal B. or head of the whole Church but Christ) yet his successor Boniface the third, did imitate, and exceed. Alleging, that Rome whereof he was Bishop was the ancient seat of the Empire, and that the Emperor though he remained at Constantinople, yet he was the Roman Emperor. At length with much a do, and contention, obtained of the Emperor Phocas, not only that he should be called an Ecumenical Patriarch, (for that title the B. of Constantinople having once usurped, enjoyed it, as well as he, and doth retain it to this day) but that his See should be head of all Churches. And this was the true original of the Pope's supremacy.  
§ 11. Ieromes inference urged.  Serm sect. 12. pag. 89. Secondly they urge jeromes' inference in that place; Presbyters at the first ruled the Church by common counsel, therefore the BB. and they ought to rule the Church in common still. 
The refuter denieth this inference to be jeromes', or that any hath urged such an inference from him. When indeed the inference plainly is Ieromes, and is that which among all their objections, is to best purpose objected by the Disciplinarians. Jerome had said before, that in the writings of the Apostles Episcopus and Presbyter is all one; and that before factions did arise by the instinct of the Devil, some saying I am of Paul, etc. the Churches were governed by the common counsel of Presbyters, etc. Of those speeches when he had made a brief recital, haecpropterea, etc. he maketh an inference to this effect, that for as much as Episcopus and Presbyter were all one at the first, therefore both Presbyters should know themselves to be subject to the B. and BB superior to the Presbyters by the custom of the Church, etc. And for as much as at the first the churches were governed by the common council of the Presbyters, as under the Apostles, that therefore the B. being set over the Presbyters should not altogether exclude them, but should in communi Ecclesiam regere rule the church in common; imitating Moses, who, when he had in his power to rule the people of Israel alone, chose seventy, with whom he might judge the people.  
Which objection, being better than any the refuter hath made in this book, I will not let it pass without some answer. For it appeareth that neither the Apostles or Apostolical men being Bishops, were simply bound to use the council of the Presbyters, but that the use of them was voluntary, after the example of Moses, as Jerome saith; and the ancient Bishops of the Primitive Church who were of the best disposition, (as Cyprian by name) did follow their example, resolving to do nothing of moment, without their counsel and advise: seeking therein the good and peace of the Church. And this custom was used by all godly Bishops, until as I said, the Presbyters advise and assistance, to themselves seeming troublesome, and to the B. by reason of the frequent Synods and synodal constitutions needless, grew out of use; whereupon Canons were made that their counsel and assistance should be required an had in greater matters, which is not misliked but wished to be more used. And so much may suffice to have answered an objection; which the refuter doth not acknowledge.  
I proceed therefore to the third, 
§ 12. Ad pag. 152. The chief objection that BB. are greater than Presbyters by the custom of the church not by Divine ordinance.  which is as it were the shoote-anchor of the Disciplinarians; which failing their Discipline will suffer shipwreck. Presbyters and Bishops were all one; therefore Bishops are to know that they be greater than the Presbyters, rather by the custom of the Church, then by the truth of Divine disposition.  
To this objection I returned two answers: the first, that where Jerome saith Episcopus and Presbyter is all one, it may be undertook of the names, which he proveth by many 
n Phil. 1.1. Acts 20.17.28. Tit. 1.5.7. 1 Pet. 5.  testimonies to be confounded in the writings of the Apostles. And in this sense it is true, that whereas now Episcopus is more than Presbyter, it is to be ascribed to the custom of the Church, as before I have noted out of Theodoret. And in the same sense Augustine 
o Epist. 19 ad Hier.  is to be understood, when he saith, according to the names of honour in which the use of the Church hath prevailed Episcopatus, Bishopship is a name of greater honour than Presbyterium.  
The refuter coming to examine this answer, saith, I denied the Antecedent, when as indeed I granting the Antecedent, in that sense which I give in the answer, denied the consequence. That although the distinction of the names was not by divine disposition, but by the custom of the Church: yet that hindereth not, but the function may be of Apostolical institution. Seeing they which at the first were ordained by the Apostles to the Episcopal function, though they were not called Bishops till they were chosen out of the Presbyters, yet were called sometimes the Apostles, sometimes the Angels of the churches. So that when the names were confounded, the offices were not. But the refuter censureth this distinction as an idle conceit and shift having no colour of excuse for it. As though it needed excuse, when I brought just defence of it, which he is not able to answer. For how shall Ieromes mind be known in that assertion, that Episcopus and Presbyter was all one, but by the proofs which he bringeth for it? but all his proofs are that the names were confounded in the writings of the Apostles; and that the same men were called Presbiteri & Episcopi, and that was all that Jerome could truly infer out of those places. For if he would have concluded out of them that the offices were confounded, his consequences would be very weak.  
The second defence of my answer was this, that Jerome is to be understood either of the names or of the offices: But not of the offices, therefore of the names. If you shall understand Jerome, as affirming that the offices were confounded, and denying that the office and superiority of Bishops was of Divine disposition, in that sense that Apostolical ordinances may be said to be of Divine Institution, you shall make Jerome, not only to strive against the stream of all Antiquity; but also to be contrary to himself; but this latter is absurd; so is the former.  
To the former reason the refuter answereth not, 
§ 13. The refuters reply, that Jerome is not to be understood as speaking of the names.  but bringeth a reason or two, such as they be to overthrow my distinctions, seeking as we say clawm clavo pellere. Can any man be so sotttish, saith he, as to imagine that the question betwixt Jerome and those Deacons was about names, not offices? or would Jerome reason so simply as to prove the dignity of the Presbyters above Deacons, because the name of Presbyter and Episcopus was all one? it were absurd to spend more time in answering so unreasonable a distinction. You see how brag our refuter is, when he seemeth to have gotten never so little advantage. To his former question I answer, that although the question was concerning the office of Presbyters and Deacons whether were superior; yet Jerome might, and indeed did prove the Presbyters to be superior, because as the Apostles did call themselves Presbyters, so Presbyters were called Bishops. Yea but saith he in the second question, Jerome would not reason so simply. Whereto I answer, that not only learned men, but the holy Ghost also in the Scriptures 
q Heb. 1.  doth reason to that purpose, proving their dignity to be greater who have obtained a greater name. For as the Philosophers 
r Plat. Arist.  say, names are the resemblances and imitations of the things.  
Secondly he objecteth the authority of diverse new, and I confess, worthy Divines, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  who think that Jerome maketh a Bishop and a Presbyter all one, not in name only, but in office also. Which is a kind of arguing frequent with this refuter, but seldom or never used by any writer of worth. Against his authorities therefore that Jerome was of that judgement, I fear not to oppose the reasons which I produced, and namely the second. But saith he we need not stand in fear of that glittering flourish, whereby we are charged to make Jerome strive against the stream of all Antiquity, and to be contrary to himself, if either he confound the functions or deny it to be an Apostolical ordinance, that Bishops should be set over the Presbyters. What one testimony of Antiquity within the first two hundred years, either hath been, or can be alleged to that purpose? of as little force are the allegations which M. D. saith, he hath cited out of jeromes' writings. In both which answers the refuter showeth himself to be very impudent. For first, that the office or degree of Bishop and Presbyter are distinct; have I not brought forth most plain and plentiful proofs, out of Ignatius, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, and other ancient writers? that Bishops were ordained by the Apostles, have I not alleged most pregnant testimonies out of Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hegesippus and Clemens, cited by Eusebius? and can it seem doubtful to any, that shall read what is alleged by me and the refuter in this controversy which way the stream of Antiquity runneth? And as for Jerome, what more plain testimonies can be desired, than those which I brought to prove, that in his judgement Bishops were ordained by the Apostles. And that Jerome never thought, that the office of Bishop and Presbyter was confounded, it may further appear by these reasons. For where Paul writeth to the Bishops and Deacons at Philippi, here, saith Jerome 
s Hier. in Phil. 1. , by Bishops we understand Presbyters. For in one City there could not be more Bishops than one. Which plainly showeth, he thought that although Presbyters had the name, yet they had not the office of Bishops, and that although there might be many in one City which had the name, yet there could be but one, that had the office of a Bishop. Again on 1 Tim. 3. he 
t Hier. in 1 Tim. 3  saith, it is demanded, why the Apostle made no mention there of Presbyters, but comprehended them in the name of Bishops? because, saith he, the degree of Presbyters is the second, and almost the same with that of Bishops.  

The second answer.  My second answer was, if Jerome must be understood, as speaking of the office, that then we are to distinguish of those words, Divine disposition, as including only those things which be either directly and immediately of Divine institution, or are Divini juris, of Divine right, as being perpetual and immutable; but not as excluding Apostolical ordinances. For Jerome, besides that he hath plentifully testified, that Bishops were ordained by the Apostles, he doth also expressly call this function Episcopal an 
u Ad evagr. Ad pag 153.  Apostolical tradition. But this testimony the refuter thinketh to elude, because in the writings of the Fathers, the precepts and observations of their forefathers though indeed not ordained by the Apostles are called Apostolical traditions. Which answer may have place in such traditions, as have no testimony or proof, that the Apostles ordained them; but for this matter in question, we have had plentiful and pregnant proofs, and evident testimonies, not only of other authors, but of Jerome himself, plainly avouching, that Bishops were ordained by the Apostles, and particularly relating the persons whom, the places where, the time when, the Apostles ordained them.  
If neither of these answers, will satisfy the refuter, then must he be forced to confess, that Jerome was inconstant in this question, holding one while that Bishops were of Apostolical Institution, and another while that they were not. And if Jerome were unconstant which is the worst that can be objected against this cause, and wherewith I would be loath to charge him, then let it be considered, whether those testimonies which he hath in more places delivered dogmatically and historically, for the superiority of Bishops, himself being a Presbyter; are not to overweigh those fewer, which he uttered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the heat of disputation, as a party in the cause, maintaining the dignity of Presbyters, himself being a Presbyter, against either the indignities offered them by the Bishops or the insolency of 
w Hier. ad evagr. August. quaest. ex vet. & nou. test. 101.  Deacons who sought to overpeere them.  
Thus have I proved that the Episcopal function is of Apostolical, and consequently of Divine institution.   

The VI CHAPTER. Proving directly, that the Episcopal function is of Divine institution.  
In what sense I hold this assertion that the Episcopal function is of divine institution.  Serm. Sect. 13. pag. 92. I will in the last place directly, yet briefly prove, that the Episcopal function is of divine institution, etc. to protection of their persons pag. 94. 
THe refuter hath more than once charged me, that I maintain the Episcopal function to be held iure divino, implying thereby, that it is generally and perpetually necessary. Wherefore least he should be taken in the manner, as a wilful depraver of my assertion, he leaveth out all that which I have delivered to explain my meaning, and beginneth this section at the middle of a sentence, where the explication endeth. Such shifts may deceive the simple for a while, 
Lib. 1. Epist. 3.  sed mendacia diu non fallunt, but lies will not beguile long, as Cyprian saith. If he had meant to deal truly, he should have begun this section at the division pag. 91. in the end; where by a distinction of that which might be Ieromes meaning, I take occasion to pass to the direct proofs, that the Episcopal function is of Divine institution. But because I did foresee, that this my assertion would be understood, as if I held the function of Diocesan Bishops so to be divini juris, as that it is generally, perpetually and immutably necessary for the being of a Church and that no other form of government may in no case be any ways admitted; therefore both in the text, and in the margin I explained the assertion which I hold, showing plainly in what sense I maintain the calling of Diocesan Bishops to be of divine institution. All which though the refuter passed over in silence, yet I think it needful to repeat, that both my sincerity, and his fraudulent dealing may appear.  
My words in the Sermon were these: If his (that is Ieromes) meaning should be, that the superiority of Bishops over Presbyters, though it be an Apostolical tradition (as himself calleth it) yet notwithstanding is not directly of Divine institution: although there be small difference betwixt these two (as I understand Divine institution) because what the Apostles did in the execution of their Apostolical function they did by direction of the holy Ghost: 
Acts 15. Acts 20.28.  so that they might truly say both of their ordinances, it seemed good to the holy Ghost and us, and of the parties by them ordained, attend the flock over which the holy Ghost hath made you overseers; notwithstanding, for more evidence I will in the last place directly, yet briefly prove, that the Episcopal function is of Divine institution, or that Bishops were ordained of God.  
In the margin also (fearing lest my meaning would not plainly enough appear) to prevent the cavils of those which be adversaries to the cause which I maintain, I noted these words. Though in respect of the first institution, there is small difference between an Apostolical and Divine ordinance, because what was ordained by the Apostles proceeded from GOD (in which sense and no other, I do hold the Episcopal function to be a Divine ordinance, I mean in respect of the first institution) yet in respect of perpetuity, difference by some is made between those things which be Divini, and those which be Apostolici juris: the former, in their understanding being generally, perpetually and immutably necessary; the latter, not so. So that the meaning of my defence plainly is, that the Episcopal government hath this commendation above other forms of Ecclesiastical regiment, that in respect of the first institution, it is a Divine ordinance; but that it should be such a Divine ordinance, as should be generally, perpetually, immutably, necessarily observed, so as no other form of government, may in no case be admitted, I did not take upon me to maintain. With what conscience therefore the refuter hath laid the maintenance of that assertion to my charge, and omitted the explanation of my defence in this place, the Reader may easily judge; especially if he remember that where he thought any advantage could be taken out of this explanation of my defence, there he taketh notice of it, as namely page 90. of his book; where he supposing, that I avouch a necessity of retaining the government of Diocesan Bishops, he useth these words. Who would have thought to have heard such a speech from him that acknowledgeth another government good and lawful. pag. 95. and maketh the calling of Bishops no further of divine institution, then as being ordained by the Apostles it proceeded from God, without implying thereby any necessary perpetuity thereof? Pag. 92. Thus sincerely their cause of sincerity, as themselves call it, is maintained.  

§ 2. That the BB. were ordained of God. Ad pag. 154.  Now that Bishops were ordained of God, I prove by this argument, as the refuter hath framed it: 
If God ordained Timothy, Archippus, and the Angels of the seven Churches Bishops, than were Bishops ordained by God.  
But God ordained them Bishops:  
Therefore Bishops were ordained by God.   
As touching Timothy: I argued thus. By whom was he ordained Bishop? By Paul, I confess, as the instrument; but yet by the holy Ghost as the author and director of his ordination. For he was made B. by prophecy. 1 Tim. 4. 
a 1 Tim. 4.14.  How is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. What is by Prophecy? (saith chrysostom) by the holy 
b Chrysost. hom. 4. Grac. 5. latin. in 1 Tim. 1.  Ghost. Paul stirring him up, putteth him in mind, who elected and ordained him; as if he had said, God hath chosen thee, he hath committed his Church unto thee. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, thou wert made Bishop not by human suffrage, but by Prophecy; that is, by Divine revelation, saith Theodoret 
c Theodoret. ; that is, spiritu sancto iubente, by the commandment of the holy Ghost, saith Theophilact 
d Theophil. ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith Oecumenius 
e Oecum. in 1 Tit. 4. , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for by the appointment of the holy Ghost Bishops were made, and not at random. Whereunto you may add the testimony of Calvin 
f Calu. in 1 Tim. 4. . Per Prophetiam] quomodo? quia scilicet spiritus sanctus oraculo Timotheum destinaverat ut in ordinem pastorum cooptaretur. Neque enim delectus tantuacute; m fuerat hominum judicio ut fieri solet, sed praecesserat spiritus nuncupatio.  
To this argument the refuter answereth nothing, but that, which I have plainly and fully confuted before; that Timothy was not a Bishop, though Calvin as you see, confesseth, that Timothy by the oracle of the holy Ghost was chosen into the order of Pastors. For if he were a Pastor, it is not to be doubted, but he was a Bishop.  
That Archippus was ordained Bishop of God, I prove thus. Because Col. 4.17. Paul using the same exhortation to him which he gave to Timothy 
g 2 Tim. 4.5.  the Bishop of Ephesus, namely, that he should fulfil his ministery, he addeth, which thou hast received in the Lord; and therefore by God's ordinance, and as it were at his hands.  
The refuter having framed the argument thus, 
He that received his Episcopal ministery in the Lord, was ordained a B. by the Lord.  
Archippus received his Episcopal ministery in the Lord:  
Therefore he was ordained Bishop by the Lord:   
He denieth the proposition; because neither is all Episcopal ministery proper to a Diocesan Bishop, else the Apostle would not have made a B and Presbyter all one; neither is that office only in the Lord. Of which reasons, the latter is merely impertinent, and frivolous. For who ever said, or thought, that the office of a Bishop only is in the Lord? neither is the former to any purpose, seeing he knoweth, that by Episcopal ministery I understand the function of a Diocesan Bishop, and therefore should not have denied the proposition, but have distinguished of the assumption, saying, that he did not receive the Episcopal ministery, meaning the function of a Diocesan Bishop. For proof whereof, it sufficeth to me, that Archippus was as Ambrose 
h in Col. 4.17.  noteth, Bishop of Collosae, which was a City: seeing I have manifestly proved before, that the Bishops of Cities were Diocesan Bishops.  

sect; 3. The Bishops of the seven Churches had divine institution. Ad pag. 155. & 156.  As touching the Angels I argue thus; 
Those who are called by the holy Ghost the Angels of the Church; and were signified by the seven stars which were in Christ's right hand, had Divine both institution and approbation:  
The Diocesan Bishops of the seven Churches are called by the holy Ghost the Angels of the seven churches, and were signified by the seven stars which were in Christ's right hand.  
Therefore the Diocesan Bishops of the seven Churches had divine both institution and approbation.   
The proposition I proved, because they who are called Angels are authorized and sent of God, and stars whose both pre-eminence of dignity is noted in this life (for the stars 
i Apoc. 12.1.  are the crown of the Church) and also prerogative of glory which they shall have in the world to come. And finally, they who are signified by the seven stars in the right hand of Christ, are such as Christ doth both approve and protect.  
The assumption I went not about to prove now, because it was proved at large in the former part of the Sermon. And yet all that the refuter answereth to the purpose, is, that they were not Diocesan Bishops. For that which he addeth beside, is but the uttering of his spleen, and emptying his gall against Bishops, to whom he cannot abide (such is his malice) that the titles of Angels and stars, which notwithstanding the holy Ghost giveth to the Bishops of the seven Churches, and which himself acknowledgeth to be titles common to all ministers, should be applied to Bishops. It is true, that these titles of Angels and stars are common to all ministers, yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (to signify their pre-eminence) they be attributed to Bishops. For as I have said before; when in a Church, where are many Ministers, who are all termed Angels, the Bishop only is called the Angel of the Church, this title doth note his singular pre-eminence. And the same is signified when as there being a great number of ministers in Asia who all were stars, the seven Bishops only of those Churches are signified by the seven stars which Christ held in his right hand. Now if these seven Bishops were Diocesan Bishops as I have manifestly proved them, and all the Bishops of the ancient Churches to have been; then must the refuter be content to endure, both that Diocesan Bishops were called the Angels of the Churches, and the stars which Christ held in his right hand; and consequently also, that the function of Diocesan Bishops is of Divine institution. And thus passing by his railing, as not worth the mentioning, I proceed to the conclusion of my Sermon.   

The VII. CHAPTER. Defending the conclusion of the Sermon, 
Ad pag. 157.  and showing that the chief Protestant writers did not disallow the Episcopal government.  The third part of the Serm. Sect. 1. page 94. Thus having proved this doctrine arising out of the Text, that the Episcopal function is of Apostolical and divine institution: it remaineth, that we should from thence gather some uses to ourselves both for the informing of our judgement, and reforming of our lives, etc. to now let us, pag. 97. 
THe use which serveth for rectifying the judgement is contained in this section, and it is first propounded, and afterwards maintained against two objections. The use is this, that as the Episcopal function hath been manifestly proved to be lawful and good; as being the ordinance of God, so we would all be persuaded to acknowledge it. But the refuter is like the deaf Adder, that stoppeth her ear; he will not be persuaded, though he be convicted. For though he braggeth, that this answer of his doth manifest that I have not brought any one good proof in the whole Sermon; yet this defence of mine will make it evident, that he hath not been able to disprove any one of my proofs, which he hath gone about to answer (for the most part) with sound learning, but to elude with shifts and cavillations.  
But some will say, 
Ob. 1. The Episcopal government so held to be of divine institution as notwithstanding where it may not be had, another form of government may be admitted.  this is not all that you would persuade us unto, that the function of Bishops is lawful and good; but when you say it is of divine institution, you seem to mean, that it is divini juris, and consequently that not only it is lawful, but that it only is lawful, and that all Churches are so perpetually and necessarily tied unto it, as that no other form of government is warrantable in the Church of God.  
My resolution of this doubt I signified before Serm. pag. 92. that I did not hold it so to be divini juris, as that necessarily it were to be observed always and in all places, and so himself confesseth pag. 90. of his book. And therefore when he said my resolution was obscure and doubtful (for doubling I leave to him) he was disposed to cavil. I refer indeed the consideration of this inference to our Disciplinarians, who having conceited the Presbyterian platform to be described in the scriptures; do therefore urge the same, as perpetual and unchangeable, signifying, that if they will be constant in their judgement, they must by the same reason acknowledge the Episcopal government, which hath warrant in the word, to be perpetual and unchangeable. Which conceit of theirs hath perhaps been the cause, why they have given out to make my Sermon odious among their followers, that I maintain the Episcopal function to be divini juris, as being commanded of God, and perpetually imposed upon all Churches. Nevertheless, I plainly declared my resolution to be this, that although we be well assured, that the form of government by Bishops is the best, as having not only the warrant of scripture for the first institution, but also the perpetual practice of the Church from the Apostles times to our age, for the continuance of it; notwithstanding we doubt not, where this may not be had, others may be admitted; neither do we deny, but that silver is good, though gold be better, which objection and answer, I inserted of purpose into the Sermon, to preserve the credit of those reformed Churches, where the Presbyterian discipline is established, and that they might not be exposed, or left naked to the obloquys of the Papists.  

§ 2. Contradiction falsely objected.  To which my charitable endeavour the refuter opposeth himself, as being always ad oppositum, without regard either of my charitable intent, or of the credit of the reformed Churches, labouring tooth and nail to persuade his reader, 
Ad pag. 158.  that I contradict myself, and that in the conclusion of my Sermon I did overthrow what before I had builded. But as always hitherto, so now also, he hath showed his malice to be greater than his strength. For though he chargeth me, as having often and peremptorily avouched the perpetual necessity of the government of the Church by Diocesan Bishops: yet neither often, nor once, neither peremptorily, nor at all, neither the perpetual necessity, nor any absolute necessity at all, is urged in any one of the allegations, which he so hotly, as it were with fire and tow, objecteth. The first which is objected out of pag. 33. hath been explained before. For when I said, that as the government by Bishops was first ordained for the preservation of the Church in unity, and for the avoiding of schism; so it is for the same cause to be retained: I did not mean any absolute necessity of retaining it, but that as at the first it was ordained, as being thought fit, expedient and needful to avoid schism; so it is fit, expedient and needful for the same cause to be retained. Neither do I see how he can infer this perpetual necessity which he talketh of out of pag. 72. where I said, the Epistles to Timothy and Titus are the very patterns and Precedents of the Episcopal function, whereby the Apostle informeth them, and in them all Bishops how to exercise their function touching ordination and jurisdiction. For although Paul giveth his directions primarily to Timothy and Titus, and to all such as should have the like function that is to say, Bishops: yet if this form of government be changed, those which shall exercise the like authority, must follow those directions, as being given, though primarily and directly to Bishops, yet secondarily, and by consequence, to those who though they were not Bishops, should have the like authority And to the like purpose is that alleged out of pag. 74. and that we should not think as some do that these things were spoken to them as to extraordinary persons (whose authority should die with them) but to them and their successors to the end of the world, he straightly chargeth Timothy, that the commandments and directions which he gave him, should be kept inviolable unto the appearing of our Lord jesus Christ; and therefore by such, as should have the like authority unto the end. And presently after, for the authority which was committed to them is perpetually necessary, without which the Church neither can be governed (as without jurisdiction) neither yet continued (as without ordination) and therefore not peculiar to extraordinary persons, but by an ordinary derivation to be continued in those, who are the successors of Timothy and Titus. Here I appeal to the refuters conscience whether he be not persuaded of the truth of both these sentences. Can he deny, the authority which was committed to Timothy and Titus, to be perpetually necessary, which is the sum of the second sentence? or if it be perpetually necessary, that some were to have it to the end of the world, which was affirmed in the former sentence? If he had learned the distinction betwixt potestas, & modus potestatis, whereof I spoke before; the power or authority itself being the perpetual ordinance of God, the manner or form of government wherein that power is exercised being mutable; he would not so hotly have urged these allegations.  
Yea but that pag. 79. is above all show of exception saith he where he saith, the function and authority which Timothy and Titus had was not to end with their persons but to be continued in their successors as being ordinary and perpetually necessary not only for the well being, but also for the very being of the visible Churches. How this spe●ch is to be understood, I distinctly showed before, not thinking (I protest) of this objection made by the Refuter. For when I said, their function and authority was ordinary and perpetually necessary, I meant, that their function was ordinary as being Pastoral and Episcopal, and that the authority which they had was perpetually necessary, as was said in the former allegations.  
If he shall perhaps urge those words which mention the successors of Timothy and Titus to the end of the world: I answer, it is more than likely, that they shall have successors in the same function in some Churches to the end, that is to say, Bishops; though in some others, that form of government being altered, the authority may be in those who do not succeed them in the said function at least in the same form and manner of governing.  

§ 3.  This being all which he hath gained by these allegations, he might have forborn his triumphing insultations, which bewray his want of judgement. For where he objecteth against me this contradiction, as though I held, both that the government by Bishops is necessary for the very being of visible Churches, and also that there may be visible Churches without it; either he doth ignorantly mistake, or wilfully deprave my sayings. For though I said, the authority which Timothy and Titus exercised, was perpetually necessary, both to the being of Churches as the power of ordination, and to the well being as the authority of jurisdiction; yet I never said, that this form of government was necessary to the being of visible Churches. And where he goeth about to prove, that the Episcopal government is not perpetually necessary, because there be many visible Churches at this day without it; what doth he else, but fight with his own shadow, seeing that in favour only of those Churches this passage was by me inserted? 
Whether more reformed Churches are governed by the Episcopal or by the Presbyterian discipline.  howbeit, he impudently overreacheth, when he saith almost all visible Churches are without Bishops. For not to mention all other Churches which be in the Christian world, which have always had, and still have Bishops: and to speak only of the reformed Churches in Europe: is it not evident, that the far greater part of them is governed by Bishops, and which is all one with Bishops; by Superintendents? The refuter, when he desired to the uttermost pag. 52. to enlarge the number of those Churches which have the Presbyterian Discipline, he reckoned the reformed Churches of France, the Low-countreyes, Saxony, Helvetia, Bohemia, Zuricke, Berne, Geneva, Savoy, Palatine, Poland, Hungary, Gernsey, jersey, Scotland: from which number notwithstanding some Churches are to be substracted, as all in Scotland, and some if not all, in Saxony, neither do I suppose that their Presbyterian discipline is established in Zuricke, and all the Churches of Helvetia, neither is any one whole kingdom ruled by that discipline. So that I am persuaded there are scarce so many particular Churches or congregations, governed by the Presbyterian discipline in all the world, as are governed by Bishops in the King's dominions, in great Britain and in Ireland. But besides these. I find alleged by one of great wisdom and judgement many more which are not governed by the Presbyterian discipline, 
Suru. pag. 362.  as the Churches of Denmark, Suevia, all the reformed Churches of Germany (saving in some parts of the Low-countreyes, and of late about Heidelberge, procured in the minority of the Prince) all the Churches in the Duchy of Saxony, the Duchy of Brunswick and Luneburge, the Duchy of Megalopurge, the Duchy of Wirtemberge, all the Churches within the countries of the marquess of Brandeburge and the marquess of Bade, all the Churches within the government of the Earldom of Henneberge, the Earldom of Swartzenberge, the Earldom of Lenning, the Earldom of Hannaw, the Earldom of Oetinghe, the Earldom of Mansfield, the Earldom of Stalbergh, the Earldom of Glich, the Earldom of Rheinesterne, and the Earldom of Leonstine, and all the Churches in the Barony of Limpurge, the Barony of Schenburge, and the Barony of Wildenfield. Whereunto may be added all the Churches, in four or five and thirty, (at the least) free cities with their territories, the most of them as large and ample as Geneva; in none whereof the Presbyterian discipline is erected. Which enumeration is a good evidence also to justify my answer to the next objection: which is this.  

§ 4. Ob. 2. The first and principal Protestants did not disallow the Episcopal function. Ad pag. 159.  Some will say the Protestants which were the blessed instruments of God for the reformation of religion in this last age, are thought to have preferred the other discipline by Presbyteries, before this by Bishops: and therefore in thus magnifying the Bishops; you seem to join with the Papists against them. Whereunto I answered, that those godly and learned men allowed the Episcopal function, and simply desired the continuance thereof, if with it they might have enjoyed the Gospel. For proof whereof I referred the reader to the Survey of the pretended discipline cap. 8. pag. 110.111. etc.  
In refuting of which answer, the refuter dealeth very absurdly with me, and the reverend author of the Survey. For when I referred the reader to a Chapter of that book, containing many notable testimonies, to prove that which I said: the refuter dealeth as a man resolved to deny my conclusion, what proofs so ever I should bring against him. And though I refer him to testimonies for number and weight sufficient, either to satisfy, or to convince him, if he would but have turned to the place; yet he saith, he cannot possibly see, how I should have any such opinion of those godly and learned men, whose writings (as he saith) do so often and so vehemently profess the contrary. And that he may not seem to speak without ground, he desireth me to leave the Surveyor, and hear what he can say. As if the Surveyor were not worthy to be heard when the learned refuter is to speak. When as indeed our Refuter, for aught I see by him, is not for wisdom, learning and judgement worthy to be named with that reverend Author on the same day. But though he would seem not to vouchsafe an answer to the Survey, yet the truth is, he durst not acquaint the Reader with those testimonies: which howsoever before I did mention for brevity sake, I may not now wholly conceal from the Reader.  
And although I might by way of requital, desire him to lay aside h●s misse-alledged allegations, as unworthy to be examined, and to give ear to those testimonies cited by the Surveyor; yet I will vouchsafe an answer to his authorities, after I have recited some few testimonies of the chief Protestant writers, as I find them cited by the Surveyor, referring the Reader, for the rest, to the Survey itself.  
And first I will begin with the Augustane confession (whereunto the chief learned men who first were called Protestants did subscribe, 
§ 5. Survey. pag. 110 & 111.112. etc.  Calvin soon after being one of the number) and with the Apology thereof.  
We have oft protested (say they 
a Histor. confess. August. per Chytr. p. 109. ) that we do greatly approve the Ecclesiastical policy & degrees in the Church, and as much as lieth in us, do desire to conserve them. We do not mislike the authority of Bishops so that they would not compel us to do against God's commandment.  
We do here protest 
b Apol. Confess. August. per Pap. pag 137. , and we would have it so recorded, that we would willingly preserve the Ecclesiastical and Canonical policy: if the Bishops would cease to tyrannize over our Churches. This our mind or desire shall excuse us with all posterity, both before God and all Nations, that it may not be imputed unto us, that the authority of Bishops is overthrown by us.  
I would to God it lay to me, saith Melancthon 
c Ibid. pag. 305. , to restore the government of Bishops, etc.  
By what right 
d Melanct. to Camerar. in histor. Confess. August. per Chytr. p. 389.  or law may we dissolve the Ecclesiastical policy, if the Bishops will grant us that which in reason they ought to grant? and though it were lawful, yet surely it were not expedient. Luther was ever of this opinion; whom many for no other cause I see do love, but for that they think they have cast off their Bishops by means of him, and have obtained a liberty, which will not be profitable for our posterity.  
Would to God, saith George 
e Contion. Georg. Princ. Anhalt. fol. 6.  Prince Anhall, that those which carry the names & titles of Bishops would show themselves to be Bishops indeed. I wish they would teach nothing that is disagreeable to the Gospel, but rule their Churches thereby; Oh how willingly and with what joy of heart would we receive them for our Bishops; reverence them, obey them, and yield unto them their jurisdiction and Ordination? Which we always, and M. Luther both in words and in his writings very often professed.  
If they would bring unto us such an Hierarchy saith 
f Calu. to Sadol.  Calvin, wherein the Bishops shall so rule, as that they refuse not to submit themselves to Christ, that they so depend upon him as their only head, etc. Then surely if there be any that shall not submit themselves to that Hierarchy reverently, and with the greatest obedience that may be, I confess there is no Anathema whereof they are not worthy.  
In the articles 
g Artic. protest. cap. de unit. Ecclesiae.  agreed upon by Melancthon, Bucer, Calvin, and other learned men, it is said, for the avoiding of Schisms there was a profitable ordination that a B. should be chosen out of many Priests, who should rule the Church by teaching the Gospel, and by retaining the discipline, and who should govern the Priests themselves. Afterwards also there were degrees made of Archbishops & above them of patriarchs, etc. These Ordinations, if those that govern do their duty) as preach, oversee the doctrine and manners of their Churches, correct errors and vice, practise Ecclesiastical censures, etc. are profitable to preserve the unity of the Church.  
And in their additions to the said 
h Resp. protest.  articles: As concerning ordination, we especially approve the ancient custom of the Church▪ etc. This difficult and necessary charge for the Church, it is to be wished (reformation being made) that the Bishops would take upon them. And we hear that our learned men have expressly so yielded ordination to those Bishops, if first there may be a reformation.  
In a Treatise made by Bucer 
i De Reform. adverse. Eccles. p. 95.  with the advise of the said learned men, and offered to the Emperor, it is thus written: we must endeavour, that that form and distribution of Ecclesiastical government, which the Canons do prescribe to Bishops and metropolitans be restored, and kept.  
The same 
k De vi & usis ministr. p. 565.  Bucer, speaking of Bishops and metropolitans, and of their authority over the Churches and Ministers within their Dioceses, and Provinces, he saith, this was agreeable to the law of Christ, etc.  
And in another 
l De Regno Christi. pag. 67.  place. Now by the perpetual observation of all Churches, even from the Apostles times, we do see, it seemed good to the holy Ghost, that among Priests to whom the procuration of Churches was chiefly committed, there should be one, that should have the care & charge of divers Churches, and the whole Ministry committed to him: and by reason of that charge he was above the rest, and therefore the name of Bishop was attributed peculiarly unto these chief rulers of Churches.  
And again, 
m De cura curate. p. 251.  In the Apostles times one of the Priests or Pastors was chosen and ordained to be the Captain and Prelate over the rest; who went before the rest, and had the care of souls, and the administration of the Episcopal office especially and in the highest degree. And this he proveth by the example of james, Act. 1. and after concludeth in this sort. The like ordination hath been perpetually observed in other Churches likewise, as we may learn out of the Ecclesiastical Histories, and the most ancient Fathers, as Tertullian, Cyprian, Irenaeus, Eusebius and others.  
It were a most profitable order for the welfare of the Church, saith jacob 
n Loc. comm. de Ecclesia. p. 699.  Heerbrandus a very learned man if every particular Province had her Bishops and the Bishops their Archbishops.  
These few testimonies among many do sufficiently discover, with what mind the Refuter desired me to lay them and all the rest a●ide, and to give ear to his allegations, as more worthy to be heard.  
Let us therefore hear them▪ 
§ 6.  and let the Reader judge with what conscience he either rejected the former, or alleged these. And first, though he saith he will pass by an Epistle of one Oram written under the name of Lucifer to the Pope and his Prelates, yet because he entreateth the Reader to turn to it in the book of Martyrs, as fitting belike our Bishops, he is worthy not to pass unpunished, when he comes to light For that letter being a mere invective against the horrible enormities of the Popish Prelates, speaking nothing at all of their office, but that they were the successors of the Apostles, in referring the Reader unto it, what was his intent, but that he should apply the things spoken of their grievous enormities to our Bishops? then which, he could not offer a greater villainy to them. I desire the Reader that hath any moderation in him to read that Epistle, and by his intended application thereof to our Bishops, to judge of our refuters spirit, though he professeth in the last page, how greatly he reverenceth the Bishop's persons.  
In the next place, to let you think he hath great store (even whiles he quoteth either not Protestant's or such as were not of our age, of whom alone the question is) he saith, he will pass by also that which is written by defensor pacis part. 2. c. 15. and well might he pass by him; for though he hold, that the Priestly Character is the same in Priests and Bishops, yea in the Pope himself, and that they have the same essential authority which is the power of order, and likewise in imitation of Jerome holdeth, that Episcopus and Presbyter at the first were one, etc. Notwithstanding, he no more disalloweth the superiority of Bishops; then either some other Papists, who have contended, that for as much as order, in that it is a Sacrament, hath reference to the Sacrament of the Altar which the Priest doth offer, and make his maker, as well as the Pope himself, that therefore Bishops and Presbyters be of one order; or then Jerome, who though he saith Episcopus and Presbyter were at the first all one▪ yet professeth, that the safety of the Church dependeth upon the dignity of the Bishop, etc.  

john Wickliff.  Having passed by these two, he professeth to begin with Wickliff, whom he would feign have the Reader believe, to have been a Marprelate, or an oppugner of the superiority of Bishops. But howsoever, either Papists through malice, or Protestants for want of information, have in some points 
q As in that which the Refuter calleth the twelfth article, and Pighius his question.  so conceived of him (of both which sorts the refuter quoteth some) yet those who have perused his writings 
r Thom. james his Apology for Wickliff, proving his conformity with the now Church of England. Epist. dedic. & cap. 8. s. 21.  protest, that not only for doctrine, but also for discipline, he was wholly conformable to the present Church of England, approving the government of Archbishops, Bishops, and Archdeacon's, etc. And whereas the Rhemists' object against Wickliff, that he had renewed the heresy of Aerius; D. Fulke 
s In Phil. 1.1.  answereth thus. It appeareth by many places of Wickliff his works, and namely in his Homily on Phil. 1. that he acknowledged the distinction of Bishops and Priests for order and government, although for doctrine and administration of the Sacraments, they are all one. Indeed in the book of Martyrs, where be eighteen articles objected against Wickliff (though neither the twelfth article which the Refuter mentioneth, nor that which Pighius objecteth against him is contained in that number) the which articles he explaineth. Among which the fifteenth is this, that every Priest rightly and duly ordered according to the law of grace, hath power according to his vocation, whereby he may minister the Sacraments, and consequently absolve any man confessing his fault, being contrite and penitent for the same. Which article, when he came to expound, he gave this reason; because that the order of Priesthood in his own nature and substance receiveth no such degrees either of more or less. 
Ordo sacerdotalis non suscipit magis & m●nus.  And yet notwithstanding the power of inferior Priests in these days be upon due consideration restrained, and sometimes again in time of extreme necessity, released. And thus according to the Doctors, a Prelate hath a double power, to wit, the power of order, and the power of jurisdiction or regiment. And according to the second power, the Prelates are in an higher majesty and regiment.  
Thus have I recited word for word what is set down in the book of Martyrs; the words whereof the Refuter depraveth, making Wickliff to say, 
Ad pag. 160.  the order of Priesthood receiveth no degrees of more or less, howsoever the Doctors say, that the Prelate hath a double power, etc. Whereby he would make the Reader believe, that he differed from those Doctors, with whom he doth agree: affirming (as many others have done, who notwithstanding allowed of the superiority of Bishops) that in the power of order all Priests are equal, though Bishops have also the power of jurisdiction, wherein they are superior to other Priests. To the same purpose is alleged his assertion of two orders Priests and Deacons, which the Papists themselves hold, dividing Priests ●nto Maiores which be Bishops, and Minores which be Presbyters.  

Bal. Centur. 6.1.  Why he quoteth Bales centuries I know not, unless it were to show his more exquisite reading then other men's, having belike read there something concerning this cause, which no man else is able to read or to find.  
But I had almost forgotten his first allegation, which the Refuter pretending such plenty, might well have omitted as impertinent. For though he envied against the excessive lordliness and tyrannical domination of the Popish Bishops: Yet doth it not prove, that he was an enemy to the superiority of Bishops, or the substance of their calling.  
And whereas with Wickliff he joineth the Waldenses, whose opinion he doth not cite but by the report of Pighius; it is evident by the book of Martyrs in their story, that they acknowledged these three degrees, Bishops, Priests and Deacons, Artic. 7. And therefore is untruly laid to their charge by Aeneas Silvius, that they held no difference of degrees among Priests, unless perhaps by Priests, be meant Bishops.  

§ 7 john Hus.  The next is john Hus, saith the Refuter, who was charged by the Pope and his officers to err. First, in that he held not, nor allowed, that by the Church was meant the Pope, Cardinals, Archbishops and Clergy underneath them, but affirmed that signification 
u The words are, & dicit illam significationem extortam à scholaribus.  to be drawn out of the Schoolmen. Secondly, that he avouched all Priests to be of like power, and therefore the reservation of the Bishop's casualties order of Bishops, and consecration of Clerks 
w The refuter putteth in Priests.  was invented only for covetousness. Thirdly, that he held, that every man hath authority to invest men into the cure of souls.  
Whereto I answer, first, that these articles were indeed exhibited against him to the Pope by Michael de Causis, but I do not read, that either he acknowledged them to be true, or that he was condemned for them. Secondly, in the book of Martyrs, and also in his Story prefixed before his works, it is said, that of the articles which were objected against him, there were but a few which he acknowledged to be true. This therefore is the refuters argument, john Hus was accused by his malicious adversaries, who made no conscience of accusing him falsely, that he held all these articles; therefore all these were his opinions. But if it be sufficient to accuse, as the Emperor said, who can be innocent? the godlyest Martyrs never wanted accusers; whom if the refuter should therefore pronounce guilty of those matters whereof they were accused, he should show himself a wise man. But so he dealeth with john Hus: he was accused of these opinions, therefore he held them. Wherefore he must either prove, that Hus did acknowledge them to be true, or else what doth he but subscribe to the accusations of his malicious accusers against him. But suppose the first of these three were his, what will the refuter infer thereof? he did not hold nor allow that by the Church was meant the Pope, Cardinals, Archbishops and Clergy underneath them; therefore he did not allow the calling of Orthodoxal Bishops. Michael de Causis his accuser, for this article quoteth his book de Ecclesia, where I find this assertion (by the allegation whereof, you may guess how he was used in the rest) that the Pope of Rome 
x Hus. de Eccl. c. 7.  with his Cardinals is not the whole body of the universal Church but a part, and that the Pope is not the head thereof, but Christ.  
The which assertion he opposeth against the sayings of some Doctors, who held, first, that the Roman Church is the Church universal: that of the Church of Rome the Pope is the head, and the college of Cardinals the body. Which assertion, if you shall compare with his adversaries allegation, and apply to the refuters purpose, you shall perceive the malice of the one, and folly of the other.  
For the second article, his accuser doth not quote any of his books, but saith thus, aliqualiter patet iste articulus ex praedictis, this article after a sort may be gathered out of the precedent articles, wherein there is no such matter contained.  
The third he proveth by Husses fact, because in the kingdom of Boheme many by him and his favourers and abetters have been thrust into Parish Churches, which they a good while ruled without the institution of the See Apostolic, and also of the ordinary of the City of Prage. Whether Hus did this or no, it is questionable; but if there had been Orthodoxal Bishops, by whose authority faithful Ministers might have been instituted; without question, he would never have attempted any such enterprise. But he held the Popish Clergy to be Antichristian, and therefore did as he did. Otherwise for the function itself of Bishops, he saith plainly more than 
y De Eccles. c. 10 & 15.  once, that the rest of the Apostles had equal honour and power with Peter, and that when they deceased the Bishops did succeed in their place. And that all Bishops of Christ's Church following Christ in manners, are the true Vicars of the Apostles. And out of Jerome, that all Bishops are the Apostles successors. And approveth that saying of Bede 
z Ex Bed. in Luc. 10. , as no man doubteth but the twelve Apostles did premonstrate the form of Bishops: So the seventy two did bear the figure of the Presbyters and second order of Priests.  

Jerome of Prage  And thus much of john Hus; to whom the refuter joineth Jerome of Prage, who justifieth the doctrine of Wickliff and Hus against the pomp and state of the Clergy. Which if he had done, he had spoken never a word in disallowance of the Episcopal function. But that word state is foisted in by the refuter, who allegeth almost nothing truly. His words were these 
a Act. & Mon. in the history of Jerome of Prage. , whatsoever things M. john Hus and Wickliff had holden or written specially against the abuse and pomp of the Clergy, he would affirm even unto the death. And again, that all such articles as john Wickliff and john Hus had written and put forth against the enormities, pomp and disorder of the Prelates, he would firmly hold and defend. And persisting still in the praise of john Hus, he added moreover, that he never maintained any doctrine against the state of the Church, but only spoke against the abuses of the Clergy, against the pride, pomp and excess of the Prelates. For it was a grief to that good man, saith he, to see the Patrimonies of Churches misspent and cast away upon harlots, great feastings and keeping of horses and dogs, upon gorgeous apparel, and such other things unbeseeming Christian religion. And again, I take God to my witness, that I do believe and hold all the articles of the faith, as the holy Catholic Church doth hold and believe the same, but for this cause shall I now be condemned, for that I will not consent with you unto the condemnation of those most holy and blessed men aforesaid, whom you have most wickedly condemned for certain articles, detesting and abhorring your wicked and abominable life. Whereby it is apparent, that both he, and they did not speak against the function or calling of Bishops, but against the personal abuses and enormities of the Popish Bishops, which none but a viperous brood would apply to the persons of our Bishops, and much less against their sacred function.  
After them ariseth Martin Luther saith the refuter, 
§ 9 M. Luther.  whose sayings he quoteth in his book against Popish Bishops, of private Mass, and against the Papacy, etc. But for the first of these, Luther himself hath given us this caveat. Let no man think that what is spoken against these tyrants, is spoken against the Ecclesiastical state and true Bishops or good Pastors. Let no man think that what is said or done against these sluggish beasts and slow bellies, is said or done against the heads of the Christian Church. And howsoever in the heat of his zeal against these Antichristian Bishops he uttered some things which seem prejudicial to the calling: yet you have heard it testified before 
c Supr. §. 5.  by sufficient witnesses, 
Ad pag. 161.  that in his judgement he allowed the government of Bishops. Whereunto add the testimony of Camerarius 
d Camerar. in vita Phil. Melancth. , that Melancthon non modò ad stipulatore sed etiam authore ipso Luthero, not only by the consent, but advise of Luther persuaded, that if Bishops would grant free use of the true doctrine, the ordinary power and administration over their several Dioceses should be restored unto them.  

Zuinglius.  The like may be said of Zuinglius. For he that professeth as Zuinglius doth in the book before 
e Ecclesiast.  cited, that james was B. of jerusalem, Philippe of Caesarea, Timothy of Ephesus▪ cannot lightly speak against the Episcopal function itself. If he speak against the Popish Clergy for arrogating the name Church to themselves; what is that to the purpose? or if he affirm, that every several congregation according to the phrase of the Scriptures, is a Church who denieth it? or if he inveigh against the sole and supreme power of Bishops, whom doth this touch, but the Pope?  

Oecolampadius.  Oecolampadius might be of opinion that the Church was governed by only governing-elders, and persuade the Senate of Basill who had no Bishop, that such may be chosen to assist their Pastor; and yet notwithstanding not disallow the government of Bishops. Calvin, Zanchius and other learned men have said and done as much, who notwithstanding approved the Episcopal function.  

Ph. Melancthon Ad pag. 162.  And as Melancthon was of Ieromes judgement, that Bishop and Presbyter at the first was all one, so with Jerome he doth allow the superiority of Bishops: and where the Episcopal government was overthrown▪ he sought to restore it, as you have heard before, and did restore it as may appear by these testimonies. You 
f Hist. August. Confess. pag. 306.  will not believe saith he writing to Luther, how greatly they of Noricum and some others do hate me propter restitutam Episcopis jurisdictionem, for restoring the jurisdiction to Bishops. Again 
g Ibid. pag. 304. , some are wonderfully angry with me, because I seem to restore the dominion of Bishops. Camerarius 
h In vita Philippi Melancth.  also reporteth▪ how inhumanly some accused Philip for maintaining of Bishops, etc.  

tindal.  Where he allegeth Master tindal, affirming that in the Apostles times an Elder and a Bishop were all one, &c: he doth but play with names, which no man denieth to have been confounded, & so he saith 
i Pag. 251.  all that were called Elders or Priests if they so well were called BB. also, though they have divided the names now. Yea but in his book 
k Pag. 133. & 135.  of the obedience of a Christian man, he saith that a B. is the overseer but of a parish, and is to preach the word of God unto a parish, and for the same to challenge an honest living of the parish.  
This allegation the refuter hath notably wrenched. For Tindals' words be these: by the authority of the Gospel they that preach the word of God in every parish, and perform other necessary ministries, have right to challenge an honest living. For tindal speaketh of such a B. as was but a Presbyter; and saith, that he which preached the word in every Parish, should have an honest living, the refuter citeth him as saying, that a B. is but an overseer of a Parish, etc.  
In the next place he citeth Viret, as pleading for a popular state in every church; wherein, if the allegation be true, he is singular, having neither the judgement of any other sound Divine, nor practise of any reformed Church that I know of, No not of Geneva itself, to second him. For though the common wealth of Geneva be reduced to a popular state, yet the government of the church by their consistory, is Aristocratical.  
And though he passeth by (as well he might) Calvin and Beza, Bucer, Peter Martyr, Bullinger, Brentius, Musculus, whom he thought good to mention only as favourers of the pretended discipline; yet neither any of these, nor any other moderate and judicious Divine doth condemn (as our Presbyterians do) either the ancient government by Bishops in the primitive Church, or the retaining thereof in reformed churches now, as hath been showed before.  
But he is pleased to conclude with some of our own writers and Martyrs. 
§ 10.  And first with Francis Lambard, who is alleged as saying, that a B. and preacher, a church and a parish is all one, that every parish should have right to choose their Pastor, and (which is a very unadvised speech if it be truly alleged) to depose him if he prove unworthy, but not as disallowing the government of the church by orthodoxal BB. either now, or in the Primitive church, which was the point to be proved. And the like is to be said of john Lambart, etc.  
As for Bradford whom he citeth as holding that the Scripture knoweth no difference betwixt a B. and a minister, meaning that the names were confounded and that nothing is to be gotten by the succession of Popish BB. as minister not, but Lord it: yet nothing can be alleged out of him to prove that he disalloweth the government of orthodoxal Bishops.  
But it is strange, that he should allege B. Hooper, and B. Bale, as disallowing in their judgement, the superiority of BB. which they allowed in their practice. But all that is said out of B. Hooper, is either that BB. were not till Silvesters or Constantine's time, 
In precept. 8.  such as they are now: (which is true in respect of their outward estate, which by the peace and prosperity of the Church was much increased, but is not to be understood in respect of the substance of their calling) or that excommunication should not be used by the B. alone; which is little, or nothing to the present purpose, as if he must needs disallow the Episcopal function, who would not have the Bishop to excommunicate alone.  

Ad pag. 164.  B. Bale understandeth by the names of blasphemy written on the heads of the beast. Apoc. 13. the titles of Popish offices, which he saith are usurped, and not appointed by the holy Ghost; among which when he reckoneth metropolitans, Diocesans, Parsons, Vicars, and Doctors, he cannot be understood as speaking of these offices in the true church, but as they are members of Antichrist. For what is the office of a Parson, but of a Pastor, etc. And that this was his meaning, appeareth by the other allegation 
n In Apoc. 17.3. , wherein besides the titles and offices of the Popish hierarchy (among whom he reckoneth BB. Doctors & Priests) he addeth temporal governors also, as Emperors, Kings, Princes, Dukes, Earls, Lords, justices, Deputies, judges, Lawyers, Mayors, Bailiffs, Constables, etc. leaving their own duty offices (as to minister rightly) to serve their abomination.  
After these, for want of better proofs, he allegeth the testimony of the English men which were at Geneva in Queen Mary's time, and were the first authors of this contention for the pretended discipline among us; to whose testimony in their own cause, that they present to us the form of a Church limited within the compass of God's word, what should I answer, but that they have often said, but never will be able to prove, that their discipline is prescribed in God's word?  
Lastly, he allegeth M. Fox, whose testimony though in vain I sought in three several editions; yet his judgement is apparent, by that which may easily be found. He therefore saith, according to the refuters allegation, that in the Primitive Church there was not then any one mother Church (such as the church of Rome now pretendeth herself to be) above other Churches, but the whole universal Church was the mother Church, under which universal Church in general were comprehended all other particular Churches in special (he meaneth the Churches of several countries, and Provinces) as sister Churches together, not one greater than another but all in like equality. What will he hence conclude, that therefore there were no BB. nor Archbishop's? Not so. But that therefore as the Diocesan churches were equal, so were the BB. and as the Metropolitan churches were equal, so the Archbb. Hear Mr. Fox 
o Act. & Mon. pag. 20. edit. 1570.  himself where he debateth this question.  
If they say there must needs be distinction of degrees in the church, and in this distinction of degrees superiority must necessarily be granted for the outward discipline of the church for directing matters, for quieting of schisms, for setting orders, for commencing of Convocations & Councils as need shall require, etc. Against this superiority we stand not; and therefore we yield to our superior powers, Kings and Princes our due obedience, and to our lawful governors under God of both regiments, Ecclesiastical and Temporal. Also in the Ecclesiastical state we take not away the distinction of ordinary degrees, such as by the scripture be appointed, or by the Primitive Church allowed. As patriarchs or Archbb. BB. Ministers and Deacons, for of these four we especially read, as chief. In which four degrees, as we grant diversity of office, so we admit in the same also diversity of dignity: neither denying that which is due to each degree, neither yet maintaining the ambition of any singular person. For as we give to the Minister place above the Deacon, to the B above the Minister, to the Archbishop above the B. so we see no cause of inequality, why one Minister, should be above another minister: one Bishop in his degree above another B. to deal in his Diocese, or one Archbb. above another Archbishop. And this is to keep an order duly and truly in the church, etc. Here then is the question between us and the Papists, whether the Metropolitan church of Rome with the Archbb. of the same aught to be preferred before other Metropolitan churches and Archbb through universal Christendom or not?  

§ 11.  And thus I have examined his testimonies, which if you shall compare with those whereunto in the Sermon I referred the reader▪ you will acknowledge, that he had little cause, either to accuse my speech of untruth, or to justle out the Surveyors testimonies with his own, as though they had not been worthy to have been heard in comparison of his. Whereas indeed if there had been no more testimonies alleged, then of the authors of the Augustane con●ession and the subscribers thereunto (whom I especially meant being the men who first were called Protestants) my assertion had been sufficiently confirmed, though the refuter could have alleged the judgements of more particular men, than he hath done to the contrary.  
But I added in the Sermon, that howsoever the first reformers of religion (whom they call Protestants) did not disallow the Episcopal government, but simply desired the continuance thereof, (as I have now proved by their own testimonies) notwithstanding, when together with the Gospel, etc. ad pag. 97. li. a fine 4. In which words, I do partly excuse the ancient Protestants, who first yielded to the deposing of Bishops, and partly accuse the innovatours among ourselves.  

Histor. August. confess per Chytr. Non agitur ut dominatio eripiatur Episcopis, s●d hoc unumpetitur, ut patiantur evangelium purè ●oceri.  The former I excuse, because they desiring chiefly, and above all, the instauration of religion & propagation of the gospel, which could not be obtained while the Popish BB. retained their authority, were forced with the loss of the Episcopal government to redeem the free profession of the gospel.  
The refuter as if he were desirous to leave them without excuse, saith, that is a bad excuse, because it was easier to choose one fit man among them to be their B. then to find divers Pastors and Elders meet for the Presbyteries. 
See the confession of the church of Sueveland. Harm. confess. s. 11. Ad pag. 165. Conc. Afric. c. 22. & Carth. Grac. ●55.  I deny not, but that among them there were some fit to have been BB. yet the speech of the refuter is untrue. It being an easier matter as the Fathers of the African council professed, to find many fit men to be Presbyters (especially if the laity also afford fit men for that purpose) then to find one fit to be a B. But the refuter doth not consider, first who should have ordained them, secondly, how they should have been maintained, thirdly, and chiefly, whether the assistance of the civil Magistrates could have been had for deposing the BB. unless they had yielded both to the dissolution of the bishoprics, and to the alteration of the form of government, etc.  
Now that the Protestants which subscribed to the Augustane confession did simply desire the continuance of the Episcopal government; 
§ 12.  I prove, because so soon as they could, they procured the restitution thereof though under other names, because the names of BB. & Archbb. by reason of the corruptions of the Popish prelate's, were odious. And because the refuter shall no longer doubt, whether those Superintendents, and general superintendents placed in Protestant churches, be for the substance of their calling, 
De relig. obseru. in cap. 25. § 10. & 11.  the same with BB. & Archbb. he shall hear the judgement of Zanchius in this behalf Who after he had signified his approbation of the ancient form of government by BB. and Archbb. and had confirmed the same by the testimony of M. Bucer, he addeth for further confirmation the practice of reformed churches, some whereof both in deed & name have retained BB. & Archbb. and beside saith he, in the churches of Protestants there are re ipsa in very deed BB. and Archbb. whom having changed the good Greek names into bad latin words, they call Superintendents and general Superintendents.  
Hear the history of the Augustane confession. 
Hist. August. Confes. per Chytr.  Ministers may bereduced into 3. orders Deacons, Pastors & superintendents. Deacons we call young Ministers who are joined to Pastors etc. We call them Pastors, to whom though alone some church is safely committed, not doubting but that they may rule the same without a colleague. 
Loc. come. pag. 699. Suru. 118.  Superintendents we call these Pastors, who are set over other Pastors & Deacons. With us saith Heerbrand there are Deacons, Pastors, special superintendents, and over them general superintendents.  
But why in other churches the learned men have not restored BB. I gave this reason: for that they could not, either because the Popish BB. were still countenanced by the civil Magistrate, as in France: or because the form of civil government being after the expulsion of the B. changed into a popular state, could no more endure the government of a B. then Rome after the expulsion of Tarqvinius, the regiment of a King. The refuter saith they could, thereby insinuating that they would not. But doth he think that the Popish BB. in France countenanced by the state, would endure Antibishops to be set up against them in their Diocese? And for Geneva, is it not a plain case, that, that state was so far from admitting again the government of BB. that Calvin being out of hope to get a Presbytery established of Ministers alone, was feign to accept of a Presbytery wherein twelve Citizens are joined to six Ministers? neither is that to be omitted which Zanchius in the place before cited, doth add in the next words. But even in those Churches also where neither the good Greek names, nor the bad Latin names are used, notwithstanding there use to be some chief men, in whose hands all the authority almost is. Where therefore these be upheld and Bishops repelled it may seem to be but a controversy concerning the names, but when we agree of the things, why should we strive about the names? At Geneva, while Calvin lived, he was the perpetual precedent of their Ecclesiastical Senate, differing rather in name, than authority from a B. And Beza likewise for the space of ten years had the like authority, till Danaeus coming thither that course was altered. Since which time▪ Beza finding some inconveniences, which he knew not how to redress, hath sometimes signified his desire to some (whom I know) wishing with all his heart, that with the reformation of religion the Episcopal government in that church had been retained. And I have been very credibly informed, that the most learned and judicious Divines both in France, and Geneva, could well be contented, that the ancient government by BB. were renewed among them. which need not seem strange to us, seeing in the Church of Scotland, where the Geneva Discipline had for a long time been practised, notwithstanding, when the matter was referred to voices, of that great number which were assembled to that purpose, there were not above five which stood for the Presbyterian discipline, as I have been informed by some that were there.  
But there are two things more in the refuters answer to be touched; the one that against sense he chargeth me twice in this place as holding the government by BB. to be so necessary as that there cannot be a visible Church without it. I say, against sense, because in the former part of this section I acknowledged that where this government could not be had, others might be admitted: and in this place, I do not only excuse those Divines which wanting the Episcopal government brought in the Presbyteries, but also commend their fact as wisely performed.  
The other is, that out of a desire of contradicting me, he denieth the state of Geneva to be popular. But let Bodin who could discern between the divers forms of policy, be judge between us. 
De repub. l 2. c. 6. Anno. 1523.  The self same year saith he, that Andreas Doria did establish the Aristocracy at Geneva, did they of Geneva having expelled their B. change the Monarchy into a popular state. And after liberty was restored to the commonweal, although they ordained a Senate or Council of two hundred men, yet the people reserved to themselves the right & authority of making laws, of creating the chief Magistrates, of making war and concluding peace, which are the principal prerogatives of Sovereignty, called iura Maiestatis.  
In the latter part of this Section I did accuse the innovatours among us, affirming that as in those places where orthodoxal Bishops could not be had, Presbyteries were wisely brought in: so are they very inconsiderately obtruded on those churches, where Bishops most sound professing the Gospel of Christ are established; especially, considering that the government by Bishops is not only simply good, and lawful, but also in comparison to be preferred before the Presbyterian Discipline, as having better warrant. Here the refuter, who was so ready to take away the excuses which I brought for other churches, hath nothing to pretend as an excuse for himself and his consorts.  
§ 12.  Serm. Sect. 2. pag. 97. Let us now consider what practical uses etc. to the end. 
The practical uses concern, either those who live under the authority of the BB. or the reverend Fathers themselves. The former, that for as much as the government of Bishops is the ordinaance of God, we would reverence their persons, and obey their authority.  
The latter, that they would from this Text receive, both comfort and encouragement in good things; and also admonition, that as they are called stars and Angels, so they would endeavour to be answerable to their names.  

Ad pag. 166.  The latter use the refuter toucheth not, neither doth he gainsay the former, but professeth that what they are here exhorted unto, they are and have been careful to perform, appealing to all men whether they have not always reverenced the persons and obeyed the authority of Bishops. Whereunto, though I could say some thing; yet I will say no more but this; that as I wish it were true in respect of the time past, so I pray to God it may be verified of them for the time to come. Amen.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   
FINIS.   


Errata, In the first Book.  
Page 11. line 15. read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. P. 18. l. 8. pure, P. 39 l. 15. entire Church, P. 48. l. a sin. 3 Council or decree, p. 61. l. 20. deal or should, p. 66. l. 9 rather. pag. 67. l. a f. 5. M, D. meaning, p. 70. l, 1. call them, p. 87. l. 3. many new, p. 88 l. 6. as a l. 18. grandevis, p. 89. l. 20. but whether, 91. l. a f. 10. as well he, p. 97, Marg l: 3. pro 26. pag. 104. l. 24. and note P. 135. l. a f: 9 jointly, p. 152. l. ult. deal all the Lent, 153. marg. l. 3. Insubres, 156. l. 24. proposition, 157.20. matrix, 159. l. 8. Palestines, l. penult. sublimisas Ep scopalis, p. 161. l. 19 not unwilling, 163. l. 4. ìus Sacerd. substernit, 164. l. 9 Lay-elders▪ 165. l. a f. 6. Plane tree, 166. l. 13. silly Sophister, l. 18. maketh against me, 169. l. a f. 8. that T.C. th'. 170. l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 171 l. 19 commended, l. 26. Numidicus, l. ult. at the 176. marg. l. a f. 5. graecorom 177. l. 3. have suits, 178. l. a f. 4. coetum 179. l. 9 hath been, 180. l. 20. desidi●. l. 25. exposition, l. ult. the better 181. l. a f. 11. all these p. 189. l. 4. Decani i. Arch. p 196, marg. l. 4. sc. & praes. p. 198. l. 25. all one, 203. l. 12. let them examine 204. l. a f. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 208. l. 16. sanedrin. l. 18. Gabinius, 209. l. 5. if yeo, l. 11▪ argue et, 212. l. 18. Apostatical, 218. l. 10. referred, 222. l. 12. signifying, 231. l. penult. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 232. l. 22. Syria, 236. l. a f. 11. à Canone marg. l. 3. Duaren. 238. l. 18. or of.   

In the second Book.  
Page 2. l. a f. 6. City etc. p. 12. marg. l. 26. Tilius, l. a f. 8. Gangra. p. 14. l. ult Cerdo. p. 18. l. 1. Melitena, l. Penult they l. ult. their. p. 36. l. a f. 5. Matrix p. 40. l. 1. Coela p. 43. l. a f. 3. as the hip. p. 46. l. 5. of Christians, p. 47. l. 18. possible that deal but, p. 56. l. a f. 4. and always, p. 61. l. 16. Nicetas, p. 64. l. 2. & 20. Presbyteries, p. 76. l. 16. see Luk. l. 21. if nay, p. 80. l. 5. raw, p. 98. l. 13. greater, 104. l. 17. & 19 or 56. p. 122. l. 6. & 7. acknowledge, 125. l. a f. 6. I mean 128. l. 3. pernicious l. 21. Ministerial, 134. l. 23. Sasima, p. 135. l. a f. 3. villani, 139. marg. 31.32.33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   

In the third Book.  
Page 12. l. 7. opposition, p. 15. l. 5. was intended, p. 18. l. penult. Sabellius, p. 22. l. 4. of the p. 31. l. 4. and Councils, p. 33. l. 24. degrees not so seldom as 9 p. 34. l. 25. ascent. p. 44. l. a f. 8. Tilius, p. 59 l. a f. 7. did forbear. p. 60. marg. l. 1. Cornel ep. p. 61. l. 21. are called, p. 65. l. 11. deal him, l. 12. are so, p. 127. l. ult. to other, p. 146. l. 21. to his.   

The fourth Book.  
Page 6. l. 6. assume and p. 20. l. 16. business, p. 21. l. 27. did not, p. 23.14. as these, p. 26. l. ult. depositions p. 30. l. 7. of fact p. 69. l. a f. 9 reference, p. 84. l. 2. Apostle, p. 91 l. 8. Antoninus p. 98. l. a f, 4. I do not assume, p. 99 l. 8. his denial 113. l. 3. saving 117 l. 9 Presbiteries, p. 133. l. penult. understood, p. 134. l. a f. 9 would. p. 144. l. a f. 3. hath no● 151. l. a f. 14. in me 156. l. 15, inveighed.