cheife burden must lye vpon Mat. 18. dic Ecclesiae which hath bin before examined Beza making mention of one Morellius who pleaded in like manner for the popular gouernment giueth him this stile Democraticus quidam fanaticus shewing that these who plead that cause are lead with a phantasticall fanaticall spirit For is it not a phrensy to vrge the peoples supremacy in Church-gouernment is there any shew in scripture or in reason that the sheepe should rule their Shepheard or the flocke their Pastor But for the confutation of them I referre them to other Disciplinarians from whom they had their first grounds seing by this fancy they seeke to ouerturne as well those Churches where the Geneua discipline is established as ours The third dreame is that the lawes of Church-gouernment prescribed in the Epistles to Timothie and Titus were prouided for the democraticall state of the Church So that when Paul saith lay not thou hands on no man hastily you must vnderstand the speech directed not to Timothie to vvhom 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 vvhen hee saith doe not thou receiue an accusation c. it must be vnderstood of the people and Presbyterie After two or three admonitions doe thou auoid an hereticke or excommunicate him that is thou people What of Creet belike the whole Iland of Creet was a Parish too The next fancy is that the popular state of the seuerall Churches did first degenerate into an Aristocraty and after into a Monarchie But it is as cleare as the light that the seuerall Churches were at the first gouerned by the Apostles or Apostolicall men seuerally and that either perpetually as by Iames Marke c. or but for a time as by Peter Paul c. and that when the Apostles left the Churches they committed them to other Apostolicall men such as Timothie Titus Evodius Simon the sonne of Cleophas Linus Clemens c. communicating vnto them the same authority both for the worke of the ministery and for the power of ordination and iurisdiction which themselues had in those seuerall Churches and what authoritie each of them had their successors in the seuerall Churches had the same Neither haue our BB. at this day greater authority in menaging Church causes then Timothie and Titus and other the first Bishops had Who was to ordaine ministers in Creet and to gouerne 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-gouernment directed onely to Titus for Creet to Timothie for Ephesus and doth not this euidently shew that howsoeuer they might vse either the presence and consent of the people or the Counsell and aduise of the Presbyters in causes of greatest moment as Princes also doe in common-wealthes yet the sway of the Ecclesiasticall gouernment was in them It is therefore most plaine that in the Epistles to Timothie and Titus it is presupposed that they had Episcopall authority and that the rules and directions giuen to them are precedents for Bishops and patternes vnto them for the exercise of their Episcopall function And this I proue againe in my Sermon by another argument which the refuter hath framed thus Those things which were written to informe not Timothie and Titus alone as extraordinarie persons but them and their successors to the end of the world were written to informe Diocesan Bishops But those Epistles were written to informe not Timothie and Titus alone as extraordinarie persons but them and their successors to the end of the world Therefore they were written to informe Diocesan BB. The assumption for with that the refuter beginneth I proued by testimony and by reason And first by the testimony of Paul straightly charging Timothie that the commandements and directions which he gaue him should be kept inuiolable vntill the appearing of our Lord Iesus Christ therfore by such as should haue the like authority to the end Hereof Caluin saith thus nomine mandati significat quae hactenus de officio Timothie disseruit Vnder the name of the commandement he signifieth those things whereof hitherto he had discoursed concerning the office of Timothie And againe omnino ceriè ad ministerium Timothie refero I doe wholy referre it to the ministerie of Timothie For Paul wrot to this end to giue direction to Timothie how he should behaue himselfe in the Church which is the house of the liuing God Which directions he chargeth him Chap. 6. to obserue inuiolable vntill the comming of Christ which could not be performed in the person of Timothie who was not to continue to the end but in a succession of them who should haue the like authority vntill the end T. C. and other Disciplinarians hauing fancied that the Apostles had giuen direction in that Epistle for onely-gouerning Elders hereupon conclude that they are to be continued vntill the comming of Christ So that they can conclude vpon 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 Timothie did beare for the execution whereof all these directions are giuen is concluded vpon the same ground The second testimonie was of Ambrose writing on those vvords of Paul saying that Paul is so circumspect not because he doubted of Timothie his care but in regard of his successors that they after the example of Timothie might continue the well ordering of the Church The reason whereby I proued that Paul giueth direction not to Timothie and Titus onely as to extraordinary persons but to them and their successors vntill the end of the world was because the authority which was committed to them for the execution whereof the Apostle giueth his directions is perpetually necessary without the which the Church neither can be gouerned as without iurisdiction neither yet continued as without ordination therefore not peculiar to extraordinary persons but by an ordinary deriuation to be continued in those who are the successors of Timothie and Titus The effect of the refuters answere is that he could be content to graunt this assumption were it not that he is resolued to deny the conclusion which followeth thereupon For first hee granteth Pauls purpose to instruct those that should succeed Timothie and Titus in the authoritie which they had but not in their office And that this authoritie 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 iurisdiction might be continued without Bishops c. It is sufficient for the truth of the assumption which the refuter granteth that what Paul did write to Timothie Titus he wrote not to
Alexandrinus and Eusebius Finally that the Apostles committed the Church which is in euery place to Bishops whom they ordayned leauing them their successours testified by Irenaeus and Tertullian who saith that as Smyrna had Polycarpe from S. Iohn and Rome Clement by the appointment of Peter so the rest of the Churches can shew quos ab Apostolis in Episcopatum constitutos Apostoliâ—i seminis traduces habent what Bishops they haue ordayned by the Apostles the deriuers of the Apostolicall seed To all this he hath nothing to answere but that which heretofore hath beene fully refuted that these Bishops were but ordinary Pastors of particular congregations c. saâ—ing that he taketh also exception against their assertion who said that Bishops be the successors of the Apostles But not onely Irenaeus and Tertullian haue auouched so much but diuers others of the Fathers as Cyprian Ierome and Augustine Cyprian saith praepositi that is Bishops Apostolis vicaria ordinatione succedunt succeed the Apostles as being ordained in their steed And Ierome saith omnes Episcopi Apostolorum successores sunt all Bishops are the successors of the Apostles And againe he saith Episcopâ—s Apostolis succedere And Theodoret calleth the gouernment of Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And likewise Basill 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the presidency of Apostles who haue deliuered to Bishops as Irenaeus saith their owne place of gouernment in the seuerall Churches And this is that which both Ierome and Augustine expounding those words of the 45. Psalme pro patribus nati tibi sunt filij haue deliuered that insteed of the Apostles Bishops were ordayned gouernours of the Church in all parts of the world Which point is duely to be considered For hereby it is manifest that the Bishops haue receiued and deriued their authority from the Apostles whose successors they are not onely in respect of doctrine as all other true ministers but also in the gouernment of the seuerall Churches And when the Disciplinarians can shew the like warrant for their Presbyteryes especially of Lay-elders or our refuter and his good friends the Brownists for the cheife authority of the people we will harken to them Once it is euident that Christ committed the authority and gouernment of his Church to his Apostles who were to deriue the same to others Wherefore who haue any ordinary right they haue receiued the same from the Apostles So Timothie and Titus receiued their authority from Paul Linus from Peter and Paul Policarpus from Iohn c. And all other the first Bishops from the Apostles from whom by a perpetuall succession it hath beene deriued to the Bishops which are at this day But where is any euidence of the like deriuation from the Apostles of authority to the people of Lay-elders I know not Thus haue I made good my former proofes that the Episcopall function is of Apostolicall institution The V. CHAPTER Answering the allegations out of Ierome Serm. Sect. 11. pag. 87. Against all this that hath beene said to proue that the Episcopall function is of Apostolicall institution the authoritie of Ierome is obiected c. to page 89. AGainst the testimonies of men saith the refuter what is fitter to be obiected then 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 duely examined iust exception may be taken against euery branch thereof For first hee would insinuate that nothing hath beene brought to iustifie the calling of Bishops besides the testimonies of men when besides the testimonies of men I haue brought good euidence of sound reason and besides that better proofe out of the scriptures to warrant the Episcopall function then euer was or will be brought for the Presbyterian discipline Againe it were fitter and to better purpose against the testimonies of men if I had produced no other proofe to haue brought either testimonies of scripture or sound reasons or for want of them the testimonie of so many and so approued authors to counterpoise the weight of their authorities who haue beene alledged on the contrary part But scriptures failing reasons wanting testimonies of other Fathers being to seeke Ierome alone must be faine to beare the whole burden of this cause For though some latter writers may be alledged to the like purpose yet all is but Ierome Whose not onely iudgement they follow but reteyne his words Neither doth Ierome so oft dispute this question or determine the contrary as the refuter in his shallow conceipt imagineth Or if any wheres he doth determine the contrary against that which was commonly auouched both by himselfe and others his determination deliuered in heat of disputation ought not to be of so great weight as what he hath deliuered not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in heat of contention but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dogmatically or historically For Ierome was but a Presbyter and there were two things in his time which might prouoke him by way of contention to say more in the behalfe of his degree then doth exactly agree with the truth The one was that the Bishops of those times did too much depresse the Presbyters For they might not onely in their presence not preach nor baptize nor administer the Communion but also in some places they might not preach at all nor any where baptize vnlesse they fetched their Chrisme from the Bishop against which practises of the Bishops Ierome in some places of his works doth inueigh 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 themselues better men then the Presbyters For the confutation of whom he seeketh to aduance the Presbyters aboue the Deacons as much as he can and may seeme to match them more then truth would permit with the Bishops For which the onely 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 owne writings ouerturned But let vs examine the particulars First it is alledged out of Ierome that vntill factions did arise in the Church some saying I am of Paul I am of Apollo c. the Churches were gouerned by the common counsell of the Presbyters but when they began to draw Disciples after them namely such as themselues had baptised it was agreed in the whole world that one being chosen from among the Presbyters should be set ouer the rest to whom the whole care of the Church should belong and that the seede of schismes might be taken away Whereunto I answered first that this speech in respect of the Church of Ierusalem is vntrue which was first gouerned by the Apostles in common and after committed to Iames in particular before we read of any Presbyters
vniuersall to be Aristocraticall because as our Sauiour Christ ascending into Heauen left his twelue Apostles as it were twelue Patriarches aunswerable to the Princes of the twelue tribes furnished with equall authority and power whose colledge was the supreme Senate of the vniuersall church so they committed the Churches to Bishops as their successours being equall in degree who as they gouerne the Churches seuerally so ioyntly with other gouernors are the highest Senate of the vniuersall Church But it was neuer practised in the Church of God that any presbyters or pastors of parishes should be called to generall councils to haue right of suffrage and authority to judge and determine those matters which were debated in those councils but both they and Deacons I meane some of them were to attend their Bishop to assist him with their priuate counsell and aduice which one argument by the way doth notably set forth the superiority of Bishops ouer 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 seuerall Churches to the whole congregation stand for a popular state rather then Aristocraticall Whereas indeed the gouernment of Churches as they are prouinciall are according to the ancient Canons which are in vse with vs gouerned by prouinciall synodes and therefore by a regiment Aristocraticall So that of this syllogisme the proposition is false the assumption is gainesaid by themselues and the conclusion confuting their owne assertion agreeth with the practise of prouinciall churches with vs. § 4. His other inference is this If the gouernment of the seurall Churches may be monarchicall then by the same reason the gouernment of the whole Church may be monarchicall But the gouernment of the whole Church may not be monarchicall therefore the gouernment of the seueral Churches may not This consequence is vnsound there being not the like reason of the whole Church and of the parts And that is the answere which ouâ— men doe make to the papists when they vrge this reason as there was but one high priest for the gouernment of the Church vnder the Law so there should be but one chiefe Bishop for the gouernment of the whole Church They answere there is not the like reason betweene the Church of one nation and of the whole world Cal. Inst. li. 4. ca. 6. s. 2. Gentis vnius totius orbis longè diuersa est ratio perinde est ac siquis contendat totum mundum a praefecto vno debere regi quia ager vnus non plures praefectos habeat For of the vniuersall Church Christ onely is the head which supreame and vniuersal gouernment if any man shall assume to himselfe as the Pope of Rome doth thereby he declareth himselfe to be Antichrist or emulus Christi sitting in the Church of God as God and lifting vp himselfe aboue all that is called God But as touching the seuerall Churches those who be the lieutenants of Christ may be called the heads or gouernors thereof as soueraigne princes of all states and persons within their dominions Metropolitans of prouinciall Churches Bishops of their dioces and Pastors of their seuerall flocks Secondly whereas particular men are enabled by God to gouerne seuerall churches no mortall man is able to weild the gouernment of the whole Church which is one of the maine arguments which our writers vse against the monarchicall gouernment of the whole Church which this refuter seeketh in vaine to infringe The Romane Emperors when their Empire was at the largest and they esteemed themselues Lords of the world enioying indeed not one third part of the whole yet finding themselues vnable to weild so great a burden were faine to assume colleagues vnto them with whom they parted the Empire when they might haue retained the whole Thirdly the monarchicall gouernment of the whole Church would proue dangerous and pernicious to the same if that one head or Monarch thereof should fall into errour or idolatry especially he being so aboue the whole Church as that he should not be subiect to a generall Councell But the heads of seuerall Churches if they erre or fall may by the Synodes of other Bishops be brought into order or deposed Examples whereof we haue in all euen the chiefe seats of Bishops as of Marcellinus at Rome Paulus Samosatenus at Antioch Dioscorus at Alexandria Nestorius and Macedonius at Constantinople c. Cyprian writing to Stephanus Bishop of Rome about the deposing of Martianus Bishop of Arles saith Idcirco copiosum corpus est Sacerdotâ—â— concordiâ— muâ—na glutino atque vnitatis vinculo copulatum vt si quis ex collegio nostro haeresim facere gregâ—m Christi lâ—cerare vastare tentauerit subueniant cateri c. Fourthly to the head of seuerall Churches the members may haue easie and speedie recourse for clearing of doubts and deciding of controuersies c. But from all parts of the world men could not without infinite trouble besides manifold inconueniences repaire 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 but without any disaduantage to my cause the odious consequence of the proposition which is so oft vrged being vnsound If therefore he can no better disproue the Supremacy of the Pope then he doth the superioritie of Bishops it were better he should be silent then busie himselfe in matters aboue his reach The other part of his idle flourish is a vaine bragge that were it not for that cause he should not neede to busie himselfe in answearing or examining this point For if neither the Churches were dioceses nor the Bishops Diocesan to what end should wee enquire what power or iurisdiction they had But the Churches were dioceses and the BB. diocesan as I haue manifestly proued before and as those Disciplinarians do confesse with whom chiefly I deale in this point who granting that the Churches were dioceses and the Bishops diocesan doe notwithstanding deny the superiority of Bishops in degree c. § 5. Now that the state of the controuersie betwixt vs and them may appeare I shew wherein the Presbyterians agree with vs and wherein they dissent from vs. But first he findeth fault that I call them Presbyterians as sometimes I doe also Disciplinarians though thereby I meane no other but such as doe stand for the Presbytery and for that discipline being loth either to call them aduersaries whom I acknowledge to be brethren or to offend them with the title of Puritans wherewith others doe vpbraid them And howsoeuer he in bitter scorne doth say that of my charity I doe in scorne so call them I doe professe vnfainedly that out of a charitable mind I did terme them Presbyterians not knowing how to speake of them as dissenting from vs more
antecedent I prooue by Pauls substituting Timothe at Ephesus and Titus in Creet to that end that they might ordaine elders notwithstanding that there were diuerse Presbyters in both those Churches before Whereto he answereth that it had been lawfull for the Presbyters and people to haue ordained but at the first they were lesse fit for the purpose then an Euangelist That the people sometimes haue had some stroake in election of their Bishops I do not denie but that they euer had any right to ordaine can neuer be proued That the Presbyters had right to haue done it he should haue declared But what Presbyters doth he speake of ministers they I trust if the new conceit be true were confined ech man to his own parish neither might they intermeddle in other parishes euerie parish hauing sufficient authoritie within it selfe neither can it be thought that the Presbyters of latter times should be fit and that they which were ordained by the Apostles themselues were not fit for the execution of their power assuredly if it were not fit for them to ordaine but for Timothe and Titus by the same reason neither is it fit for Presbyters afterwards but for Bishops who succeeded Timothe and Titus Jf he say the lay Presbyters and the people had right to ordaine he must first proue which he will neuer be able to doe that euer there were such Presbyters and then he must proue that they and the people had right to ordaine ministers which when he hath performed he may hope to proue any thing The latter part of the antecedent I proue thus Who were the successors of Timothe and Titus for the gouernment of Ephesus and Creet to them after their decease was their power of ordination deriued The Bishops of Ephesus and Creet were the successessours of Timothe and Titus for the gouernment of those Churches and not Presbyters Therefore to the BB. and not to the Presbyters was the power of Ordination deriued Hereto he answereth that Timothe and Titus were Euangelists and not Bishops and therefore that which followeth of deriuing their authoritie to their successors is meerely idle Thus no part of my syllogisme is answeared vnlesse it be the conclusion But to answeare his reason whereby he goeth about 〈◊〉 clâ—â—â— pelâ—ere their being Euangelists 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 antiquitie with one consent testifieth when they were assigned to certaine Churches Neither is it greatly materiall as touching the force of this argument whether they were Euangelists or Bishops seeing the power which they had of ordination and jurisdiction was not to dye with them but to be transmitted to them who should succeed them in the gouernment of the Church Now that the Bishops of Ephesus and Creet and so of all other Churches did succeed Timothe and Titus and other Apostolicall men who were the first gouernors of the Churches is a most certaine truth as the singular succession of Bishops in those Churches from the Apostles times doth ineuitably euince But hereof I shall haue better occasion hereafter to speake Now that the Presbyters were not their successors it is euident for they had the selfesame authoritie and no greater vnder the Bishops who were successors to Timothe and Titus which before they had vnder them For they which had no other authoritie after them then they had vnder them could not be their successors Serm Sect. 7. p. 37. They obiect 1. Tim. 4.14 Neglect not the gift which is in thee which was giuen thee by imposition of hands of the Presbytery c. to ex authoritate pag. 39. MY answere to this testimony out of 1. Tim. 4. is That howsoeuer the Presbyterians doe vpon this place especially build the authoritie of their pretended Presbyteries yet this text maketh not for them That it maketh not for them I proue by this reason If there be but two expositions which are giuen of the word Presbyterie neither whereof doth fauour their presbyteries then the authoritie of their Presbyteries cannot be concluded out of this place But neither of the two expositions do fauour their Presbyteries Therefore their authoritie cannot be concluded hence The exceptions which he taketh against this answere are very friuolous As first that how many expositions soeuer any text in the conceit of men may admit the holy ghost except by way of allegorie intendeth but one Be it so but yet there may be question which of the diuerse expositions which be giuen is the sense of the holy Ghost vnlesse that must needs be alwaies the meaning of the holy Ghost which the refuter fancieth For my part I did not take vpon me to determine whether sense is the more likely Jt was sufficient for me that whereas there be but these two expositions which are or can be giuen neither of both maketh for the pretended Presbyteries His first exception therefore is to no purpose Now that the former exposition vnderstanding by Presbyterium the Priest-hood or office of a Presbyter maketh nothing for their Presbyteries it is more then euident And that this exposition which so plainly defeateth their Presbyteries is very probable I shewe first because the word is in that sense oft vsed though not in the new testament yet in greeke writers of the Church It suffiseth the Refuter that it is not vsed in that sense in any other place of Scripture and yet himselfe saying that the word is no wheres else vsed in all the Scriptures doth as much prejudge his own exposition as this How be it I do not deny but the worde is else where vsed in the Scriptures onely this I say that there is no other place wherein it can be drawne to signifie the Christian Presbyterie meaning either the company of Presbyters or the office of a Presbyter This then being the onely place where it is so vsed we must not expect parallele places in the Scripture to confirme either sense Secondly I shew that this may be the sense because not onely diuerse in former times as Ierome Primasius Anselmus Haymo Lyra but Caluin also doe so expound it To this his answere is worse then friuolous that though these writers doe so expound it yet Doctor Bilson doth not say that therefore it may be so vnderstood And why so I pray you because he confesseth that Chrysostome Theodoret and other Graecians expound it of the persons which did ordaine not of the function whereto Timothe was ordained Doth not Doctor Bilson say it may be so vnderstood when more then once he mentioneth it as one of the receiued expositions of that place approued by Caluin himselfe the chiefe patron for I must not say founder of the Presbyterian Discipline neither doth his relating of Chrysostomes exposition proue that he rejecteth the other no more then his alledging of Ieromes interpretation doth argue that he refuseth that of Chrysostomes but
dissolued the former standing thus If in the Epistles to Timothie and Titus it be presupposed that Paul had ordayned Timothie and Titus Bishops of Ephesus and Creet then is it true that they vvere by him ordayned BB. of those Churches But the antecedent is true Therefore the consequent That the antecedent is true I proue by this reason because it is presupposed in the Epistles that the Apostle had committed to them Episcopall authority both in respect of Ordination and Iurisdiction to be exercised in those Churches Against which consequence this onely thing can be obiected that the Episcopall authority might be committed to them not as ordinarie Bishops or Pastors of those Churches but as extraordinarie gouernours or Euangelists which afterwards is answered To this argument the Refuter answereth not The second he frameth thus If the Epistles written to Timothie and Titus be the very patternes and precedents of the Episcopall function whereby the Apostle enformeth them and in them all Bishops how to exercise their function then Timothie 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 shew yet was it confuted long agoe 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 on-set to disproue the consequence First for the consequence it selfe I auouch thus much that from that antecedent I might not onely haue inferred that particular that therefore these two to whom the Epistles were written were Bishops but in generall that the function of Bishops whose authority and office is described and the manner of the execution thereof prescribed in the directions giuen to Timothie 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. answere to that consequence I haue taken speciall notice heretofore and did greatly wonder that hee could satisfie himselfe with such a friuolous answer And I do no lesse wonder at the Refuters either lacke of iudgement who tooke that answere for good payment or want of consideration and care of T. C. credit in referring vs to so sleight and friuolous an euasion For whereas D. Whitgift argueth thus That Timothie was Bishop the whole course of the Epistles written vnto him declareth wherein is contayned the office and dutie of a Bishop and diuers precepts peculiarly pertayning to that function T. C. answereth that by this reason he might as well proue that Timothie was a deacon or a widdowe an olde man or an olde woman seeing in those Epistles the Apostle wrote of their duties Yea rather that hee 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 giuen to wine and not being a young Christian could haue no place in Timothies instruction Not to argue with T. C. but to let him rest in peace can the Refuter be so ignorant or without iudgement as to thinke that D. Whitgift when hee spoke of the whole course and tenure of the Epistles did meane onely the description of a B. or Minister set downe in the beginning of the third chapter of the former Epistle if that had beene his argument hee had argued thus Paul directeth Timothie what manner of men to ordayne Bishops or Ministers and likewise Deacons Therefore Timothie himselfe was a B. or Minister or likewise a Deacon Is it not plaine that by the whole course hee vnderstandeth all those directions which are giuen to Timothie throughout the Epistles for the discharge of his office either in respect of the Ministerie common to all Ministers or of his Episcopall function chiefly in regard either of Ordination or Iurisdiction vnto which heads the precepts directions in those Epistles are to be referred for when he speaketh of the duties of men and women olde and young hee directeth Timothie and in like manner Titus what to preach When hee describeth the qualities of Ministers and Deacons and Widowes he directeth him what manner of Ministers and Deacons to ordayne and Widowes to admit And whereas D. Whitgift hauing said that in those Epistles diuers precepts pertaine peculiarly to the Episcopall function T.C. chalengeth him to shew him any one precept in those Epistles which is proper to a B It is not hard to shew him more then one as lay thy hands hastily on no man Against a Presbyter or Minister receiue not an accusation but vnder two or three witnesses c. These are perpetuall directions which were not common eyther to other Christians or other Ministers therefore peculiar to BB. And this was T. C. confutation of the Proposition Now let vs heare what the Refuter can say The Proposition saith hee is grounded vpon a false supposition and what is that that the Apostle by describing in these Epistles the rules to be obserued in ordination and iurisdiction intended to informe Timothie and Titus as BB. and in them all other BB. how to carry themselues in those matters Is this the Supposition whereon the Proposition is grounded Alas good man you know not what the Hypothesis or Supposition of an Hipotheticall Proposition is this which you suppose to be the Supposition of the Proposition is plainly the Assumption of the Syllogisme which your selfe framed But because the Refuter hath confounded himselfe with his owne hypotheticall or connexiue Proposition I will propound my Argument in another forme Whosoeuer describing vnto Timothie and Titus their office and authoritie as they were Gouernours of the Churches of Ephesus and Creet and prescribing their dutie in the execution thereof and that as afterwards I shew to be performed by them and their Successours till the comming of Christ doth plainely describe the office and authoritie and prescribe the dutie of BB hee doth presuppose them to be BB the one of Ephesus the other of Creet But Paul in his Epistles to Timothie and Titus describing vnto them their office and authoritie as they were Gouernours of the Churches of Ephesus and Creet and prescribing their dutie in the execution thereof to be performed by them and their successours vntill the comming of Christ doth plainly describe the office and authority and prescribe the duty of BB. Therefore Paul in his Epistles to Timothie and Titus presupposeth them to be Bishops the one of Ephesus the other of Creet This Proposition because I know not what can be obiected against it T. C. and the Refuter hauing assailed it in vaine I will once againe take for granted The assumption I proue by those particulars wherein the Episcopall authoritie doth chiefly consist both in respect of Ordination Tit. 1.5 1 Tim. 5.22 and also of Iurisdiction they being the censurers of other Ministers
as we see in Matthew and Iohn so Euangelists might be Bishops as we see in Marke But as for Timothie Titus the Greeke Writers expounding that place plainely say they were not Euangelists but Pastors or Bishops For they after they were placed the one in Ephesus the other in Creet did not trauaile vp and downe as in former times when they accompanied the Apostle but ordinarily remained with their flockes The Greeke Scholiast saith thus Euangelists◠that is those which did write the Gospell Pastors◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hee meaneth such as had the Churches committed to them such as Timothie was such as Titus And to the same purpose both Chrysostome and Theophylact doe mention them by name Neither was it a debasing of Timothie and Titus when they were made Bishops but an aduancement Forwhereas before they were but Presbyters though called Euangelists in a large sence they were now made the Apostles of those Churches and by imposition of hands ordayned Bishops In the second place hee taketh exception against those words where I say they were furnished with Episcopall power and denieth that when Timothie Titus were assigned to Ephesus and Creet they receiued 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 Timothie after hee had beene at and gone from Ephesus to doe the worke of an Euangelist If they receiued no new authority why did Timothie receiue a new ordination by imposition of hands whereof the Apostle speaketh in two places and which the Fathers vnderstand of his ordination to be Bishop were men admitted to the extraordinarie function of Euangelists by the ordinarie meanes of imposing hands or may we thinke that any but the Apostles being not assigned as Bishops to seuerall Churches had that authority wheresoeuer they came which Timothie had at Ephesus and Titus in Creet verily Philippe the Euangelist though hee conuerted diuers in Samaria and baptized them yet had not authority to impose hands whereby men might be furnished with graces for the Ministerie but the Apostles Peter and Iohn were sent thither to that purpose And whereas Paul willeth Timothie to doe the worke of an Euangelist what is that but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to preach the Gospell diligently and to fulfill his Ministerie or to make it fully knowne the word Euangelist being there taken in the generall sence Now what his Ministerie was Ierome Sedulius declare Ministerium tuum imple Episcopatus scilicet Fulfill thy Ministerie that is to say as thou art a Bishop Now that their being Euangelists did not hinder them from being Bishops when ceasing from their trauailing about they were assigned to these particular Churches I proued by the testimony of Zuinglius who saith that Philip the Euangelist who had beene one of the Deacons was afterwards Bishop of Caesarea Iames the Apostle was Bishop of Ierusalem and diuers of the Apostles which may much more be verified of the Euangelists when they ceased from their peregrinations became Bishops of certaine 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 thinke that none of the Fathers or ancient historiographers knew whom to call Bishops and whom not But the refuter and his fellows onely haue this knowledge Yea but a certaine learned man saith that when the Fathers call Peter or Iames or any of the Apostles Bishops they doe not take the name Bishop properly For Peter I graunt but of Iames there is another reason as I haue shewed before And although it were true that Apostles could not properly be called Bishops yet what is that to Timothie and Titus whom I haue proued notwithstanding their supposed Euangelisticall function to haue beene particularly assigned by Paul to the Churches of Ephesus and Creet where also they liued and dyed His other answere is that howsoeuer Zuinglius speake of their being Bishops it is manifest by his writings he neither thought they were and so belike spake otherwise then he thought nor any other might be a Diocesan B. as by a testimony hereafter alledged appeareth where he saith no such thing I will therefore adde another testimony of Zuinglius in the same booke when Paul said to Timothie doe the vvorke of an Euangelist Timothie was a Bishop vvherefore it is certaine according to Pauls opinion the office of an Euangelist and of a Bishop is all one After I had thus answered these two obiections I brought a new supply of arguments to proue Timothie and Titus to haue beene Bishops of Ephesus and Creet And first by occasion of his second obiection I argue thus The function and authoritie which Timothie and Titus did exercise in Ephesus and Creet was either extraordinarie and Euangelisticall as the Disciplinarians teach or else ordinarie and Episcopall as we hold But it was not extraordinary and Euangelisticall Therefore ordinary and Episcopall The assumption I proued thus The supposed Euangelisticall function of Timothie and Titus was to end with their persons and admitted no succession being as themselues teach both extraordinary and temporary But the function and authority which they had as being assigned to certaine Churches viz. of Ephesus and Creet consisting especially in the power of ordination and iurisdiction was not to end with their persons but to be continued in their successors Therefore the function and authority which Timothie and Titus had as being assigned to Ephesus and Creet was not extraordinary and Euangelisticall Here the refuter would make his reder belieue that I hauing before denyed the consequence of the second obiection doe also deny the antecedent and in this place reason against it But I doe not deny they were Euangelists howsoeuer I doe not conceiue their Euangelisticall function to haue beene such and so great as the refuter and other Disciplinarians suppose and therefore I call it their supposed Euangelicall function Now that I did not intend to deny or disproue that antecedent but to bring a new supply of arguments taking occasion by the last obiection appeareth by those words which I premised as it were an introduction to this argument hereof we may conclude thus But let vs heare what he answereth Forsooth he flatly denyeth the assumption wherein though he vntruely say that I begge the question that Timothie and Titus were assigned to Ephesus and Creet as ordinarie Bishop or Pastors of those Churches for that I doe assume but conclude yet hath he nothing to disproue it but a meere begging of the question and denyall of the conclusion rather then the assumption viz. that they had no assignment to those Churches but onely as euangelists which doth not touch the assumption no more then that which followeth Neither by that Euangelisticall office
vvarrant I vvould say the Monarchy as hauing diuine both institution and approbation But yet so as vvhere this cannot so vvell be had the other formes of gouernment be lawfull Euen so in the Church of euery country that there should be a power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment 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 tanquam acies ordinata But whether the sway of spiritual authority shold be in one alone of euery Church or in more it seemeth not to be so essentiall though I must confesse that both in the Church of the Iewes by the appointment of God it vvas in one namely the high Priest and likewise in the primitiue Churches as hath beene shewed And as touching the title that seemeth also to be variable For the gouernours in the Church of the Iewes came to their places by succession and lineall descent but in the Churches of Christ by free election after Gods first immediate calling Now if we shall enquire what forme of Church-gouernment hath the best warrant hereby we may be resolued For it is manifest that our Sauiour Christ committed the power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment cheifly to his Apostles and that they being seuered into diuers parts of the world did gouerne the particular Churches which they had collected seuerally And howsoeuer there were diuers things extraordinary in the Apostles and peculiar to their persons as their immediat calling from Christ their vnlimited function hauing authority to exercise their Apostolicall power wheresoeuer they came their admirable extraordinary gifts of wisedome of languages of miracles their infallible inspiration direction of the holy Ghost preseruing them from errour 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 deriued to others as the power to preach the Gospell and to administer the Sacraments and publicke prayer or liturgy the power to ordayne ministers and Pastors the power of the keyes for gouernment and exercise of Ecclesiasticall censures Now the power of preaching the word and administring the Sacraments was not from the Apostles communicated to euery Christian but to such as they ordayned ministers and by the imposition of their hands communicated that power to them The power of ordination and publicke iurisdiction was not committed by the Apostles neither to other Christians nor yet to all ministers whom they ordayned but after the ordination of Presbyters in each Church they reserued the power of ordination and publicke iurisdiction in their owne hands which after a time they communicated to those whom they set ouer the seuerall Churches to that very purpose viz. to ordayne Presbyters and to exercise publicke iurisdiction which manifestly appeareth by the Epistles to Timothie and Titus Thus was Timothie set ouer the Church of Ephesus Titus of Creet Linus of Rome Evodius of Antioch Simon of Ierusalem Marke of Alexandria c. and what authority was from the Apostles communicated to them was from them deriued to their successors not onely since but euen 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 Euaristus what Marke had at Alexandria the same after him had Anianus Abilius and Cerdo and all these in the Apostles times and what Timothie had at Ephesus the same had Gaius who if Dorotheus is to be creditted was his next successor Onesimus after him and Polycrates and euery one of those twenty seauen mentioned in the Councill of Chalcedon which from Timothie to that time had beene successiuely the Bishops of Ephesus These to my vnderstanding are plaine euidences to warrant the Episcopall function and to shew the deriuation of their authority from the Apostles and to perswade Christians to preferre that forme of gouernment before others For as I added and will now repeate a reason vvhich the refuter might more easily elude vvith a male pert speech calling it wauing and crauing then to answere vvith soundnesse of reason and euidence of truth If the Apostles vvhiles themselues liued thought it necessary that is needfull and behoofefull for the well ordering of the Churches already planted to substitute therein such as Timothie and Titus furnished with Episcopall power then much more after their decease haue the Churches need of such gouernours But the former is euident by the Apostles practise in Ephesus and Creet and all other Apostolicall Churches Therefore the latter may not be denyed All which notwithstanding I doe not deny but that where the gouernment by Bishops cannot be had another forme may be vsed because the modus or forme of being in the B. alone doth not seeme so to be of diuine ordinance but that it may vpon necessity be altered But if any shall reply that howsoeuer in ciuill gouernment the forme is variable yet for Church gouernment we are to keepe vs close to the word of God and what hath warrant there we are to hold perpetuall and vnchangeable by men as some of our Disciplinarians vse to argue I wish them to looke to this inference For if they doe not leaue that hold they must needes grant that the Episcopall function hauing that vvarrant in the Scriptures which I haue shewed is to be holden iure diuine And whereas to confute me or rather to fight with his owne shadow hee saith that other reformed Churches haue continued many yeares and may doe more without Bishops I confesse they haue and I wish they may continue to the end in the sincere profession of the truth But where hee saith that they haue continued in more quietnesse then ours hath done or is like to doe for that wee may thanke him and other vnquiet spirits who haue troubled the peace of Israell with vrging and obtruding their owne fancies for the ordinances of God To these reasons I added the testimonies of antiquity which with a generall consent beareth witnesse to this truth that Timothie was B. of Ephesus and Titus of Creet Of all which the Refuter maketh very light All that remaineth to proue that Timothie was B. of Ephesus and Titus of Creet is no more but this the subscriptions to the Epistles to Titus and 2 to Timothie call them Bishops as also the generall consent of the ancient Fathers and histories of the Church doe No more quoth he but the generall consent of antiquity in a matter of fact agreeable with the Scriptures Why the testimony of some one of the Fathers affirming it ought to be of more weight with vs then the deniall of the same by all the Disciplinarians in the world But let vs come to the particulars First I alledged the subscriptions annexed to the end of the Epistle to Titus and second to Timothie wherein the one is said to haue
there ordained The refuter replieth that my consequence is naught for euen whiles the Church was gouerned in common by the Apostles it was not gouerned without the counsell of the Presbyters of the same Church much lesse did Iames afterwards take the whole authority into his owne hands from them Which exception of his is of no force because there were no Presbyters ordayned in that Church when it was gouerned by the common counsell of the Apostles and I added which he should haue disproued if he would haue said any thing to the purposâ— that Iames was assigned Bishop to that Church before we read of any Presbyters ordayned in or to that Church For if Iames were Bishop of that Church before it had Presbyters then was not that Church ruled by the common counsell of Presbyters before they had a Bishop Iames indeed after he was Bishop ordayned Presbyters whose counsell and assistance he did vse in the gouernment and instruction of that Church as other Bishops vsed to doe in the like case as wee read Act. 15. and 21. Yea but the whole multitude saith he as appeareth by Act. 6.2.5 had the choise of Church-officers What then therefore the Church was not gouerned by the common counsell of the Apostles or was gouerned by the common counsell of Presbyters Because the Greekish Iewes which had their Liturgy and scriptures in the Greeke tongue were discontented with the Apostles distribution of the Churches stocke the Apostles therefore to auoid contention and scandall and to giue euery one contentment departed from their right and willed the whole multitude to choose seauen whom wee say the Apostles may appoint to this busines Surely if where the Presbyters are erected the people who doe contribute to the releife of the poore are permitted to make choise of ouerseers collectors for the poore it wer but a simple consequence to inferre hereupon that therefore the Churches are not gouerned by the common counsell of Presbyters And to as little purpose or rather lesse is that which followeth If the Apostles altogether or Iames alone afterterwards had by vertue of their extraordinarie calling the power of ordination and iurisdiction in â—heir hands in that as in all other Churches yet the Pastors of the Churches afterwards being no Apostles had no such vnlimited power and so Ierome still speaketh truely of the ordinary gouernment of the Church And so Ierome still spake vntruely in respect of the Church of Ierusalem I doe confesse this was peculiar to the Church of Ierusalem and differing from the order of other Churches that the Church of Ierusalem had a Bishop before it had Presbyters of her owne And therefore though I did not deny his speech to be vntrue in respect of other Churches yet I proued it to be vntrue in respect of Ierusalem by his owne 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 pratleth of Iames his sole power exercised in the Church of Ierusalem by vertue of his extraordinarie calling is altogether impertinent seeing Ierome of whom the question is confesseth that hee was Bishop and ruled that Church as the Bishop thereof thirtie yeeres Neither is it true that the ordinarie Pastors of that Church had not the like power therein which Iames had For there is no question but what authority Iames had in the gouernment of that particular Church of Ierusalem Simon his successor had the same and all the Bishops of Ierusalem after him Now that Ieromes speech was vntrue in respect of Ierusalem I proued by Ieromes owne testimony affirming that Iames straight wayes after the passion of our Lord was by the Apostles ordayned Bishop of Ierusalem Here the refuter hath found out a quirke which if it were true would not yet serue his turne The quirke is that Ierome is mistaken by false pointing and reading for that straight way belongeth not to Iames his being made Bishop but is brought to shew that Iohn maketh mention of him immediately after he hath spoken of our Lords passion So that Ierome doth not say that Iames straight wayes after the passion of our Lord was ordayned Bishop of Ierusalem but that Iohn mentioned him presently after hee had spoken of the passion of our Lord. Let me lay downe the whole sentence that it may appeare more plainely Iames saith Ierome who is called the brother of our Lord surnamed Iustus the sonne as many thinke of Ioseph by another wife as it seemeth to me of Mary the sister of our Lords mother of whom Iohn in his booke maketh mention after the passion of our Lord straight wayes statim id est continenter immediate vt loquuntur Iohn 19.25 saith Iunius who was ordayned Bishop of Ierusalem by the Apostles And this manner of reading is auouched by Sophronius that translated that booke of Ierome into Greeke who maketh the distinction presently after straight wayes seuering that word from his ordination by the Apostles Among many other proofes of his learning iudgement the refuter giueth this for one For first this subtility hee receiued from Iunius as he doth professe but exceedingly dulled by comming through his fingers For whereas Iunius referrâ—th the word of whom to Mary the sister of our Lords mother of whom Iohn maketh mention straight waies after the passion of our Lord Iohn 19.25 our learned refuter referreth it to Iames that twice for failing But though he might be mistaken in the English of Ieromes cuius yet me thinkes so learned a man should haue known that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Sophronius should haue beene referred to her and not to him But let that passe To iustifie his correction of this place of Ierom he saith this manner of reading is auowed by Sophronius c. which is neither so nor so For between the Greeke and the Latine there is onely this difference in that edition which I haue being as I suppose the best that whereas in the Latine there is a Colon at the word filius which followeth meminit in the Greeke there is but a Comma but at the word statim in Latin and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greeke no distinction at all The Latine words are these vt mihi autem videtur Mariae sororis matris Domini cuius Ioannes in libro suo memunt filius pâ—st passionem Domini statim ab Apostolis Hierosolymorum Episcopus ordinatus The Greeke these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the correction it self I would be loth to contest with Iunius neither is that subtilty which he hath found out preiudiciall to my assertion as you shall heare notwithstanding I must needs say he was greatly transported with preiudice when he would referre the aduerbe statim to the verbe meminit rather then to the participle ordinatus For though both the Comma and Colon that come betweene them were taken away yet the word filius comming also betweene
Episcopall to be of Apostolicall and diuine Institution yet not as generally perpetually and immutably necessarie But the pretended discipline is held by the fauourers of it so to be enioyned by diuine right that it ought generally in all places and perpetually in all ages and also immutably to be obserued as being not chaÌ„geable by man And so farre doe they differ from the Kings iudgement that whereas the King thinketh the Church may be framed to the CoÌ„mon-wealth they say the gouernement of the Common-wealth must be fashioned to the Church But to fashion the Church to the Common-wealth 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 vntruth The fourth remaineth Lastly it is a doctrine contrarying the doctrine of the Church of England professed euen by the BB. themselues till of late daâ—es c. therefore vtterly false To this Antecedent I giue no credit though for proofe therof hee citeth B. Iewell and Archbishop Whitgift at randon For the doctrine of our Church appeareth best by the Articles and confession of our Church First therefore the booke of consecrating BB. Priests and Deacons which is approued Article 36. saith It is euident vnto all men diligently reading holy Scripture and Ancient Authors that from the Apostles time there haue beene these orders of Ministers in Christs Church Bishops Priests and Deacons Of which orders it is afterwards said that God by his holy spirit hath appointed them in his Church And againe the Bishop is required to correct and punish according to such authoritie as he hath by Gods word such as be vnquiet disobedient and criminous within his Diocesse Likewise the confession of the English Church collected out of the Apology thereof written by Bishop Iewel We belieue that there be diuerse degrees of Ministers in the Church whereof some be Deacons some Priests some Bishops c. And it is to be noted that our Church acknowledgeth nothing as a matter of faith which is not coÌ„tained in Gods word or grounded thereon Againe if it were true that the Bishops hauing better informed themselues concerning their functions had reformed their iugdemeÌ„ts according to the holy Scriptures and other writings of Antiquitie would it follow that their latter thoughts which commonly are the wiser according to the old saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were false and worthie to be confuted And lastly if this be a true proposition which in the refuters Enthymeme is vnderstood that what is repugnant to the doctrines formerly taught in the Church of England is euidently false though it agree with the present doctrine thereof how worthy then is the pretended discipline to be reiected which is contrarie to the perpetuall doctrine of this Church both former and latter especially the discipline of the newest stampe I meane the new-found 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 hee would proue that the doctrine contained in my Sermon was needfull to be confuted is because he saw it to be daÌ„gerous And that he proueth by 2. reasons The former because howsoeuer he had said in the former reason that it is euidently false and so not dangerous now he saith the doctrine is by mee so handsomely and likely handled that it is so farre from being euidently false that euery word I speake hath such an appearance and promise of truth that in imitation of Bishop Iewel against Harding hee thinkes he may fitly vse Socrates his words against his accusers or as I thinke more fitly the words of Agrippa to Paul who had vttered no vntruth that I had almost perswaded him to be of my minde But more fitly may I alledge the very next words of Socrates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Among many things which my aduersarie hath obiected against me falsely I maruell much at this one that hee willeth the Readers take heed they be not deceiued by me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is as my aduersaries words may expound it one that can tell his tale so handsomely and carrie the matter so smoothly likely and confidently that although he vtter neuer a word of truth yet euery word hee speaketh hath an appearance and promise of truth For both my Sermons and writings shewe that I affect not the perswasorie words of humane wisedome and eloquence but the plaine stile of simple truth And therefore am no more then Socrates himselfe in that regard to be suspected 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as hee saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnlesse my aduersaries call him an eloquent man and powerfull in speech who speaketh the truth Secondly he proueth my doctrine to be dangerous 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 hee would be much aduantaged seeing that Antichristian doctrine euen after the renewing and reuiuing of their ceremonies among vs so freely preached and published tending to the vpholding 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 answere to them it shall appeare The aduantage which ariseth to the Papists by this doctrine preached and the ceremonies still retained among vs may through Gods blessing be this That when they see vs not so new-fangled as our Opposites nor so carried with hatred to their persons as to depart further from them then they haue departed from the primitiue Church but are content to obserue the ancient gouernement and lawfull Ceremonies vsed in the primitiue Church though retained by them they may be induced to ioyne with vs in reforming the Church according to the doctrine and example of the ancient and primitiue Church And whereas he calleth our doctrine defending the calling of BB Antichristian and the ceremonies vsed among vs Popish it is meerely spoken out of faction after the vsuall fashion of our Opposites who call their owne doctrine and pretended discipline though lately deuised Gods owne cause the Discipline of Christ their pleading for it a giuing testimonie to this part of the word of his grace but ours though truely Catholicke and Apostolicall they tearme Antichristian and in their late writings they call the Hierarchy of our church Dagon the tower of Babell the triple headed Cerberus the restoring of BB the building vp again the walles of Iericho my self other Ministers of the Gospel pleading for the gouernement established they compare to Achabs 400. prophets and such as plead for Baal Yea but our doctrine tendeth to the vpholding of the Popish Hierarchy from the Pope to the Apparitor as well as of ours God forbid In the Popish Clergy aboue BB. and Archbishops
may perhaps be true and his cause neuer the better nor ours the worse by it it being enough for vs if there be Ecclesiasticall gouernours which are no Ministers You see then the cause of the new reformers is not the cause of other reformed Churches as I said But seeing M. D. saith hee is simplie to denie all kinde of onely gouerning Elders I as plainely denie the assumption So that both his propositions in this Syllogisme doe want their armour of proofe and waite vpon M. D. as two poore seruants vpon their master for their cloth before they can doe him any seruice Marke well the spirit of this man For hauing denyed without reason the consequence of the proposition being euen as himselfe propoundeth it vndeniable were it not that he cauilled with the words Lay annuall which in his aâ—swere to the â—ssumption he confesseth were not to be cauilled with and hauing barely denied both the former part of the assumption which I fortified by 3. reasons which hee could not answere and also the latter without any shew of reason though the proofe of the contradictory in both lye vpon him which course any man might take to answere the best argument that euer was propounded notwithstanding hee scornefully craketh as if hee had done some great act which might giue occasion to leaue fighting and fall a crowing For my part I greatly wonder aâ— him how he could either content himselfe or hope to satisfie his reader with such answeres For if it be a sufficient answere to say I flâ—tly deny the proposition I do as plainely deny 〈◊〉 assumption who cannot answere sufficiently any Syllogisme whatsoeuer But if a man hauing thus answered shall take occasion thereby to insult ouer his aduersary verily as hee deludeth egregiously his Reader that is simple so he maketh himselfe ridiculous if not odious to him that is iudicious Hauing seene how substantially he hath dealt with the substance of each proposition let vs now see how maÌ„nerly 〈◊〉 hee dealeth with the manner of laying them downe For in regard thereof he chargeth me with three no small faultes First inclination to popery 2. falshood 3. contempt and scorne The which imputations if he cannot make good by sound euidence he will shew himselfe vnmanerly in obiecting them How then proueth hee the first He saith and saith it againe that I delight to call the Ministers of the Gospell by the nâ—me of Priests which all but those that are Popish or desirous to please the Papists would rather forbeare First I denie that those which call Ministers by the name of priests are popish For those worthie instruments vnder God of that happie reformation which is among vs separation from Poperie in the booke of CoÌ„mon prayer in the booke of Orders and in other their writings doe ordinarily vse that name And when they distinguish the Clergie into three degrees they vsually reckon these three orders Bishops Priests and Deacons therein imitating the most ancient and purest writers both of the Greek Latin Church who seldome vsing the word Minister distinguish the same degrees by words of the same signification viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Episcopi Presbyteri Diaconi that is Bishops Priests Deacons Yea but the Popish shauelings haue appropriated the words to themselues and protestant writers find fault with them for calling the Ministers of the Gospell by the name of Priests to which purpose he alleadgeth D. Whitaker D. Raynolds Whereto I answere of the word Priest there are two vses whereof the one is an abuse the other is the right proper vse of the word according to the natiue signification therof The abuse is when it is ascribed to the Ministers of the Gospell as it is the English of Sacerdos which signifieth a Sacificing Priest and implieth a relation to sacrifices Thus the Papists abuse the name when they applie it to the Ministers of their Gospell with relation to their sacrifice of the Masse And thus D. Whitaker denieth both Sacerdos and Priest as it is the English of Sacerdos to agree to the Ministers of the new Testament The right vse of the word is when it is vsed as the English of Presbyter and without any relation to sacrifice For Presbyter is the name which the Apostles and all antiquitie gaue to the Ministers of the Gospell and the English of Presbyter is Priest as D. Raynolds doth confesse where also he sheweth that the Papists play the sophisters in vsing the word Priest after a double sort the one as it is deriued from Presbyter the other as it signifieth the same that Sacerdos For Priest as iâ— signifieth a man appointed to Sacrifice is Sacerdos and not Presbyter The name which the Apostles giue a Minister is Presbyter and not Sacerdos And againe though th' Apostles call the Ministers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence our English name of Priests is deriued yet they did not call them priests as the name of priest hath relation to Sacrifice For the worde Priest hath two meanings the one of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the other of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereof the one is giuen by the Apostles but doth not implie authoritie to sacrifice the other doth implie authoritie to Sacrifice but is not giuen by the Apostles It is plaine therefore that the worde Priest is rightly vsed in the signification of presbyter but abused as I said in the Sermon to signifie Sacrificing priests I confesse that the first Translators of the Bible into English in these latter times being as D. Fulke saith not Lords of mens speech but ouer-ruled by the popish vse of the word as it were by a tyrant did giue the name priest to Sacrificing priests as the papists doe and hauing so done when they were to translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presbyteri which doe not signifie Sacrificing priests but Ministers of the Gospell they auoided the name least they might seeme with the papists to make the Ministers of the Gospell Sacrificing priests And so I doe confesse that their purpose was godly who translated presbyters not priests but Elders though I dare not say that the cause was sufficient For if they had called Sacerdotes Sacrificers as the French doe in their Translations they might safely haue giuen the Name Priest to the Ministers and left the name of Sacrificers to the popish priests The name Priest saith D. Fulke wee doe not finde fault with as it commeth of presbyter but as it is commonly vsed for a Sacrificing priest Againe as for the name priest as it is deriued of the Greeke wee doe not refuse it but rather wish that the Sacrificers of the Law had neuer bene called by it And againe more fullie wee doe not contend for the terms nor refuse the name priest when it signifieth the same whome the Apostle calleth presbyter but when by abuse and vaine cauillation of papists it is taken to signifie a Sacrificer To
hee thought good to cite but 8 now if all these 8. be not cleare on his side what shal we thinke of the rest Surely Luther though he tell him that hee rose vp as a bright morning starre euen another Elias of these times will not be gotten to speake a word for him For in the place by him cited hee doth not so much as speake of this Text and much lesse expound it But hee speaketh onely of the 19. verse Receiue not an accusation against an Elder where vnderstanding Elder according to the vse of the word in the first verse of that chapter as a word of age as well as of office as Chrysostome also doth though he vnderstand vers 17 of Ministers onely he saith that how soeuer the popish Bishops against whome hee writeth did expound this place of Priests that is themselues that they might be the more free from accusation or reproofe yet the Apostle speaketh of Presbyteri that is Elder and graue men for such then bare rule in the Church meaning thereby most plainely auncient Ministers as appeareth by the words following which the refuter hath Sophistically and shamefully peruerted For the Apostle doth not speake De ijs Episcopis saith Luther Sacerdotibus qui iam nostra aetate plerumque sunt aetate florenti penè adolescentes sed de senibus grandâ—â— 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 youthes and lusty gallants which hee meant in the words going a little before when he calleth them Penelopes sponsos but hee speaketh of such as be aged and ancient men skilfull in the Scriptures Obserue now our Sophysters dealing First hee saith Luther expoundeth this verse of Lay-Elders when as Luther doth not so much as speake of this text 2. that he should say their Lay-elders ruled in the Church then when hee plainely speaketh of ancient and aged Ministers 3. that Luther denieth simplie that Paul speaketh of BB. and Priests For so hee citeth his words Neque enim loquitur de Episcopis Sacerdotibus wheÌ„ he saith that he speaketh not of such Bishops as were in his time young lusty men but of such as were aged skilfull in the scriptures Bullinger in neither place alledged doth say that there were elders in the chuch which were not ministers but rather the coÌ„trary For on 1. Tim. 5.17 he vnderstaÌ„deth that text as requiring the stipend of the ministery seemeth to confound the words Ministers and Presbyters in that sentence which the refuter citeth by halues Cum emin varià sint in ecclesia munia non vnius 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 leauing out the word Ministers And vpon the words following in the nineteenth verse he saith as to a diligent good Minister of Christ sustenaÌ„ce is due so also defence the reason of which law is this a Presbyter is the Minister of truth and truth procureth hatred c. 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 alwaies as did the BB. yet were they present with them that taught c. Where he doth not speake of lay and vnlearned Elders but of wise and learned men of the Clergie The rest in the places cited doe acknowledge a second sort of Elders besides those which chiefely laboured in the word and doctrine but whe they were of the laitie or Clergie they doe not mention As for D. Fulk in his answere to the Rhemists on 1. Tim. 5.17 he giuing two interpretations of that place preferreth that whereby the Apostles words are vnderstood of Ministers or Priests onely that as euery 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 betweene vs whether any of the new writers doe stand for the new Elders for that is confessed His third reason for the deniall of my proposition that if that consequence is good my interpretation of this place is naught seeing it hath not so much as the naked shade of any father to couer it Naked to couer But what figge leaues can he find to couer this naked and shamelesse vntruth For whereas my exposition consisteth of two points the first and principall that by Presbyters I vnderstand Ministers as if the Apostle had said let the Ministers that rule well c the secoÌ„d that by the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which commonly are translated gouerning well I vnderstand the coÌ„mendable performance of their duetie in generall for the latter I alledged the authoritie of Ierome and of the Syricke Paraphrast to whom others might be added for the former I haue the generall consent of all the Fathers and of all writers before our age who haue expounded this place and not one of them can be produced to the contrarie 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 fiue whole pages with very ill successe as you see he concludeth with as vaine and causelesse a bragge as his successe was badde The assumption that none of the Fathers nor any before our age did euer expound this text of any but Ministers though he dares not plainely denie it yet that it may appeare how he setteth himselfe to wrangle with euery thing he seeketh all the corners of his wit to find some starting holes out of which he may easily be driuen if the Reader wil but remember these two things First that I speake of such as haue before our age meaning hoc seculum this ceÌ„turie or huÌ„dred of yeares expounded this place either in their commentaries or in their other writings which be extant For it were foolish presumption to rely vpon their iudgements who either did not write of it or whose writings are not extant whereby their iudgement might be knowne 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 proue by good instance the affirmatiue that some one of the Fathers or some other before our age hath expounded this place of Lay-Elders and not absurdly vrge me being the respondent to proue the negatiue which as it cannot be otherwise proued but by alledging that no instance can be giuen to the contrarie so might it be easily disproued by any one instance if any such could be giuen If these two things be remembred
Ministers and Lay-Elders then it doth necessarily follow that as the Ministers haue the care and ouersight of doctrine and religion so the Lay-Elders haue the ouersight of manners and care of auoiding offences But the Antecedent is true 1. Tim. 5.17 Therefore the consequent To the assumption of the former Syllogisme I answere that Lay-Elders are no where 's said in the Scriptures to be Presbyters or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to gouerne or ouersee but all those places which be alleadged to this purpose are to bee vnderstood of Ministers onely Besides the same Author hath confessed that Lay Elders are not Byshops neither will he say that they be Pastors But the places which he quoteth are to be vnderstood of Bishops Pastors Of Act. 20.28 1. Pet. 5. I haue already spoken as also of 1. Thess. 5.12 Why Heb. 13.17 should be applpyed to Lay-Elders there is no reason vnlesse whatsoeuer is spoken of Spirituall gouernors is to be vnderstood of them The Writers both olde and new expound it of Bishops and Pastors The assumption also of the second syllogisme is vntrue neither hath it any thing to support it but their owne exposition of 1. Tim. 5.17 which I haue proued to be false Neither is that true which is presupposed in both syllogismes that there must be two sorts of Elders answerable to the two parts of ouersight For both the parts of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or ouersight belong to those which be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ouerseers that is Bishops and Pastors whose dutie is both to teach and to gouerne Their third Argument is taken from the practise of the primitiue Church next succeeding the Apostles Which of all their Arguments is most friuolous there being not anie testimonie of any writer or example of any Church to bee alledged that euer there was such an office in the Church But howsoeuer these duties to be performed by the Elders seuerally might be borne with so they were not obtruded as the ordinances of Christ yet the ioynt office of their Lay presbyteryes is intollerable For what reason can they alledge for their intruding into the sacred office of Bishops and Pastors vsurping the keyes of the kingdome of heauen which our Sauiour Christ committed to none but to the Apostles and their successors That Lay-men should haue authoritie and that by the ordinance of Christ to ordaine Ministers by imposition of hands to remit or retaine sinnes to excommunicate the obstinate or to reconcile the penitent is an opinion too absurde to be confuted Thus therefore I reason according to their owne principles No office in the Church is lawfull as themselues say which hath not expresse warrant in the scriptures which is all one as if they had said All lawfull offices in the church haue expresse warrant in Gods word The office of the Lay-Elders seuerally and of their Elderships yearely hath not expresse warrant in Gods word Therfore it is vnlawfull To their office wee will ioyne the consideration of their qualities for surely if the holy Ghost had prescribed in the scriptures an office of such importance it is to bee thought that he would also haue 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 mee thinks if it be a function that is in dignitie vnder the Minister but aboue the Deacon the Apostle could not haue forgotten them in 1. Tim. 3 where he describeth the qualities not only of Bishops and Ministers which be aboue them but of the Deacons also which are beneath them directing Timo 〈◊〉 and in him all Bishops what manner of persons to orâ—aâ—â— Ministers or Deacons Forgotten say they why are they not plainly expressed in that place Yes no doubt for that is agreed vpon among vs For some will needs comprise them vnder the Bishop or Minister and feare not to â—ay that they also must be suâ— modo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is able 〈◊〉 preach after their fashion Others acknowledge that they are neuer comprehended vnder 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 resolued to finde a roome for them in that place and not to suffer them to be excluded are faine to sâ—rowâ—e them vnder the name of Deacons though the name of Deacon neither in scriptures nor Fathers was euer attributed to them How they will compound these contrarieties I know not For if they be comprised vnder the name Bishop then are they not to be shrowded vnder Deacons and if they be contained vnder Deacons then are they not comprised vnder Bishops It shall 〈◊〉 me to alledge 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 conceiue 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 refuâ—â—â— hath solemnely proclaimed before and required all men to take notice of it that their Elders ought to be men religious of great grauitie and pietie and of good yeares also if it may be as the name importeth called with due examination chosen with consent of the congregation ouer which they are set with prayer and imposition of hands put a part to that Ecclesiasticall office All which I will not denie to haue beene politickely deuised so it may be acknowledged an humane deuise and not a diuine ordinance But why are not the margents filled with scriptures for the proofe of these things The truth is there is not one testimonie of scripture to be alledged 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 appeare when I come to answere the refuters allegations for them In the meane time I will not doubt to renew my former challenge if they can produce any one pregnant testimonie out of the scriptures whereby it may necessarily be concluded that either there were at any time or ought to be at all times in the Church of Christ such Elders and Elderships as they speake of that then I will yeeld to them in the whole controuersie betwixt vs. But vntill such proofe be produced for them which will neuer be they shall giue me leaue to esteeme their doctrine of Lay-Elders to be as it is a meere fiction how vehemently soeuer it be vrged and obtruded
publican that by these meanes seeing himselfe auoided shunned hee may at length be ashamed and brought to repentance And least any man should lightly esteeme the iudgement of the Church that is of such spirituall gouernors as haue authoritie in the church to cēsure offenders Verily I say vnto you saith our Sauiour speaking to his Apostles and in them to all their successors to whom the keyes of heauen are committed Whatsoeuer you for you and such as you sitting in Consistory or Synode are they whom I meant by the Church or assembly whatsoeuer you shall binde on earth shall be bound in heauen and whatsoeuer you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heauen Neither thinke when I mentioned the church I meant a great assembly only or the whole congregation for I say vnto you that where 2. or 3. are gathered together in my name I am there in the middes of them therfore if but 2. of you shal cōsent in asking any thing of God as namely pardon for the penitent sinner it shall be graunted vnto you If against this exposition it shal be obiected that the Churches hearing and censuring of offences would be prejudiciall to Magistrates I answere offences and offenders admitte diuers distinctions Of offences some are open notorious some are secrete priuate Some againe are grieuous and capital crimes which may not be cōcealed or left vnpunished other be offēces not so hainous or enormous but they may be concealed and pardoned where is hope of amendment For notorious and enormous crimes our Sauiour doth not prescribe this course but for the priuate and lesse offences Againe offenders are either in the iudgment of charity our brethren in Christ or the sonnes of Belial For the latter we may take the ciuile course of Iustice for the former we must take a spirituall course of Christian charitie that wee may winne our brother vnto Christ or recouer him beeing fallen which course our Sauiour heere prescribeth By Church therefore or assemblie our Sauiour meaneth neither the supposed Ecclesiasticall senate of the Iewes nor yet a Presbyterie of Christians answerable therto consisting for the most part of Lay-elders Not the former for Christ speaketh of such as should meet in his name to whō he promiseth what they bind vpon earth shal be bound in heauē neither are we to think that our Sauior would send his disciples to the corrupt Consistories of the vnbelieuing Iewes as Caluin also saith It was a strange conceit therefore of Beza not only to imagine that the name Church is here attributed to the Iews 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 vs seeing not only the imaginarie Ecclesiasticall Senate of the Iewes is vanished but also the true Synedrion is long since abolished and their whole policie abrogated Not the latter for our Sauiour by Church vnderstandeth such as should haue power to bind loose sinnes as appeareth by the words following Which power of the keyes of binding and loosing sinners of retaining and remitting sinnes our Sauiour Christ hath so peculiarly appropriated to the Apostles their successors in the ministerie of the word and Sacraments as nothing more Neither had the Iewes indeed such an ecclesiasticall Senate as they speake of mixed of the Priests and Leuites with the Elders of the people as I am now to shew in answering the assumption For if this be true that the Iewes had no such Presbyterie then what shew of trueth or probabilitie is in their argument taken from Matth 18.17 Caluin saith that the Iewes after their returne from captiuitie had a chosen counsell to which was cōmitted 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 but restored which seemeth to be the truth Howbeit his reason as almost all the rest is but a meere colour For it would follow saith he that the Priests other Leuiticall teachers who were a part of that Bench had then their first institution when it is plaine that the Priests and Leuiticall teachers were instituted before the Synedrion and so might haue cōtinued their functiō though the Sanedrin had neuer bin Beza fetcheth the first institution of it from Moses the instauratiō therof whē it was decayed frō Iosaphat T. C. doubteth not to fetch the Eldership from Exod 4. With his Elders therefore as being the eldest in conceit I will beginne This order of Eldership saith hee was taken from the gouernement of the people of God before and vnder the Law Before the Law the Elders which Moses assembled Exod 4. were Ecclesiasticall officers for it is not likely that vnder such a Tyrant they should haue Magistrates of their owne I answere briefly the state of the Hebrews if you respect the whole people was neither a settled Church nor established common-wealth But if you respect the seuerall kinreds and Families they were ruled by the Elders of the people which were the heads of the Families who as alwayes from the beginning so at that time vntill the separation of the Tribe of Leui to the priestly function were both priests and magistrates to their seuerall kinreds and Families Wherefore let them who will needes haue these to be Lay-Elders tell vs who were then the priests whome these Elders did assist Vnder the Law he findeth these Elders in Elisha his house 2. King 6. and in Ezekiels house Ezek 8. because it is vnlike that in so corrupt a state the Prophets could haue the ciuill Gouernors to consult with is it not more vnlike that there should be approued Elders of an ecclesiasticall Senate either in the Apostoticall Church of Israell vnder Achab and Iehoram or in Mesopotamia whether Ezekiell and those Elders of Iuda were transported who could neuer be found vnder the most godly Kings at Ierusalem Againe hee findeth them standing on the right hand of Ezra and on the left Nehem 8. Being distinguished both from the teaching Leuites and from the people From the people because they stood by Ezra From the teaching Leuites because he speaketh of them after Therefore they must needs bee Lay-Elders as though either some of the Princes of the people might not stand with Ezra or that these might not haue beene priests or that all the Leuites were teachers or that there were no more teaching Priests or Leuites but those which are mentioned then and there to haue taught the people Hee that considereth what T. C. was able to say in a good cause must needs thinke this cause to be very badde which he was not able to make good by better arguments then those most vnlikely likely-hoods Beza holdeth that 2. sorts of councels or consistories were ordained by Moses which should be held both in Ierusalem the
because hee calleth great Churches after the diuision of them into many parishes not onely in the Country but euen in the Cities by the name of Paroecia To which purpose let vs conferre a few places in Eusebius concerning the Church of Alexandria whereby his meaning when he speaketh of this argument wil easily appeare For hauing said lib. 6. cap. 1. that Laetus was the president of AlexaÌ„dria the rest of Aegypt he addeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the Bishoprick of the paroecia or Churches there in Alexandria and Aegypt Demetrius had lately receiued In the eight chapter he saith that Demetrius was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the president or Bishop of the paroecia that is the Church there For so he explaneth himself chap. 26. calling him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bishop of the Church of the Alexandreans and what he meaneth by that speech he sheweth chap. 35. Where speaking of Dionysius his next successor but one hee vseth these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hee taketh vpon him the Bishopricke or charge of being president of the Churches belonging to Alexandria So that when he saith Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the paroecia or church his meaning is all one as if hee had said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is of such a Bishopricke as contained many Churches And in the same sense he speaketh though in the plurall number when hee mentioneth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. the paroeciae or churches of Pontus the churches of Asia the paroecia of the holy catholike church Thus then wee see that in antient writers the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greeke and paroecia corruptly parochia in Latine is vsually taken for the whole diocesse consisting of many parishes when it betokeneth a Bishops whole charge § 8. Sometimes it signifieth but a part of the Bishoprick as wheÌ„ the whole diocesse is diuided into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying the city or chiefe seate or see of the Bishop and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the rest of the diocesse in the countrie 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Bishops of euery naÌ„tion it behoueth to agnize him that is Primate or first among them and to esteeme him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as their head or chief and to do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing that exceedeth the bounds of their owne charge or iurisdiction without his consent and that euery one doe deale in those things alone 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which belong to his owne Paroecia that is see or Church the couÌ„â—ries which be subiect onto it Neither may he that is the Metropolitan do any thing without the consent of all So shall there bee concorde and God shall bee glorified through the Lord in the Holy Ghost Which canon is renued and explained in the councill of Antioch the canons whereof were part of the ancient code or book of canons receiued in the ancient church recited some of them in the great councell of Chalcedon and ratified all of them in the generall councell of Constantinople held in Trullo the Emperours Palace The canon is this It behooueth the BB of euery Prouince to acknowledge the Metropolitane B. and that he taketh vpoÌ„ him the cure of the whole Prouince because there is a concourse of all men who haue businesse from all places vnto the Metropolis on mother Citie Wherefore it hath beene thought good or decreed that he should excell in honour and that without him the rest of the Bishops should doe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing exceeding the bounds of their owne charge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the ancient receiued 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 concerne his owne Paâ—oecia that is his owne See or Citie and the Countries which be vnder it For euery Bishop hath authoritie ouer his owne Paroecia and doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 administer according to the feare of God wherewith he is endued and hath a prouident care 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the whole region or countrey which is vnder his Citie vsing the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Paroecia and Citie indifferently so that hee may ordaine Presbyters and Deacons and order all things with iudgement 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but beyond his bounds hee may doe nothing without the Bishop of the Mother Citie neither may he without â—he consent of the rest Then which testimonies nothing can bee alleged more pregnant either for the signification of the word or for the proofe of our assertion that the Churches or charges of Bishops were not parishes but dioceses Sometimes indeede the word Paroecia doth signifie that which we call a parish but then either it is vsed with such reference to a Bishop as it is plainely noted to bee but one among many belonging to his charge and is commonly vttered in the plurall number or else it is referred to a Presbyter as his proper charge To which purpose consider these testimonies The Councell of Carthage which is so much alleged by the Disciplinarians speaketh as of the Bishop of the diocesse so of a Presbyter qui Parochiae praeest who is set ouer a parish The Councell of Toledo speaketh of Presbyters ordained in parochijs per parochias Innocentius the first writing to Florentius a Bishop blameth him for vsurping a parish which belonged to the diocesse of Vrsus another Bishop And elsewhere he speaketh â—â— As for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or dioecesis I hope I shall not neede to prooue that it also signifieth a diocesse Neither do I greatlie neede to shew that in the signification of a diocesse it is giuen to Bishops seeing the sense of it being diuersified according to the varietie of the persons to whom it is attributed in the sense of a diocesse as we tearme it it is properly ascribed to Bishops The word indeede seemeth generally to signifie the circuit of any mans charge or administration who hath gouernment in the Church For as there is Ecclesia a Church of a Patriarch and of a Metropolitan of a Bishop and of a Presbyter so there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or dioecesis of a Patriarch which we may call a Patriarchall diocesse of an Archbishop which we call a Prouince of a Bishop which we call a Diocesse and of a Presbyter which we call a Parish For the two first these few examples may suffice The Emperour Iustinian appointeth that a Clergy man should not be accused at the first before the
the Bishop in euery diocesse had for terme of life A few testimonies therfore shal suffice in this place In the Church of Rome there were many not onely Presbyters besides the one onely lawfull Bishop but also diuers parishes and titles soone after the Apostles times whereunto Presbyters were assigned seuerally the Bishop being the Superintendent ouer them all About the yeere 250. Cornelius being chosen Bishop of Rome Nonatianus a Presbyter of Rome discontented with the election by the instigation of Nonatus a fugitiue Bishop lately come out of Africke not only broached the heresie of the Nouatians or Catharists but procureâ—â— three simple B shops fetched from the vttermost parts of Italie to ordaine him Bâ—shop of Rome hauing also inueigled by his subtilties certaine famous men that had beene Confessours to bee of his partie and to ioine with him in the schisme against Cornelius Of this fact what was the iudgement of Cyprian of Cornelius and other Bâ—shops and finally of the Confessours themselues you shall in few words heare For when Nouatianus had sent his Messengers as to other chiefe Bâ—shops so to Carthage to procure the approbation of Cyprian hee disswadeth them from the schisme telling them that a Bâ—shop being ordained and approoued by the testimonie and iudgement of his fellow Bâ—shops and of the people another may not by any meanes be ordained And writing to some of those Confessours hee signifieth his great griefe because he vnderstood that they contrary to the order of the Church contrary to the law of the Gospell contrarie to the vnity of Catholike discipline had thought it meet that another B. should be made that is to say which is neither right nor lawfull to bee done that another Church should be erected the members of Christ dismembred c. Cornelius hauing called together diuers Bishops besides his owne Clergie deposed the Bishops who ordained Nouatianus and writing of these matters to Fabius the B. of Antioch he saith this Patron of the Gospell forsooth meaning Nouatian did not know that in a Catholike Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there ought to bee but one B. in which notwithstanding he could not be ignorant but that there are 46. Presbyters and 108. more of the Clergie The Confessors afterwards acknowledging their fault among other things in their submission confesse that as there is but one God and one Lord so in a Catholike Church there ought to be but one Bishop Now whereas Cornelius testifieth that there were besides the Bishop who ought to be but one 46. Presbyters in the Citie of Rome and 108. others of the Clergie if any man notwithstanding it bee also testified by diuers that there were diuers Churches in Rome whereunto seuerall Presbyters were assigned will needes hold that the whole Church of Rome was but one parish and that all these Presbyters and Clerkes attended but one particular ordinary congregation I cannot let him from being so absurd Howbeit this is certaine that in the next age in Optatus his time when there were in Rome aboue fortie parish Churches whereunto seuerall Presbyters were deputed there remained still but one only Bishop The like is to be said of Alexandria wherein as Epiphanius testifieth were before the time of Constantine many parish Churches all which at least so many as were Catholike were vnder one Archbishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and ouer them seuerally are Presbyters placed for the ecclesiasticall necessities of the inhabitants who might each of them bee neere vnto their owne Church c. Now saith Epiphanius besides the Church called Caesaria which was burnt in Iulians time and reedified by Athanasius there are many others as the Church of Dionysius of Theonas of Pierius of Serapion of Persaea of Dizya of Mendidius of Amianus of Baucalis and others In one of these was Colluthus Presbyter in another Carpones in another Sarmatas and Arius in another namely that which is called Baucalis The same is testified by Nicetas Choniates affirming that in Alexandria there were of old many Churches subiect to the B. of Alexandria committed seuerally to Presbyters as that which is called Baucalis and those which haue their names from S. Dionysius Theonas c. and that Arius being the gouernor of the schoole in Alexandria was by Achilles the B. the predecessour of Alexander set ouer the Church called Baucalis And although there be not the like euidence for multitude of parishes in other Cities immediately after the Apostles times yet is it not to be doubted but that in euery City when the number of Christians was much increased the like diuision of parishes was made vnto which not BB. but seuerall Presbyters were appointed there remaining in each Citie but one Bishop as the practise of all Churches in the Christian world from the Apostles times to our age doth inuincibly prooue But now suppose that the Church of each Citie had beene but one parish which is most false yet forsomuch as to euery Citie there was as Caluin truly saith a certaine region allotted which belonged to the Bishops charge and was from the Presbyterie of the Citie to receiue their Ministers who seeth nor that the charge of a Bishop was not a parish but a diocesse And that is the second thing which J promised to prooue For Churches containing within their circuit not onely Cities with their Suburbs but also whole Countries subiect to them were dioceses But the Churches subiect to the ancient Bâ—shops in the Primitiue Church contained within their circuit not onely the Cities with their suburbs but also the whole Countries subiect to them Therefore they were dioceses The assumption is prooued by these reasons first The circuit of a Bishops charge was anciently diuided into these parts the Citie with the suburbs and Country subiect to it For proofe whereof you heard before two most plaine testimonies The former in one of the Canons of the Apostles so called charging the Bishop with his owne Paroecia and the Countries which be vnder it The other in the Councell of Antioch which reciting the same words addeth this reason For euery Bishop hath authoritie ouer his owne Paroecia and doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is performe the dutie of a Diocesan hauing a prouident care or superintendencie of the whole Countrey which is vnder his Citie so that he may ordaine Presbyters and Deacons and order all things with iudgement To the same purpose is the diuision of Churches subiect to each Bishop into the Church of the Citie called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Nâ—trix Ecclesia and all other parish Churches within the diocesse called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And hence ariseth the distinction of Presbyters subiect to the same Bishop that others were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presbyters of the citie or as in some Latine Councels they are called Ciuitatenses others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Countrey Ministers or dioecesanâ— Ministers of the diocesse Secondly
the Bishop of Samosata to Athanasius the Bishop of Ancyra to Ambrose the Bishop of Millaine and writing to the Bishops of France and Jtaly calleth himselfe the B. of Caesarâ—a This title giuen to Bishops after the diuision of parishes plainly prooueth also that they were not Bishops of any one parish but of all the Churches in the Citie and of the whole diocesse My assertion therefore that each of the seuen Churches was not only the Citie but the countrey also adioining would according to the true meaning thereof haue beene consuted if hee had beene able and not the words fondlie cauilled with But not contended heere with he stretcheth my words beyond that which his owne conscience would tell him was my meaning as if I had said that all the people in the City and Country had beene at this time Christians Which could scarcely bee verified of any Citie and Country for 200. yeeres after and more I meane vntill Constantines time Neuerthelesse this was an assertion which he found himselfe able to confute And therefore full soberly he goeth about it telling vs 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 hâ—s reading telleth vs that Polycarpus was put to death by the rage of the heathen multitude in the sight of his people when euery body knoweth that in all Cities and Countries for the space of almost 300. yeeres the Christians were persecuted by the Gentiles If any man aske how it may bee said that the Church contained the Citie 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 diocesse was the same when there were few and when there were many yea when all were Christians Neither were there more Bishops set ouer the Citie and Country when all were Christians then when there were but a few the same Bishop of the Citie hauing iurisdiction ouer all the Christians both in the Citie and country as well when all were Christians as when but a few which J prooued before by the generall consent and perpetuall practise of all Christendome euer since the Apostles times which ought without comparison to preuaile with vs aboue the authoritie of a few selfe-conceited persons among vs who are not so singular for learning as they are singular in opinion whose pride and arrogancie in aduancing themselues against the iudgment and practise of the vniuersall church in all places and in all ages since the Apostles times is intolerable Yea but saith hee the Church of Smyrna writing of the said Martyrdome of Polycarpus intituleth her selfe the Church of God which is at Smyrna Was there a whole Diocesse or Countrey of Christians inhabiting Smyrna Which is an obiection scarce worth the answering For whether by the Church of Smyrna you vnderstand the whole Diocesse it was seated chiefely in the Citie as the soule which is in all the bodie is said to bee in the head and God who is in all places to be in heauen or but that part which did inhabit the Citie you are not to maruell if the whole companie of Christians inhabiting a City are called a Church seeing the companie of Christians in a parish or in a familie deserueth that name Neither doth the naming of it selfe the Church which is at Smyrna exclude the Churches in the Countrey from being of the same bodie or diocesse with it And thus much may suffice to haue spoken concerning the first syllogisme which he framed for mee Now are wee to examine the second M.D. saith he perceiuing that this assumption wanted strength sought to fortifie it by two reasons This is my aduersaries vsuall though odious fashion sophistically to argue euery assertion of weaknesse for which I bring proofe when rather the proofe if it bee good as hitherto hee hath not beene able to disprooue any doth argue the weakenesse of their iudgement who denie or doubt of the truth which is prooued and the strength also of the assertion which is armed with such proofe The former reason he propoundeth thus If our Sauiour writing to the Churches of Asia numbreth but seuen and some of them mother Cities then were they great and ample Cities and not the Cities alone but the Countries adioining But our Sauiour writing to the Churches of Asia numbreth but seuen c. To let passe his vnmannerly gibing not worth the mentioning and to referre you to the manner how this Syllogisme is to be framed before mentioned let vs see how hee dealeth with this frame which himselfe hath fashioned He denieth after his vsuall manner both the proposition and the assumption So hard is my happe that scarce any one proposition or assumption which hee frameth for me may be acknowledged to be true and yet so hard is his happe that he is not able to prooue any one either proposition or assumption of mine to be vntrue The proposition hee would confute by an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though it were granted that our Sauiour wrote these epistles to all the Churches of Asia yet it will not follow that therefore all the rest depended vpon these as children vpon the mother To which he addeth the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in denying the former part of the assumption viz. that our Sauiour did not write to all the Churches of Asia His deniall of the consequence he confirmeth by putting a case If the Emperour finding some abuses commonly raigning in the whole Country of Asia should haue written to these principall and mother Cities for the reforming of those abuses with intent saith he that all other Cities and Townes should be warned by his reproofe 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 Townes and Cities of Asia were subiect to the gouernment of these seuen But say I put the case that the Emperor so should doe with that intent which is and also hath beene vsuall in such cases that is to the intent that what hee writeth to them might by and from them be notified to those Townes and Villages which were within the circuit of their iurisdiction would it not strongly proue that all those other townes and villages were subiect to them Come we to our selues When the King or his Counsell would haue any thing intimated to all his Subiects in certaine Counties are not warrants directed to the Lieutenants of each County from them to the high Constables of euery hundred from them to the Constables of euery towne and doth not this shew that the officers of the towne are subordinate to those of the hundred and much more to the gouernours of the County In like manner when the Archbishop would haue any thing imparted to euery parish hee directeth his letters to the Bishops they to the Archdeacons they to the officers
to shew that the dioceses or circuits of Churches were vsually lessened but that they were any wheres inlarged he will hardly shew Therefore looke what the circuits of the Churches or Bishops charges were in Eusebius or Epiphanius his time the same at the least they were in the first two hundred yeeres And whereas I alleage one of the antient canons called the Apostles nor that I thinke they were of the Apostles owne penning but that for their antientnesse and authority they are so called and by all sorts of writers so alleaged he chargeth me with seeking to bleare mens eyes with the name of the Apostles Canons In that I said they were so called it doth sufficienttly both here and where after I cite them shew my meaning But let vs heare what he can say against them for my mind giueth me he will leaue them in better credit then hee found them If wee were so simple saith he as to take them for their doing yet should not a man of his profession so abuse our simplicity He knoweth there was a time when Rome her selfe saw too much in them to acknowledge them for the Apostles See Gratians decree dist 15. c. sancta Romana dist 16. cap. canones In both places it is said that they are apohryphall as we call the bookes of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdome not because they are either false or counterfet but because they are not acknowledged to be of the Apostles owne writing for if they were they ought to be esteemed of canonicall authority like the other scriptures Notwithstanding they are ecclesiasticall canons which for their great antiquity and authentike authority are commonly called Apostolicall receiued of antient Fathers and approoued by Councels And although some of them may be suspected as foisted in or depraued by heretikes yet those which are specially cited by Fathers and Councels as authentike are without exception being of as great credit as any other ecclesiasticall writings whatsoeuer Such is the canon wee speake of the words whereof which I cited being verbatim recited in the Councell of Antioch I will not discusse this controuersie wherein much may be said on both sides Only this J will say that as Damascen exceeded the truth in reckoning them with the canonicall scriptures so some learned and iudicious men haue been much ouerseene in too much censuring of them as first that they are condemned in the canon law when indeed the very scope of the 16. distinction is to authorize them and to acknowledge them though not as canonicall scriptures yet as authenticall canons Secondly that Isidor condemneth them Whereas indeed the words of Isidor in the true copy are these That by reason of their authority we prefixe before the other councels the canons called the Apostles although of some they are called apocryphal because the greater part receiue them and the holy fathers haue by synodall authority ratified them and placed them among canonicall constitutions Thirdly that they are condemned by the Councell in Trullo when as indeed that Councell reiecting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the constitutions of Clement which also were called Apostolicall because they were depraued by heretikes authorized the canons decreeing that the 85. canons shall remaine firme and sure which of their holy and blessed fore-fathers were receiued and confirmed and deliuered vnto them in the name of the holy and glorious Apostles And whereas some thinke that Epiphanius is the first that mentioneth them I finde it to bee otherwise For diuers of them are cited before his time being sometimes called absolutely the canons sometimes the ecclesiasticall canons sometimes the antient receiued canons of our Fathers sometimes Apostolicall canons as I haue partly noted before Neither is the authority of the generall Councell held at Ephesus though after Epiphanius his time to be neglected which calleth them the canons of the holy Apostles So much of those canons and also of this section which though it doe most directly and necessarily conclude that Bishops were set ouer dioceses yet he calleth it a needlesse discourse which because he knew not how to answere he taketh leaue to passe by it Serm. sect 5. pag. 26. These three points whereof hitherto I haue intreated are of such euident c. to page 28. line 6. In this section I conclude the three first points with the testimony of Caluin whom I produce not as this sophister cauilleth as a captiue by way of triumph but as one that taketh part with vs against our new sect of Disciplinarians especially in the second and third point which their dissenting from Caluin Beza and other learned Authors of discipline he alwaies cunningly dissembleth And that his authority may be of more weight as I confesse him to haue bin a worthy seruant of Christ whose memory with me is blessed so I professe him to haue bin the first or chiefe founder of the Presbyterian or Geneuian discipline in setting vp whereof the Bishopricke being dissolued and the common weale reduced to a popular State I acknowledge him to haue dealt very wisely his proiect of discipline being the best that that Citie did seeme at that time capable of there being no hope that either a Bishop or a Presbytery consisting wholly of Ministers would be admitted But he cannot indure to heare that Caluin should bee esteemed the first founder of this discipline For coÌ„futation whereof he telleth vs what we haue heard an hundred times but neuer shall see proued that this discipline was both practised in the Apostles times and primitiue Church and hath testimony from many learned men Ignatius Tertullian Cyprian Ambrose c. Wickliffe the Waldenses Luther and diuers others hereafter to be named that liued before Caluin writ hee should haue said that writ before Caluin liued and then not one word of all this goodly speech had been true which as I haue manifested already in respect of Ignatius Tertullian Cyprian Ambrose Luther so farre as they haue been alleaged so shall I in respect of Wickliffe and the Waldenses whoneuer once dreamed of their lay presbyteries and much lesse of their new-found parish discipline Neither can he abide that Caluin should be said to agree with vs in these three points but he must abide it for truth will preuaile But that were exceeding strange saith hee that he should ouerthrow that discipline which he was so carefull to establish Let him not abuse the Reader his agreeing with vs in the second and third point ouerthroweth the new-found parish discipline but agreeth with the doctrine of the learned Reformers and with the practise of Geneua vnderstanding by B. as they doe the President of their Presbytery their Church being a diocesse consisting of many parishes ouer which one Presbytery only is appointed Of which Presbytery if the President were perpetuall â—as he was in Caluins time and as alwaies he was in the primitiue Church there being not one instance to be giuen to the
in the fourth century then in the third or in the third then in the second or in the second then the first the first Bishops in all likelihood hauing had rather a more eminent then lesse authority yet our new Disciplinarians for a poore shift and euasion deny this superiority of Bishops in degree and maiority in power to haue been in the first two hundred yeeres because they conceiue there is not the like euidence for the second as for the third Now our Refuter perceiuing there is better euidence then he imagined for the second century will needs haue the times of the primitiue Church restrained to the time of the Apostles And when they are driuen from that they were best to flie to the time of Christs conuersation vpon the earth For my part I make no doubt but that Anianus who succeeded S. Marke at Alexandria being a man beloued of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euery way admirable had the same episcopall authority which S. Marke had before him and that he and those which succeeded him euen in the Apostles times viz. Abilius and Cerdâ— had no lesse authority as diocesan Bishops then those which came two hundred yeeres after them Indeed when the Churches multiplying there was a consociation of dioceses in the prouince the Bishop of Alexandria became actually a Metropolitan Bishop which from the first might bee intended and when there was a consociation of prouinces subiected to him he became a Patriarch the antient Fathers in godly policie so thinking it necessary Now if any man shall thinke that the Bishop of Alexandria was but a parish Bishop at the first and vpon consâ—ciation of parishes subiected to him became a diocesan he is to vnderstand that the diocesse and the mother Church of the diocesse was before any parish that parishes arise out of the distribution of the diocesse that thâ— Bishop and his Presbytery of the mother Church were appointed not for one parish but for the whole diocesse that at Alexandria in and from S. Marks time who constituted the Churches there there haue been more Churches then one subiected to the Bishop of Alexandria Vnlearned therefore and vngrounded is that distinction of Bishops into six sorts viz. 1. Parishionall 2. Diocesan titular Bishop being the President or Moderator ouer the Pastors of a diocesse 3. Diocesan ruling Bishop though not solely 4. Diocesan L. Bishop 5. A Patriarchall Bishop 6. An vniuersall Bishop Of the first sort it is said all were in the first two hundred yeeres Of the second there beganne to be some in the end of the second century The third began about the yeere 260. The fourth shortly after Augustines time The fifth for he knew not how to distinguish betwixt Metropolitans whom hee outskippeth and Patriarches sometimes before the Councell of Nice And how is all this proued It is strange to see how strong some mens conceits can be when their reasons are full weake The proofes for the parish Bishop J haue before disproued How is the second proued Such perhaps first of all was Iulianus the tenth Bishop of Alexandria Perhaps But why he rather then S. Marke or Anianus or any other of his predecessors Because in his time first mention is made by Eusebius that there were diuers Churches in that Citie and hee Bishop of them This would haue gone for a stout reason no doubt had not Eusebius himselfe testified that Saint Marke constituted the Churches in Alexandria it selfe which euer from S. Marks time had but one Bishop at once How is the third demonstrated It may be this began at Alexandria with Dionysius 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 Marke to Heraclas and Dionysius Heare Ieromes words Euen at Alexandria from Marke the Euangelist vnto the Bishops Heraclas and Dionysius the Presbyters alwaies hauing chosen one from among themselues and placed him in a higher degree called him Bishop euen as an army chooseth a Generall Which words Ierome wrote to magnifie the calling of Presbyters and to prefeâ—re them before Deacons both because they chose their Bishop as also because they did elect him from among themselues vntill 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 Marke to Heraclas and Dionysius As if Ierome had giuen any the least signification of the lesse authority of Bishops before Heraclas then after and had not signified some difference onely in their election For Heraclas and Dionysius who had been Origens schollers and succeded him one after the other in his office of Catechist or Teacher in Alexandria in respect whereof they were no more Presbyters then Origen himselfe had been notwithstanding for their excellent learning the Presbyters who till then had euer chosen one out of their owne 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 ouer a parish seemeth to haue continued exclusiuely from Marke to Iulianâ—â—s for he was ashamed to say that Saint Marke who as the same Ierome testifieth was the Bishop of Alexandria was but a parish Bishop ouer a diocesse from Iulianâ—â— to Heraclas 〈◊〉 and the maiority of ruling in the diocesse to haue 〈◊〉 with Dionysius O acumen But the proofe is admirable and the conclusion passeth all The proofe is this Nothing lâ—â—teth vs but that thus we may probably thinke More is the pitie For true learning and a sound iudgement would haue let you from entertaining and much more from broching such vnlearned and vngrounded fancies Yea but by this meanes Eusebius and Ieromes relation shall well agree I answere though these fancies had neuer beene heard of there had not beene so much as any shew of disagreement betwixt them The conclusion Howsoeuer it is this is certaine that neither the one nor the other was knowne before these times As if he had said Perhaps Iulianus was the first titular Bishop It may be the ruling diocesan Bishoppes beganne at Alexandria with Dionysius At Heraclas it is probable was a period of one sort c. Nothing letteth vs but that thus wee may probably thinke But how soeuer vncertaine our premisses be wee are resolued vpon a certaine conclusion it is certaine c. Is it not strange that so certaine a conclusion should be inferred vpon so vncertaine premises especialle seeing it is most certaine that before Dionysius his time there were not onely diocesan but also Metropolitan BB. But
Alexandria that order was changed Then at the soonest saith the refuter began M. D. superiority of Bishops to creep in c. Which answere if his meaning be as our refuter conceiteth is vnsound For first where he saith the order was changed in Heraclas and Dionysius that is spoken but by ghesse because Ierome nameth them Vpon which coniecture T. C. and H. I. as you haue heard did build their two diuers fancies For Ieromes meaning was not to signifie that the superioritie of Bishops was altered but as I haue shewed that vntill Heraclas and Dionysius who were not Presbyters but Teachers of the schoole in Alexandria the Presbyters euer since S. Marks time did chuse one out of their owne number That which the Refuter addeth is absurd and against Ieromes plaine words Then at the soonest began M. D. superiority of Bishops to creepe in for the superiority I spake of is superiority in degree And Ierome saith that euer from Saint Marke and therefore euen in the Apostles times the BB. had been placed in a higher degree My fift argument is also from the authority of Ierome which yeeldeth a double proofe the former that the superiority of Bishops ouer Presbyters and Presbyters aboue Deacons is an ordinance or tradition apostolicall Secondly that as the high Preist was in degree superiour to the other Preists and they to the Leuits so by an apostolicall ordinance the Bishop is superiour to the Presbyters and the Presbyters to the Deacons That wee may know saith he the apostolicall traditions are taken out of the old testament looke what Aaron and his sonnes and the Leuits were in the Temple the same let the Bishops Preists and Deacons challenge in the Church To this testimony containing two impregnable proofs for the superiority of BB. not onely de facto but also de 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 proue that he was aduanced to a higher degree of the ministery euen so when a Presbyter was chosen to be Bishop he was by a new ordination promoâ—ed to the Bishopricke as to a higher degree The two first canons among those which are called the Apostles appoint that a Bishop should be ordained of two or three Bishops but let a Presbyter say they be ordayned of one Bishop and likewise a Deacon and the rest of the clergy Valeriuâ— the Bishop dealth with the Primate the Bishop of Carthage by letters intreating him that Augustine who then was Presbyter might be ordained Bishop of Hippo which being obtained Augustine tooke vpon him the care of the Bishopricke maioris loci 〈…〉 and ordination of a greater place The councell of Sardica taketh order that before a man may be a Bishop he must first performe the ministery of a Reader then of a Deacon then of a Presbyter that so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by euery degree if hee be worthy he may arise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnto the height of the Bishopricke Theadoret testifieth that Iohn Chrysostome hauing been the chiefe of the Presbyters at Antioch a long time oft times might haue been chosen to the Bishopricke which he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apostolicall presidency but alwaies did flie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that principality So that though he were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the chiefe of the Presbyters yet he was no Bishop neither durst he for a long time take vpon him that degree of principality So much of the superiority of Bishops in generall CHAP. III. Shewing wherin the superiority of Bishops did and doth consist and first of the singularity of preeminence Serm. sect 3. page 32. But let vs consider more particularly wherein the superioritie of Bishops did and doth consist c. ad lin a fine 6 THe superiority of Bishops ouer other Ministers I place in three things singularity of preeminence during life the power of ordination and the power of iurisdiction all which I ground on Tit. 1.5 But where I say during life hee saith This addition needed not seeing it is grounded vpon an erroneous conceit of mine owne whereby I charge them as holding the contrary Secondly that it is not proued out of the place alleaged In the former hee sheweth how audacious he is seeing Beza the chiefe patron of the pretended discipline holdeth that the Presidents of the Presbyteries which afterwards as he saith were called Bishoppes ought to be but for a short time and that by course and esteemeth them which had a perpetuall presidenship to be Bishops humane as I haue shewed before The practise also of those Churches where the discipline is vsed doth prooue what their Founders thought was agreeable to Gods word This their conceit is euidently confuted by the Epistles to Titus and to Timothy For seeing they doe confesse that they were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Churches of Creet and Ephesus it is euident that they continued in this Presidentshippe whiles they liued there For it is absurd to imagine that Titus was sent to Creet and Timothy to Ephesus to be presidents there in their turnes and when their turnes were ended to be subiected to other of the Presbyters there in their course But these things the refuter doth but cauill at by the way For he granteth that Titus had this superioritie which we speake of his maine answer is that Titus was not a Bishop Which afterwards J proue in the Sermon by the common consent of the antient and most approoued Writers of the Church with whose affirmation in a matter of fact if this Refuters deniall shall be weighed in the ballance of an vnpartiall iudgement it will be found as light as vanitie it selfe But of this question more hereafter In the meane time J will but desire the Reader to take this for granted because it cannot be denied that if Titus was Bishop of Creet then Bishops had this threefold superioritie which I speake of Where I commend this order of Church gouernement consisting in the superiority of Bishoppes and inferioritie of other Ministers this graue and learned Refuter maketh a scorne at it saying It is a toy to please children and a gay Epiphonema wanting a note of exclamation he would haue said acclamation to grace it The which argueth his spite against the gouernment of Bishoppes rather then his might being neither able to endure the iust commendation of episcopall gouernment nor yet to confute it For what hath he but trifles and toies to obiect against it For where hee saith I begge the question supposing ech Church to be a diocesse the conscience of the Reader I hope also of the Refuter will testifie that what I suppose in this behalfe hath beene before sufficiently prooued Besides those with whom I principally contend in this point doe confesse the Churches indued with power of
ecclesiasticall gouernement to haue beene dioceses as hath beene shewed I say then which also I prooued afterwards by the testimonies of Cyprian and Ierome whereto the authoritie of Basil may bee added that the vnitie of each Church meaning a diocesse dependeth of the vnitie of the Bishoppe and the setting vp of a second vnlesse it were by way of coadiutorshippe hath euer been esteemed the making of a schisme in the Church But of this more anon § 2. But let vs heare if it bee worth the hearing what more particularly hee obiecteth against these three points And first he trifleth to no purpose when he asketh If there bee not as much vnity in a parish vnder one Pastor as in a diocesse vnder a Bishoppe For though ech parish if it were according to the new conceit an entire body within it selfe vnsubordinate to any other may perhappes haue vnitie within it selfe yet in the Church of the diocesse or prouince that may happen which Ierome affirmeth is like to happen where is no Bishoppe that there shall bee as many schismes as parishes And surely what man of iudgement and moderation can without horrour thinke of those manifold schismes and diuisions which would ensue if euery parish should haue according to the newe conceit sufficient authoritie within it selfe vnsubordinate and independent for the gouernment of it selfe in all causes ecclesiasticall Yea but saith he If there bee not as great vnitie of the Church in a parish vnder one Pastor as in a diocesse vnder one Bishoppe then the more Churches are vnder one gouernement the greater is the vnitie 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 Bishoppe the greater is the vnitie But by one visible Church I meane the Christian people of one diocesse or of one prouince or at the most of one Nation For the Christian people liuing vnder diuers lawes as they be diuers Nations so are they diuers visible Churches though the faithfull in them all are members of one and the same Catholike Church Let vs heare how he prooueth the assumption If the more Churches are vnder one gouernment the greater vnitie then welfare the Pope who if this be true maketh vnitie of all Churches in the world As who should say all the Churches in the world are vnder the Popes gouernment so that whiles hee denieth the superiority of Bishoppes hee seemeth else there is no sense in his speech to hold the Popes supremacie If any man shall say that as the vnity of ech Church dependeth on the singular preeminence of the Bishoppe so the vnity of the whole Catholicke Church by the same reason shall depend of the Popes supremacy which seemeth to haue beene the Refuters meaning who desireth as much as may bee that the superioritie of Bishoppes and supremacy of the Pope may seeme to bee of one tenure I answere that the vnitie of the whole Church standeth in this that it is one body vnder one head Christ. And as in a diocesse to set vp a second head is to set vp an Antibishoppe and to make a schisme from the true Bishoppe so in the whole Church to acknowledge a second head is to set vp Antichrist and to make an apostasie from Christ. Neither was it euer the meaning of our Sauiour that as euery particular Church should be vnder one Pastor so the whole Church should be vnder one visible head or earthly Monarch For then would not he haue furnished his twelue Apostles with equall power and authority as I haue said before 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 cauilleth with mee as if either I had said there could bee no ordination at all without a Bishoppe or that the Bishop had the sole power thereof Thus being resolued to wrangle if he finde not matter to cauill at he will faine it I did not say there could be no ordination without a Bishoppe but that euer since the Apostles times to our age it hath been the receiued opinion in the Church of God that the right of ordination of Presbyters and Deacons is such a peculiar prerogatiue of BB. as that ordinarily and regularly there could be no lawfull ordination but by a Bishop otherwise I doe confesse in the sermon that extraordinarily and in case of necessity Presbyters may ordaine in the want of a Bishop Concerning the third he saith it is enough to preserue good order in Churches if iurisdiction be in the ministers and Presbyters Hee meaneth in the seuerall parishes which may after a fashion be gouerned where the supreame ecclesiasticall officer◠I meane the parish minister assisted with such a senate as ech parish is like to afford hath the reines of gouernment in all causes ecclesiasticall committed to them But I pray you how shall there be any good order in the gouernment of the Churches of a diocesse or prouince when euery parish is so according to the new conceipt an entire body of it selfe indeed a member by Schisme rent from the the rest as it hath neither consociation with nor subordination to others For they are not gouerned by consociation who deny the definitiue power of synods as our new Disciplinarians do neither do they acknowledge any subordination for their Pastor forsooth is the supreme ecclesiasticall officer and the power of ech parish is independent immediatly deriued from Christ. Now how is it possible there should be good order in the gouernment of so many parishes in a Kingdome where is no subordination no superiours nor inferiours but all equall But this is enough for our Disciplinarians if they might be subiect to no superiors but that each of them might be the supreme ecclesiasticall officer in euery Church Serm. sect 4. pag. 32. As touching the first whereas there were many Presbyters in one Citie c. to pag. 36. l. a fine 8. Jn this section I proue that the Bishops of the primitiue Church were superior to other Ministers in singularity of preeminence for terme of life Which is a point very materiall prouing both against the new Disciplinarians that the BB. were diocesan there being but one for ech diocesse as hath been touched before and against the elder that the BB. were not such as their Presidents of the Presbytery or Moderators of assemblies among them whose preeminence is but a priority of order and but for a short time and against both disprouing the parity of Ministers which is the other maine piller of the pretended discipline Here therefore it behoued the Refuter if his cause were such as indeed he could maintaine with soundnes of learning and euidence of truth both to haue disproued this superiority of BB. and to haue proued his parity of Ministers But he passeth by in
a Catholike Apostasie from Christ. So that this pretended remedie against Schisme causing a Catholike apostasy is as much or more to be auoided then Schisme it selfe the remedie being far worse then the feared maladie Serm. sect 6. pag. 37. This power is twofold the power of ordination and of iurisdiction c. 19. lines to Titus in Creet Where I place the power wherein Bishops are superior to Presbyters in these two things the Reader is to vnderstand that I mention the principall and most essentiall for otherwise ancient writers mention other prerogatiues of Bishops wherein their superioritie doth consist as by imposition of hands to confirme them that are baptized and publickely to reconcile the penitents to consecrate Churches c. of some whereof Ierome indeed saith they did belong ad honorem potius Sacerdotij quà m ad legis necessitatem rather to the honor of the Priesthood then to the necessitie of law But what saith the Refuter Now at the last yet saith he it seemeth that hee hath been long delaied or that he hath greatly longed in hope to do great matters to deale in this matter of ordination let vs see how it is proued that Bishops must haue sole power of ordination But where good sir do I say they must haue the sole power of ordination which you haue so oft objected and now againe do repeat make you no conscience of publishing vntruthes cannot BB. be superior to other ministers in the power of ordination and jurisdiction which is the thing which I maintaine vnlesse they haue the sole power or do I heere dispute what Bishops must haue when I onely shew what the ancient Bishops were wont to haue If he shall say that vnlesse they had the sole power of ordination they had not the superioritie which our Bishops haue I answer that our BB. haue no more the sole power of ordination then the ancient Bishops had And this I added in the Sermon that although the power of ordination was held in the primitiue Church to be so peculiar to Bishops as that ordinarilie and regularlie the ordination was not thought lawfull which was not done by a Bishop yet it doth not follow but that extraordinarily and in case of necessitie Presbyters might ordaine Howbeit I must confesse I am not able to alleage any approued examples thereof If the Refuter can which I do more then doubt of he shall do well to produce them it may tend to the credit of some other Churches it cannot be preiudiciall to the cause which I maintaine Seeing therefore the Refuter doth alter the state of the question making me to proue that which I did not intend because he could not answeare that which was propounded I should neither wrong him nor the Reader If I vouchsafed him no further answeare in this point But in very truth he is so far from refuting the superioritie of Bishops in the power of ordination which J propounded that he is not able to disproue their sole power which himselfe hath foisted into the question For as touching my first argument whereas he frameth for me this consequence It hath been the receiued opinion in the Church of God euer since the Apostles times that the right of ordination of Presbyters is such a peculiar prerogatiue of Bishops as that ordinarilie and regularlie there could be no ordination but by a Bishop therefore BB. haue sole authoritie of ordination he should haue said therefore they are superiour to other ministers in the power of ordination he passeth by this consequence though he would faine perswade his Reader that it is lyable to he cannot tell what just exception and only insisteth on the antecedent which is the assumption of his prolixe syllogisme But it is worth the hearing how he doth disproue it Forsooth It halteth downe right hauing no strength but from a false supposition and so proued to be that there were alwaies Diocesan Bishops Here the Refuter if he would haue said any thing to satisfie his Reader should haue produced some approued example of ordination either in the Apostles times or since performed by Presbyters without a Bishop whereby he might haue disproued my assertion but not being able so to doe he betaketh himselfe to his ordinarie trade of answearing by meere cauillations He talketh of a supposition whereon the assumption is grounded when as the speech is simple and categoricall as they speake and not hypotheticall and the effect of his answeare is not the deniall of a supposition but the taking away of the subiect 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 vnseasonably for the question now is not what their authoritie was extensiuè whether to a Diocese or not which in this point is not materiall 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 vntruely saith false for that errour he will as I hope recant when he shall haue read what I haue alledged for the proofe of Dioceses and Diocesan Bishops And whereas he saith he hath proued it to be false that also is vntrue for he neuer went about it Nec ausus est nec potuit onely he rejected it in a glorious maner as being so manifestly false that he should not need to disproue 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 parishionall and that the Presbyters joyned to them were lay elders it would then be knowne when the pastorall charge was voide who did ordaine the new Bishop or Pastor You will say that is alreadie defined It is one of the maine positions which the great challengers haue offred to prooue that euery parish hath within it selfe authoritie to elect ordaine depose and depriue their Minister Not that the whole parish doth ordaine but onely the Presbyterie Very good this then 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 Presbyterie consisting of lay elders But if they can proue by any one approued example that lay elders had euer or at any time right to ordaine or to impose hands I will yeeld in the whole cause My second proofe he hath peruerted proportioning it to his owne strength for he should haue framed it thus If the power of ordination were not in the Presbyters of Ephesus and Creet 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 prerogatiue 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
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 Councell their assistance to the B. in ordaining was first ordained which if it did as worthily it might then had he no reason to vrge that canon to proue the practise of the Church in the first two hundred yeeres in a particular which by that canon was first appointed Hauing thus remoued their two maine obiections which stood in my way I proceeded in the proofe of my former assertion that the right of ordination was in the iudgement of the antient Church appropriated to BB. As first that the Councels and Fathers speake of the ordainer as of one and consequently presuppose the right of ordaining to bee in one which I proued by foure testimonies This reason because the Refuter did not well see how to answere he passeth by it as if hee had not seene it To make it therefore more conspicuous I will inlarge it affirming that both Scriptures Councels and Fathers speake of the ordainer as of one Timothy was ordained by the imposition of Pauls hands Paul left Titus in Creet that he should ordaine Presbyters and chargeth Timothy that he should not lay hands hastily on any man c. The Canon called the Apostles appointeth that a Presbyter and so a Deacon be ordained of one The Councell of Antioch acknowledgeth euery Bishop within his owne diocesse to haue authority to ordaine Presbyters and Deacons The Councell of Africke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one Bishop may ordaine many Presbyters The Councell of Hispalis or Ciuill A Bishop alone may giue to Priests and Deacons their honour Chrysostome describeth the Bishop by this property 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that is to ordaine vs. The people of Hippo wanting a Presbyter lay hold on Augustine and as it was wont to be done bring him to Valerius the Bishop desiring him to ordaine him To these adde the penaltie inflicted vpon the B. alone when any ordination was irregular Sozomen reporteth that Elpidius Eustathius Basilius of Ancyra Eleusius among other faults obiected against them were deposed because euery of them had ordained contrary to law The aforeâ—aid Councell of Carthage decreeth that if a B. wittingly ordain a penitent he shall be depriued of the power of his Bishoprick at least from the power of ordaining And to the like penalty doth it subiect a Bishop who shall ordaine such a one as hath married her that is diuorced c. But you shall neuer reade that the Presbyters were fouÌ„d fault with for vnlawfull ordinations vnlesse that any of them did encroach vpon the Bishops right in ordaining which is a plaine euidence that the power of ordaining was in the B. and not in the Presbyters When Epiphanius being at Constantinople ordained a Deacon he was blamed as offending against the Canons not because hee wanted the presence of his Presbytery but because hee did it in Chrysostomes diocesse Secondly that the power of ordination was peculiar to the Bishop in the iudgement of the Fathers J proue first by the authority of Councels then by the testimonies of Epiphanius and Ierome To the former he answereth It is to no purpose to meddle with these allegations out of the Councels which were well nigh three hundred yeeres after the Apostles times and some of them such as deserue neither imitation nor approbation Here let the Christian Reader iudge what credit he deserueth that so contemptuously shaketh off the authority of antient Councels euen the second among the foure antient generall Councels which are and haue been from time to time receiued in the Church as it were foure Gospels But let vs examine the particulars consider whether they deserued to be so lightly reiected The first testimony was taken out of an Epistle written by the Presbyters and Deacons of Mareot in the behalfe 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 testifie these things to be false and among the rest they deny that Ischyras was a Presbyter because hee was ordained of Colluthus the Presbyter who was but an imaginary or phantasticall Bishop and afterwards by a generall Councell to wit by Osius and the BB. who were with him commanded to remaine 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 which denieth that Ischyras could be ordained Presbyter by Colluthus seeing Colluthus himselfe died a Presbyter and all his ordinations were reuersed and all that were ordained by him were held as lay men Hereunto we may adde another most pregnant testimony expressed in the acts of the same generall Councell of Sardica wherein it was decreed that forsomuch as Musaeus and Eutychianus were not ordained Bishops that therfore such Clerks as they had ordained should be held as lay men My second testimony is out of the second generall Councell concerning Maximus who being by birth an Alexandrian by profession a Cynick Philosopher before hee was conuerted to Christianity and receiued into the Clergy by Gregory the Diuine against whom he ambitiously sought the Bishopricke of Constantinople bribing the BB. of Egypt Who being come to Constantinople and excluded out of the Church went into a certaine minstrels house and there vnlawfully chose Maximus the Cynick to be Bishop of Constantinople The generall Councell therefore assembled at Constantinople determineth thus concerning Maximus that he neither was nor is a Bishop neither they Clerks who had been ordained by him in what degree so euer of the Clergy And to this I will adioyne another testimony out of the fourth generall Councell where Bassianus who had been Bishop of Ephesus and now sought to recouer it alleaged for himselfe that if he were not Bishop then were not they clerks which had been ordained by him Neither were ordinary Presbyters alone forbidden to ordaine but Chorepiscopi also that is country BB. sometimes were restrained and sometimes forbidden altogether to ordaine Presbyters and Deacons Restrained whiles there were such as had receiued episcopall ordination that they might not ordaine without the leaue of the Bishop of the Citie whereunto both the Chorepiscopus himselfe and his Country is subiect Forbidden altogether when they ceased to haue episcopall ordination and were ordained as other Presbyters by the B. of the Citie alone It seeemeth to me that Chorepiscopi vntill the Councel of Antioch had sometimes episcopall ordination being ordained by two or three Bishops And therefore to the Councell of Neocaesaria and Nice they subscribed among other BB But forasmuch
whether of vs spake without vnderstanding let the iudicious Reader heereby iudge For he conceiueth me as no man would that is not of a very shallow conceipt 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 plainely made it according to those Fathers iudgement but one part of the power of Order they supposing other parts of the power of order to bee common vnto Presbyters but that of ordaining to bee peculiar to the Bishop and in that sense say the Bishop in respect of the power of order is superiour onely in ordination Yea but Bellarmine for euen his authority when he saith any thing that may seeme to make for the Refuter must serue the turne saith that Potestas ordinis refertur ad sacramenta conficienda the power of order is referred to the ministery of the Sacraments Me thinks the Refuter should adde that it is also referred to the ministery of the Worde But what doth Bellarmine and all other Papists vnderstand by Sacraments Doe they not meane fiue others besides Baptisme and the Lords Supper the ministery of two whereof viz. of confirmation and of orders they make peculiar to BB. and of the other fiue common to them with all Priests and doth not Bellarmine therefore prooue that the order of Bishops is superiour to that of Presbyters and that Bishops are superiour in the power of order because the Bishop may conferre two Sacraments which the Presbyters may not viz. the Sacrament of confirmation and of orders Howbeit of the former Ierome saith that it was reserued as peculiar to BB. potiùs ad honorem sacer dotij quà m ad legis necessitatem It is true that some Popish writers make BB. and Presbyters to be but one order but you must withall take the reason of that Popish conceipt They hold that the Sacrament of the altar as they call it is the Sacrament of Sacraments whereunto the Sacrament of orders is subordinate all their orders of Clerks being ordained to the ministerie of the altar and that euery one of their 7. orders all which they call Sacraments is onely to be counted a Sacrament as it hath reference to the Eucharist to which purpose Thomas Aquinas doth somewhat ridiculously distinguish their 7. orders according to their diuers 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 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 certaine sacred actions in this sense saith Thomas that the Bishop hath power in sacred and Hierarchicall actions in respect of Christs mysticall body aboue the priest the office of a Bishop is an order For you must vnderstand that they make al Ecclesiasticall power to haue referrence to the body of Christ either verum his true bodie in the Sacrament of the altar which they call the power of order or mysticum mysticall that is the the Church and members thereof which they cal the power of iurisdiction This new Popish conceipt therefore of confounding Bishops and Presbyters into one order ariseth from their idol of the Masse their doctrine of transubstantiation wherby euery Priest is as able to make his maker as the Pope himselfe I call it newe because all the ancient writers doe confesse as before hath been shewed Bishops Presbyters and Deacons to be three distinct degrees and consequētly orders of the Ministery 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 Wherefore laying aside these popish conceipts let vs consider what is to bee determined concerning this matter according to the truth 1. And first that ecclesiasticall power is to bee distinguished into the power of order and iurisdiction 2. That the power of order is a spirituall power whereby ecclesiasticall persons are qualified and enabled to doe sacred actions appertayning to the seruice of God and saluation of men which they who are not of the same order at the least may either not at all or not ordinarily performe 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 haue no iurisdiction or charge and therfore cannot be taken from them whiles they continue in that order 4. That of Ecclesiasticall order there are three degrees in Bishops Presbyters and Deacons and because neither of the two superiour orders may be granted to any per saltum therfore each superiour order includeth the inferiour so that a presbyter may doe that which belongeth to a Deacon and a Bishop that which belongeth to to a presbyter but not contrariwise 5. That the power of the order of Presbyters is besides the performance of the diuine liturgy and power to administer the sacrament of Baptisme 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 retaine the sinnes of men which last I doe not doubt to referre to the power of order First because it is giuen to the minister in his ordination and belongeth to him as he is simply a Presbyter without iurisdiction or relation to a charge And secondly because it continueth with him whiles he is of the order though his charge and iurisdiction should be taken from him Besides this power of remitting and retaining sinnes is called the key of order and according to the Popish doctrine 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 conuey grace as the ordinary instrument of the holy ghost either to parties baptized for their confirmation or to penitents for their reconciliation or to parties designed to the ministery for their ordination As touching the former the ancient writers gather it to bee peculiar to BB. because howsoeuer many in the primitiue Church were conuerted and baptized by men of inferiour order yet the Apostles alone and after them the BB. had authority to put their hands vpon them that they might receiue the holy Ghost Acts. 8. 19. And for the latter we read that both the Apostles themselues and such as they ordained Bishops did ordaine ministers by imposition of hands insomuch that whereas at Ephesus and in Creet where were diuers Presbyters before Timothy and Titus were appointed to ordaine ministers I hold this authority
and were Pastors thereof And secondly because if I prooue they gouerned the Presbyters who were the gouernours of the seuerall flockes then much more their iurisdiction did extend to the flockes themselues Where he saith J must prooue that the censuring the people is their onely right I answer it is sufficient to prooue their superioritie in iurisdiction which I intended and that none in the Diocese doth exercise externall iurisdiction but from the B. and vnder him A notable euidence whereof wee haue in Siluanus the famous Bishop of Troas who perceiuing those of his Clergie to make gaine of mens suits appointed others whom he thought good to bee the Judges of mens causes whereby he got himselfe great renowne And as for the power of binding and loosing in the court of conscience it is common to Bishops with all Presbyters howsoeuer in respect of the vse and exercise thereof they are subiect to the Bishop Where hee saith that Bishops haue their iurisdiction jure humano because they haue it not potestate ordinis by the power of their order he seemeth to harpe vpon something which hee doth not well vnderstand For although the Schoolemen and Papists teach that to the power of order belongeth a character and grace which God alone doth giue in their ordination yet they grant also that the jurisdiction which is conferred to them by the will of man doth also mediately proceede from God And howsoeuer it be true that Bishops with vs are assisted iure humano to exercise their publike and externall iurisdiction and to iudge in causes ecclesiasticall by the Kings ecclesiasticall Law yet this doth not hinder but that they are authorized thereunto iure Apostolico as is manifest by the Apostles themselues by Timothie and Titus and all the ancient Bishops of the Primitiue Church who by authoritie deriued to them from the Apostles did exercise the ecclesiasticall censures ouer the people and clergy before there were any lawes of Christian Magistrates to authorise or assist them thereunto But he is pleased to see how I proue the BB. to haue been superior to the Presbyters in iurisdiction though not pleased that I speake in generall of BB. for here his Coccysme againe hath place that I should haue proued the Angels of the seauen Churches to haue had iurisdiction ouer ministers vnder them Which is a miserable poore shift indeed Was not this the thing propounded to be proued that the BB. of the primitiue Church were superior in iurisdiction doth not himselfe confesse that the ancient Churches were all of one Constitution And is not the proofe of the generall a proofe of the particular also If I should say these seauen Angels had this iurisdiction some such exception of singularity in them would with as great reason be taken as against Timothy and Titus But when I proue that BB. in generall had this superiority I doe more then proue that these seauen Bishops had it The reason which I vse is an induction The Bishop had superiority in iurisdiction both to the Presbyters that were parts of the Presbytery assisting him and to the Pastors assigned to seuerall cures Therefore he had superior iurisdiction to all the Presbyters in the diocesse But the Refuter maketh me reason thus If the Bishoppes had maiority of rule both ouer the Presbyters that assisted them and also ouer the Pastors allotted to their seuerall charges then had they power of iurisdiction But they had maiority of rule ouer the Presbyters assisting them and the Pastors c. Therefore they had power of iurisdiction Why Needes this to be proued that Bishops had power of iurisdiction which euery parish Minister hath Or doth the Refuter deny that Bishops had power of iurisdiction Or if he cannot but grant the conclusion what a folly is it to wrangle with the premises And yet for feare of granting the conclusion first hee pickes a quarrell with the proposition For though they had maiority of rule c. yet wâ—ll it not follow they had sole power of iurisdiction Whence commeth this sole I pray you that hath so oft been foisted in I feare greatly from an euill conscience resolued to oppugne and deface the truth Cannot the B. be superior to Presbyters in the power of iurisdiction vnlesse they haue as none haue the sole power of iurisdiction Then hee flatly denieth the assumption But what reason doth he giue of his deniall what euidence of truth doth he bring to proue the contrary Alas he troubleth not himselfe that way all his care and endeuour is to find out starting holes and euasions to elude the truth I proue first in generall that BB. had maiority of rule or superiority of iurisdiction ouer the Presbyters euen those of the City who were the chiefe Then in particular in the next section The former I proue first by the testimony of Ierome who confesseth that of necessity a power eminent aboue all and admitting no partner at least no compeere is to be granted to the B. To this besides the poore euasion of Ieromes minority and being vnder age before answered he saith Ierome speaketh of such BB. as hee acknowledgeth to 〈◊〉 no warrant in the scriptures and to haue beene brought into the Câ—â—rch by occasâ—â—â— of schisme after the Apostles times Both which I haue before proued and shall againe proue to be manifestly false Doth Ierome deny BB. to haue warrant in the scriptures besides the places of the new testament often alledged call to mind those two on Psalme 45. and Esay 60. Where he calleth them principes ecclesia by warrant of those scriptures Doth Ierome say they were not brought into the Church vntill after the Apostles times doth not he confesse Iames Markâ— Timothy Titus and diuers others to haue been BB. in the Apostles times and that euer since S. Marke there haue beene BB. at Alexandria Secondly I alledge Ignatius whom themselues oft alledge for their Presbyteries But see what hard hap some men haue he whose authority is so good when he is alleaged by them is but a counterfeit when he is produced by me And yet those who suspect fiue of his epistles because Eusebius and Ierome mention but seauen acknowledge this ad Trallianos to be none of the fiue which are suspected but one of the seauen which are receiued This â—uasion should not haue bin vsed if he could tell how to answer his testimony otherwise Yes that he can For though Ignatius doe say that a B. is such an one as holdeth or manageth the whole power and authority aboue all yet that proueth not the sole iurisdiction of BB. God amend that soule that so oft foisteth in that sole besides my meaning and my words And yet truely Ignatius saith faire for the sole power For if the B. haue the whole power and authority aboue all why may he not be said to haue the sole power and authority ouer all what saith the refuter he alone
no further then he seeth cause He therefore reporteth it as a doctrine of Peter that no Presbyter ought to doe any thing in any Bishoppes parish or diocesse without his permission and that all Presbyters ought without delay to be obedient to their BB. in all things § 14. But as I prooued that Presbyters might doe nothing without the Bishoppes appointment or consent so I noted especially those things which belong to their power of order as the actions of their ministery to baptize to celebrate the Communion to preach to say the publike Liturgy or diuine seruice As touching Baptisme I alleaged Tertullian testifying that the Bishoppe hath the right to giue Baptisme then the Presbyters and the Deaconâ— but yet not without the authority of the Bishoppe for the honour of the Church that is the honour due vnto him in the Church which being safe peace is safe Where note in Tertullians time within the first two hundred yeeres the Bishoppe was so greatly honoured that the peace of the Church was supposed to depend on the honour of the Bishoppe as Ierome 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 necessitie lay men in his iudgement might baptize To this the Refuter giueth fiue answeres but neuer a good one As first that Tertullian speaketh not of their iuresdiction in the Apostles times or afâ—er by authority from them Hee speaketh nor de facto but de iure noting what right Bishops had and hee sheweth the ordinary right of baptizing which the Presbyters had was not without the Bishops authority 2. That the preeminence he giueth them was for the honor of the Church and preseruation of peace What then was this peculiar to his time Were they not as carefull of the honour of the Church and preseruation of peace in the Apostles times as after 3. Neither doth he speake of the authority of the Bishop in generall but of an honour giuen him in one particular And for one particular belonging to the power of order did I alleage it that hauing prooued this point in generall I might also shew it in the particulars which cannot otherwise be done but sigillation one by one Yea but this honour no one particular might well bee in a titular Bishoppe that had no such iurisdiction 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 Councell of Nice was not to haue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the authority but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the bars name of a Bishop And such were Nouatian Bishops returning to the Church permitted to be if the Catholike Bishop would gratifie them with the name and title of a Bishop I reade of Eustathius the Metropolitan B. of Pamphylia who being desirous to leade a more quiet and solitary life gaue vp his Bishopricke whereupon Theodorus was chosen in his roome For it was not meet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Church should continue a widow and that the flockes â—f our Sauiour should remaine without a gouernour But he afterwards repenting him of the abdication of his Bishopricke putteth vp a petition to the Councell of Ephesus that hee might at the least retaine the name and honour of a Bishop At his request the Councell writeth to the Synod of Pamphylia that he might haue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the name the honour and communion of a Bishop but yet so as that neither he doe ordaine nor taking vpon him the charge of the Church should performe sacred actions by his owne authority Thus we see who were titular Bishops in the primitiue Church such as were gratified with the name but wanted the office and authority of a Bishoppe As for those who had the office of a Bishoppe of whom Tertullian speaketh they had also vigorem episcopatus the vigor of the episcopall office whereof Cyprian so oft speaketh and the sway of authority ecclesiasticall was in their hands insomuch that Presbyters and Deacons who by the power of their order had right to baptitize might not euen in Tertullians time exercise that power but by authority from the Bishop In the fourth place the Refuter obiecteth that these Presbyters were not ordinary Ministers of the word and Sacraments but such as he and his fellowes dreame of because Tertullian in the very next words affirmeth alioquin etiamlaicis iut est otherwise lay men also might baptize That the Presbyters were Ministers I haue manifestly proued before and I haue 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 baptize And so Ierome seemeth to exhound Tertullians meaning Hence it is that without Chrisme which the Presbyters of the seuerall parishes were to fetch from their B. and without the commandement of the Bishop neither Presbyter nor Deacon haue right to baptize Which notwithstanding wee know to be oft times lawfull for lay men to doe si tamen necessitas cogit but yet so if necessity doe compell But nothing is more euident then that the Presbyters were Ministers by that which hath heretofore been deliuered Whereunto this helpeth somewhat that Tertullian opposeth Presbyters and Deacons to laymen This obiection the Refuter thought to preuent by saying that the gouerning Elders and Deacons were accounted among the Clergy Which also is an vnlearned assertion For to omit the arguments which before were brought to prooue that the Presbyters and Deacons were degrees of the sacred Ministery it is plaine that the clergy of each diocesse was a company of such as were trained vp in learning it being the seminary of the whole diocesse And as they profited in yeeres learning and pietie so they were preferred to bee Readers then Exorcists then Acolythi then Sub-deacons after that Deacons then Presbyters out of whom ordinarily was chosen the Bishoppe And moreouer 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 haue such Presbyters and Deacons as were in the primitiue Church they must fetch them from the Vniuersitie and schooles of learning as we doe and maintaine them by the charges of the Church as well though not with so large allowance as the Bishop His last euasion 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 subiect to him as his assistants for that one Church But parish Bishoppes such as they speake of and lay elders be of one edition neuer heard of before our age For the more manifest proofe whereof I referre
you to that which before hath been by mee alleaged Jt is euident therefore by the testimonies of Tertullian and Ierome that such was the superioritie of Bishoppes in respect of iurisdiction that the Presbyters and Deacons though the right to baptize belonged to their power of order yet they might not exercise that power without iurisdiction and authority granted them from the Bishop The like I alleaged concerning the Lords Supper Ignatius saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let that Eucharist be allowed as firme and warrantable which is celebrated vnder 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 preuent the Refuters cauill who saith that the Church was but one Congregation whâ—rein no man had authoritie 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 administred in other congregations by such as the Bishop did authorize But the idle conceit of one onely Congregation in the greatest Churches hath beene before sufficiently refuted Where I alleged Cyprian reproouing the Presbyters of Carthage for giuing the Communion to some which had fallen in time of persecution without warrant from him though he were absent therin not regarding as they ought praepositum sibi Episcopum the Bishop who was set ouer them nec Episcopo honorem Sacerdotij sui Cathedrae seruantes nor reseruing vnto the Bishop the honour of his Priesthood and Chaire the Refuter saith the same answer which he gaue to Tertullian will serue as a poore shift for Cyprians testimonie who had iust cause to complaine that the Presbyters who in his absence were to feede the Flocke had taken vpon them to admit to the Communion c. Doth not the Refuter see his former shift will not serue the turne Is it not plaine that the Presbyters which Cyprian speaketh of who as hee saith elsewhere were cum Episcopo sacerdotali honore coniuncti ioined to the Bishop in the honour of Priesthood who were to feed the people and whose office it was to deliuer the holy Communion to the people were Ministers of the word and Sacraments Againe will it serue the turne 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 haue proued before to haue beene a Metropolitan In the end he resteth in his first answer that Cyprian is vnder age Alas good Cyprian how hard was thy happe that thou wert not Bishop one fortie yeeres sooner that the Refuter and his consorts which now haue excluded thee without the compasse of their imagined Primitiue Church might haue esteemed thy testimonie as good as Tertullians or others who wrote in the first 200. yeeres The like I might haue added concerning other ministeriall functions The second Councell of Carthage decreed that if any Presbyter without the consent of the B. should in any place agenda celebrare celebrare diuine seruice and performe such actions as belong to the ministerie hee should be deposed The Councell of Gangra pronounceth him accursed who shal performe the actions of the church meaning those things which appertaine to Gods publike seruice and the ministerie of the word and sacraments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there being not present a Presbyter by the appointment of the Bishop The ancient Canon called the Apostles appointeth that such a Presbyter as will of his owne authoritie without the appointment of the B. hold assemblies for the seruice of God vse of the sacraments that he should be deposed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as ambitious The same hath the Councell of Antioch in the fifth Canon which Canon being recited in the Councell of Chalcedon all the BB. gaue it this acclamation This is a iust rule this is the rule of the Fathers This case being propounded in the Councell of Carthage if a Presbyter being condemned by his owne B. shall swell with pride against him and thinke he may apart celebrate the diuine seruice and offer the Communion c. the Councell determined if any Presbyter swelling with pride against his B. shall make a schisme withdrawing himselfe from the Communion of his B. c. let him be anathema For a conclusion I alleged the words of Ignatius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let no man without the B. that is without his leaue and authority doe any thing that belongeth to the Church To which the Refuter maketh this one only answer of one congregation which I haue confuted more then once To proue the Bishops power and authority in correcting Presbyters in the first place I alleged Cyprian who telleth Regatianuâ— a B. who had beene abused of his Deacon that pro Episcopatus vâ—gore Cathedrae authoritate for the vigour of his Bishopricke and authority of his chaire hee might himselfe haue censured him as he thought good counselleth him if the Deacon did persist hee should exercise the power of his honor towards him and either depose him or excommunicate him Secondly Ierome maruelling that the B. where Vigilantius was Presbyter did not virga apostolica with the apostolike and with an iron rodde breake that vnprofitable vessell and deliuer him vnto the destruction of the flesh Both these the refuter casteth off as vncompetent witnesses who speake but of the practise of their owne times as who should say it had beene otherwise before their times But it is plaine almost by innumerable testimonies some whereof I will cite anon that the ancientest Canons Councels and Fathers acknowledge and allow this correctiue power in the Bishops ouer the Presbyters and Deacons in the Primitiue Church As for the Apostles times I prooue the same out of the Apocalypse but more plainely out of the Epistles to Timothe and Titus The former reason if the Refuter will giue me leaue to frame it is this Those who either are commended for examining and not suffering such in their Church as called themselues Apostles and were not or were reprooued for suffering false Teachers had a correctiue power ouer other Ministers The Angell of the Church of Ephesus is commended for the former the Angell of the Church of Thyatira is reproued for the latter Therefore these Angels which before I haue proued to be BB. had a correctiue power ouer other Ministers His answer is friuolous that neither these Angels were diocesan Bishops which before hath been prooued nor these false Teachers diocesan Presbyters which word himselfe deuised for a shift Is it not against sense saith hee that the Presbyters which were subiect to the B. should call themselues Apostles If they were not subiect to him why is hee either commended for exercising
B. Geminianus And this was the vsuall stile which Presbyters did vse when they did subscribe to Councels instead of their B. whose place they supplied As to the Councell of Arles Desiderius Presbyter directus à Domino meo Ioanne Episcopo directed from my Lord Iohn the B. haue giuen my consent and subscribed and so three others there mentioned in like maner to diuers other Councels Whosoeuer will peruse the Acts of the great Councell of Chalcedon hee shall seldome read any B. mentioned without some title of great reuerence and honour as reuerendissimus sanctissimus And long before that Socrates acknowledgeth that it was the vsuall manner in his time not to speake of BB. without titles of great honour calling them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 most religious most holy or such like And Chrysostome saith plainly that Heretikes haue learned of the Diuell not to giue due titles of honour to Bishops But where hee findeth fault with them for that in stead of those titles which argue their authoritie they said your reuerence your wisedome and such like what would hee haue said to the tearmes that haue beene vsually giuen to our Bishops by the Disciplinarians among vs I say among vs for Caluin Beza and others when they haue had occasion to write to our Bishops haue not refused to giue them their titles of honour To omit the rest Caluin writing to Archbishop Cranmer vseth these titles Illustrissime Domine Ornatissime clarissime Praesul c. Zanchius to Bishop Grindall Reuerendissime Antistes Beza and Sadeel to Archbishop Whitgift Reuerendissimo viro in Christo Patri Domino Archiepiscopo Cantuariensi serenissimae Reginae Consiliario totius Angliae Primati c. His second answer containeth two things the former that the title of Angels which the holy Ghost giueth to BB. for that onely J mentioned is quite besides the purpose my argument being this The holy Ghost giueth BB. a more honourable title in calling them the Angels of the Churches then if he had called them Lords Therefore wee should not thinke much that they are called Lords He answereth The Angels are glorious creatures of heauen and haue some fit resemblance of the Ministers office Lord Lordship and grace are tearmes of ciuill honour not so well befitting the Ministers of Christ Iesus I confesse they doe not so well befit them because they come short of that honour and excellencie which in the name of Angels the holy Ghost ascribeth to them For they are called not only Angels that is messengers and ambassadours of God as all ministers are in respect of their ministerie but also each of them is called the Angell of the Church whereof he is B. in respect of his gouernment and gardianship of the Church as the holy Angels of God are said to be their Angels ouer whom they are appointed Gouernours and gardians Therefore the name Lord giuen to them in respect of their gouernment and authoritie is a title of lesse honour then that which in the same respect is giuen them by our Sauiour Christ. Neither are they therefore ciuill Lords because they haue that title of Lords common to them with the Lords temporall For who knoweth not the distinction betweene the Lords spirituall and temporall so often mentioned in the Acts of Parliament And whereas in the second place hee would insinuate that our Sauiour Christ expresly forbiddeth these titles of Lordship and grace Luc. 22. where though hee readeth thus The Kings of the Gentiles reigne ouer them and they that beare rule ouer them are called gracious Lords but you shall not bee so yet he is not so ignorant of the Greeke tongue as not to know that neither gratious nor Lords are there mentioned in the originall text That was an affectionate translation of those who were too partiall in this cause That very title which our Sauiour speaketh of two of the Ptolemies Kings of Aegypt did assume vnto themselues either of them being called Ptolomeus Euergetes Ptolemy the bountifull or benefactor But indeed in the language wherein our Sauiour spake the word which is translated Benefactors is often vsed 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 haue beene Lukes meaning as not only Merceruâ— but Beza 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 plaine that the disciples imagining that Christ should be a worldlie Monarch expected that themselues should be earthly Princes in great authoritie about him euery one affecting a neerer place about him then his fellowes as appeareth by the two sonnes of Zebede whose ambitious suite to Christ that they might sit one on his right hand and the other on his left in his kingdome gaue occasion of this speech as Matthew noteth Whereas therefore they both erred in their imagination thinking that they should be great Princes vnder an earthly Monarch and were corrupt in their affection each one of them ambitiously seeking superioritie ouer the rest our Sauiour seeketh to reforme both telling them that neither they should bee earthly Princes as they imagined in these words But you not so neither ought they to affect ambitiously superioritie ouer others but that by how much they should exceed others in dignitie they should labor by so much the more to excell them in humility imitating his example Neither did our Sauiour Christ interdict his Apostles either superioritie of authority ouer others or titles of eminent honour The authoritie and dignitie of being his Apostles is greater then any either honour or title that is giuen to our BB. Ierome writing on Pauls stile which he assumeth to himselfe Tit. 1.1 saith Where hee calleth himselfe the Apostle of Iesu Christ it seemeth some such thing as of hee had said Prâ—fectus prâ—terio Augusti Caesaris Magister exercitus Tiberij Imperatoris For euen as the Iudges of this world that they may seeme the more noble take names from the Kings whom they serue and from the dignitie wherewith they are puffed vp euen so the Apostle challenging to himselfe great authoritie among Christians he signified before hand that he was the Apostle of Christ that by the authoritie of the name bee might bring in awe those that should reade shewing thereby that all which beleeue in Christ must be subiect to him Hauing thus answered the first obiection I did easily foresee that three other things would bee obiected the first if Bishops may be called Lords then they may behaue themselues as Lords of the Churches I answered that although they may not behaue themselues as Lords of the Churches yet being the Angels of the Churches and spirituall Fathers to
vntill that time when hee comming to Corinth saw Primus the B. with whom he conuersed there a good while reioycing 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 euery succession and in euery 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 Iames saith he surnamed the Iust had suffered Martyrdome Simon the sonne of Cleophas is made B. whom all men preferred for this cause because he was the Lords cousin wherefore they called the Church a Virgin for as yet she had not been corrupted with vaine doctrines but Thebulis because he was not made B. began to corrupt it being the broacher of one of the seauen heresies which were in the people So much of the first argument The second is taken from the testimonie of Ierome in two places the former in Titus 1. where he saith thus before that by the instinct of the deuill factions began in the Church and it was said among the people I am of Paul I 〈◊〉 of Apollos I am of Cephus the Churches were gouerned by the common counsell of the presbyters but when euery one accounted those for his whom he had baptised it was decreed in the whole world that one being chosen from the presbiters should be set ouer the rest in euery Church vnto whom the care of that whole Church or diocese should appertaine and that the seeds of schismes might be taken away For full answer to this testimony he referreth vs to another place and when he commeth thither I doubt he will not say much to the purpose In the meanetime he answereth first to the testimony itselfe and then to my inference out of it to the testimony he answereth that Ierome maketh the beginning of this constitution of BB. not in the Apostles times nor in the times immediatly succeeding the Apostles Not the former because otherwhere he saith that BB. were superiour to presbiters rather by the custome of the Church then any ordinance of God Whereto I answer that custome himselfe calleth an Apostolicall tradition and else where most plainely and fully testifieth in many places some whereof are noted in the Sermon both that BB. were in the Apostles times and also were ordayned by the Apostles themselues Not the latter because it is as I had told him against the modest charitie of a Christian to imagine that all the Church would conspire at once to thrust out the gouernment established by the Apostles and insteed thereof to bring in another of their owne 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 Apostolicall Churches receiued this gouernment from the Apostles or else confesse according to his vsuall modesty in setting light by the testimony of all antiquitie that all Churches conspired to alter the gouernment which the Apostles had established But of his modestie I would know when he thinketh this gouernment by BB. began and whether he must not be forced of necessity either to lay that foule imputation vpon all the ancient Churches on all the godly Fathers and blessed Martyrs or to yeeld that they had receiued this forme of gouernment from the Apostles My inference also he denyeth When as not withstanding the allegation giueth full testimonie 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 then I intended But it is plaine that by Ieroms 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 vntill factions beganne the Churches were gouerned viz. in the absence of the Apostles by the common counsell of the Presbiters which may be true of the most Churches excepting that of Ierusalem by Ieromes owne confession But when factions began as those did in the Apostles times whereof he speaketh the Apostles ordayned and in the whole Christian world it was obserued that for auoiding of schisme one should be chosen from among the presbiters who should be set ouer the rest and to whom the whole care of the Church that is the diocese should appertaine As for the reasons whereby he proueth the consequence feeble they are exceeding weake First because Ierom 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 bene said secondly saith he because he saith it was decreed in the whole world which could not well be without a generall Councill vnlesse it soaked in by little and little till at the last it ouer-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 obserued in the Churches in the first three hundred yeares before there was a generall Councill to decree it proceeded vndoubtedly from the Apostles Now it is more then euident that long before the first generall councill there were not onely Diocesan BB. but Metropolitanes also yea Patriarches that which he talketh of soking in by little and little agreeth not with the generall decree whereof Ierome speaketh whereby what is instituted is ordayned at once Neither can hee assigne any time after the Apostles when BB. had either lesse charges or lesse authority then in the end of the first three or foure hundred yeares Their Diocesses oft times as hath beene shewed were lessened in processe of time but seldome or neuer enlarged Neither is it to be doubted but that their authority among Christians was greater before there were Christian Magistrates then afterwards For before they called and held their Councels by their owne authority they heard and iudged all causes among Christians they punished all kindes of faults by Ecclesiasticall censures The other testimony of Ierome is out of his commentarie on Psal. 45. which I haue mentioned before That the Church in steed of her Fathers which were the Apostles had sonnes which were the BB. who should be appointed gouernours in all parts of the world He saith first this testimonie is an allegorie vpon the 45. Psalme and not a historie of the times Which is a friuolous euasion For it is an exposition of the Prophecie by the historie or euent and so not onely he but Augustine also expoundeth the place Secondly he alledgeth that Ierome doth not say that the Church had BB. as soone as the Apostles were gone which also is friuolous For he signifieth that the BB. did succeede the Apostles in the gouernment of the Church which else where he plainly professeth saying that BB. are the successors of the Apostles
If any other had come betweene them and the Apostles those other should haue beene the Apostles successors and they the predecessors to the BB. Besides others of the Fathers in plaine termes testifie that the Apostles committed the Church euery where to the BB. and left them their successors which in the successions also of BB. in the Apostolicall Churches is plainely declared Simeon the sonne of Cleophas succeeding Iames Evodius Linus Timothie Tittu c. substituted by the Apostles Peter and Paul and succeeding them in the gouernment of those Churches wherein they were placed Thirdly he saith Ierome applied the Psalme to the practise of the times wherein he liued not expounding the meaning of the Prophecie which if he had done he must haue acknowledged that such BB. were by the ordinance of God Who could be so shameless as to say that Ierome expoundeth not the meaning of the Prophecie when hee commenteth thus Pro patribus tuis nati sunt tibi filij 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 hi patres tui quia ab ipsis regeris Hee therefore expoundeth the meaning of the Prophecie applying it to the state of the Church immediatly after the decease of the Apostles and not onely to Ieromes times Why but then Ierome must be thought to haue helde the function of BB. to be a diuine ordinance that followeth not for he might hold them to be prophecied of as he also confesseth Es. 60. and yet esteeme them but an apostolical ordinance being neither immediately ordained of God nor yet prouided as generally perpetually to be necessarily obserued as those things which are said to be simply diuini iuris My third argument consisteth of two branches the former affirmatiue that the Councels Histories and Fathers with one consent giue testimony to the gouernment by BB the other negatiue that not any one pregnant testimony of any sound writer or example of any one orthodoxal or apostolicke Church viz. in the first three hundred yeares after Christ and his Apostles can be produced to the contrarie To the former he answereth that the Councels Histories and Fathers either beare witnesse of their owne times which is nothing to the purpose seeing the ancientest Councell was in the fourth age of the Church or else iudge of the BB. in former times by that which they saw then in practise taking all that had the same name of BB. to haue beene pertakers of the same authoritie If the Fathers did beare witnesse onely of their owne times it were sufficient for the proofe of my assertion seeing there were diuers in all the terme specified of three hundred yeares after the Apostles which giue testimonie vnto it as in the first age after the Apostles to omit them of the two latter Ignatius Hegesippus Irenaeus Clemens Tertullian doe giue plaine testimonie vnto it and two of them as hath beene shewed to wit Ignatius and Irenaeus were not onely Diocesan but also Metropolitane BB. But the Fathers histories and councils doe not onely speake of their owne times but also relate what was done in the Apostles times and immediatly vpon their decease Doe they not testifie with one consent as I partly shew in the two arguments following that there were BB. in the Apostles times appointed and ordayned by the Apostles themselues doe they not say that the Apostles committed the Churches to them and left them to be their successors in the gouernment of the Church is not this one of the chiefe things which Eusebius propoundeth to himselfe in his history to set down the succession of BB chiefely of those who next succeeded the Apostles in the Apostolicall Churches But let the Reader iudge of the Refuter and his cause by that which followeth The Fathers discerned not or knew no difference betweene the calling or authority of the BB. which were in their owne time and those which had beene before them but thought and wrote of them as being alike the chiefest of them in euery age from the Apostles being BB. themselues The refuter and his fellowes comming thirteene or foureteene yea almost fiueteene hundred yeares after some of them will needes haue a difference and rather then it shall not stand all the Fathers must be condemned as Idiots for not seeing that which these learned men doe see I greatly meruaile with what face or rather with what conscience the refuter could auouch these things The Nagatiue part of my reason he saith is directly false in both the parts of it as well for testimonies as examples But I desire the reader to haue an eye to the refuters dealing so shall he easily discerne to what poore shifts he is driuen first consider what was the assumption of my first Syllogisme which by these foure arguments I doe proue to wit that in the first three hundred yeeres after Christ and his Apostles the gouernment by BB. was generally and perpetually vsed This I proue in this third reason by the testimonies of Antiquity both affirmatiuely that all antiquity viz. Councils Fathers Histories with one consent giue testimony to it and also negatiuely that no testimony or example of antiquity no ancient Councill Father or History no example of any antient orthodoxall or Apostolicall Church can be produced to the contrary This any reasonable man would take to be my meaning Now consider his instances wherein he spendeth aboue sixe leaues and if any one of them be both true and direct to the purpose then say that I haue no iudgement First for testimonyes We haue pregnant testimonies saith he of the ancients and of many sound writers in these latter ages who affirme that BB. and ministers were all one in the Apostles times and that one minister exercised not authority ouer his fellow ministers as BB. since haue done and still doe 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 neuer meant to extend the negatiue part of my reason further then the affirmatiue and therefore as I said that the Councils Histories and Fathers doe all giue testimonie to the Episcopall gouernment so I meant that no pregnant testimonie either of Councils Histories or Fathers which I comprised vnder the generall name of sound writer could be produced to the contrary he for instance alledgeth a company of new writers in this present age as if they were competent witnesses to depose in a matter of fact or to testifie what was done or not done in the Church foureteene or fifteene hundred yeeres agoe or as if when I chalenge them to shew 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 testifie forsooth two things First that in the Apostles times BB. and ministers were all one whereunto in the first place I answere that this deposition is not to the purpose In this argument I speake of what was in the first three hundred yeeres 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 it selfe vpon the practise of the Apostles times but say I in this reason I proue that the Episcopall gouernment was in vse in the Apostles times because it was generally and perpetually vsed in the next three hundred yeeres after the Apostles times which consequence himselfe hath granted â—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 againe the Ancients that say BB. and Presbiters were all one in the Apostles times speake of that part of their time when as in the most places there were no BB. or at least not chosen from among the Presbiters for before there were such BB. the same persons indeed were called Episcopi Presbyteri but when BB. were chosen out of the Presbiters which they also confesse was done in the Apostles time as namely at Alexandria they professe that then those which were so chosen and placed in a higher degree aboue the Presbiters began to be called BB. The other thing which he will haue his witnesses testifie is that in the Apostles times one Minister did not exercise authority aboue another as BB. since haue done to which assertion I am sure no sound writer will depose for I pray you were not the Apostles ministers were not Timothie and Titus ministers were they not also superiour to other ministers did they not exercise authoritie ouer them If Timothie therefore and Titus were superiour to other ministers and exercised authoritie ouer them why may not BB. who succeed not onely them whether they were BB. or not but also the Apostles in the gouernment of the Church be superiour also to other ministers and exercise authoritie ouer them But come we to his witnesses whereof he would seeme to haue great store howbeit he will content himselfe with a few and he will passe by Ignatius Iustin Martyr and Tertullian as hauing done their seruice already â—et the reader vnderstand that this is a most vaine flourish for he is not able to produce any one testimonie out of any one of the Councils Histories or Fathers that speaketh against the gouernment of the BB. in the first three hundred yeeres in respect either facti or iuris that is as either denying that the Church was so gouerned then or that it ought to haue beene so gouerned And as for Ignatius Iustin Martyr Tertullian the greatest advantage he could haue by them was to vse their names for there is not a word in them sounding against the gouernment of BB. but pregnant testimonies for them especially in Ignatius and Tertullian whom I haue often quoted in this cause It is true that the refuter did alledge these Authors as witnesses to proue that fond and vnlearned conceipt that the ancient Churches were no other but Parishes to proue that which is more fond that there is and ought to be no other visible Churches indued with power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment but Parishes But the vanitie of his conceipt and the weakenesse of his allegations haue I hope beene sufficiently layd open before in the defence of the second point Passing therefore by them the refuter will begin with Cyprian who affirmeth that the menaging of the Church busines euen in his dayes belonged to the Counsell of himselfe and the rest of the Presbyters omnium nostrûm concilium spectat and therefore durst not take it to himselfe alone praeiâ—dicare ego soli mihi reâ— omnem vendicare non audeo Here let the reader consider with me first the person of the witnesse which is produced and then the thing which is witnessed was not Cyprian himselfe not onely a Diocesan but also a Metropolitane B. did not he in iudgement allow the function of such BB. directly he saith that BB. are the successors of the Apostles and that they answere to the high Priest in the law that the Lord Iesus when he appointed Apostles ordained BB. The Deacons must remember saith he that the Lord himselfe chose Apostles that is BB. but Deacons were chosen by the Apostles themselues after the Ascension of the Lord as ministers of their Episcopall function and of the Church Doth not he teach that in one Church meaning a whole Diocese there may be but one B. that to set vp a second is to make a schisme and to rend in pieces the body of Christ doth he not often plead for the superioritie of BB. ouer the Presbiters shewing how they ought to reuerence and obey them and that the contrary is the source of all schisme Neither doe heresies saith he arise or schismes 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 Iudge for the time in stead of Christ is acknowledged whom if the whole brotherhood according to Gods commandement would obey c. How oft doth he speake of the vigour of the Episcopall power and of the authoritie of his chaire whereby he acknowledgeth euen those of the Clergie might be either excommunicated or deposed Is it not likely therefore thinke you that Cyprian would testifie against the function or authoritie of BB. But let vs examine the allegation it selfe There were some in the Church of Carthage that had fallen by denying their faith in time of persecution and returning to the Church againe would in all hast be reconciled and receiued to the communion whereof some by their importunity preuailed with some of the Presbiters whom as I noted in the Sermon Cyprian being absent reprooued by letter that they not regarding their Bishop set ouer them nor the honour due to him nor reseruing to him the honour of his Episcopall office and his chaire had without his appointment though absent reconciled them and receiued them to the communion others procured the Martyrs and Confessors to write to Cyprian in their behalfe that when peace should be restored to the Church peace might vpon the examination of their cause be giuen to them Cyprian therefore writeth to the Martyrs commending them that whereas the Presbiters should haue taught them what appertained to the discipline of the Church they were to learne of these Martyrs to referre their petitions and desires to the B. and then willeth them to set downe in writing particularly whom they desired to be receiued he writeth also to the people signifying that he had receiued letters from the Martyrs in
by reason of his great learning and renowned piety yet were it a sawcie part for him that is but a Presbiter to thinke himselfe equall with a Bishop Ierome was farre from it and therefore in his Epistles to Augustine giueth him titles of great honour vsing this inscription Domino verè sancto beatissimo Papae Augustino c. And this farewell the Lord preserue you Domine verè sancte suscipiende Papa and the like I haue said before of Caluin From Augustine he maketh a large step to Erasmus who saith Of olde there was no difference betweene a Presbyter a Priest but that the Refuter left out for feare of excluding his lay-elder and a B. And then hee leapeth backe againe to Theodoret Beda Sedulius Oecumenius Primasius Theophilact c. who affirme the same And doe not I my selfe professe the same in this Sermon doe I not also proue it in the Sermon of the dignity of the ministerie 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 hee conclude thereof that therefore in the three hundred yeares after the Apostles the Church was not gouerned by BB or that the office of a B. and a Presbyter were at any time confounded nay can hee proue so much as the names after the Apostles time were vsually confounded Ignatius who liued in the Apostles times euery where distinguisheth them and so doe the after Writers as Irenaeus Tertullian Cyprian Eusebius c. sauing that to BB. they giue sometimes the more generall name of Presbyters or Priests which is not to be meruailed at seeing the Apostles Peter and Iohn doe call themselues Presbyters Yea but some Protestant Writers whom afterwards hee will cite haue vnderstoode Ierome and the rest as the Refuter doth and not they onely 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 vseth to bring new Writers to depose what the old haue testified Are not their testimonies extant in print may we not read them with our owne eyes and weigh them in our owne iudgements that wee leauing the records themselues should seek to the dâ—positions of new writers to know what the olde haue testified but of the errour of them who suppose Ierome and some other of the Fathers to haue beene of the same iudgement with Aerius I haue spoken before neither doubt I now to affirme that they ioyned in opinion with Aerius no more then I do for they writing on Phil. 1. 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1. 1 Pet. 5. doe say that in these places the names Presbyter Episcopus were confounded which places my selfe haue alledged to the same purpose After he had alledged what hee was able out of the olde Writers and yet neuer a word to the purpose he proceedeth to the new Writers who as he saith were called out of the thickest mists of Poperie to the light of the Gospell heaping vp a sort of testimonies without order and without iudgement and mingling also some testimonies out of the canon law and some Popish Writers among them And because to follow him were to runne the wild-goose race I will reduce their testimonies to certaine heads and then giue him an answere to them all Some therefore are brought to testifie 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 Hugo Card. Cassander the councils of Constance and Basill Chemnitius Lubbertus D. Fulke D. Willet D. Morton Some that there was no difference betweene B. and Presbyter till after the Apostles times but afterwards BB. were set ouer 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 Monarches of the Church c. as Chamier Some that iure diuino Episcopi Presbyteri be all one as Iunius and Phil. Morney and D. Whitak which is true concerning the vse of the words in the Scriptures Some that Episcopatus is not a distinct order from Presbyteratus iure diuino as D Holland whose not writings but speeches he citeth vpon report Some that B. and Presbyter by the word of God is the same not in name onely but also in office as Sadâ—â—l Some that in the Apostles times the Churches were gouerned communi presbyterorum consilio but after the Apostles they chose one to be B. as Musculus Some that Christ made ministers equall that there was at the first no contention which how true it is appeareth by Christs appointing twelue Apostles and seauentie Disciples and by the contention among the Apostles themselues for superioritie whiles Christ was with them as Bullinger Some that as the Apostles were equall so their successors which is true for the BB. are equall among themselues though superiour to other ministers as the Apostles were to the seauentie Disciples as D. Whitakers Some that Aerius was not an hereticke for saying that according to the vse of the scriptures Episcopus Presbiter is all one which is true neither had he beene an hereticke if he had said no more and that Ambrose Chrysostome Ierome and Augustine were of the same iudgement as B. Iewell Some that in the Apostles times there were onely two degrees of ministers Presbiters and Deacons as D. Humfrey Some that Bishops were not in the Apostles times as Sadeel Some that BB. he superiour to Prebiters by mans decree and not by scripture by custome of man not by the authoritie of God by mans law and not by Apostolicall institution as Heming in Phil. 1.1 Bulling Iunius B. Pilkington the Canon law falsified de iure positiuo as Cusanus not by Gods law as D. Raynolds no otherwise but by custome as Sadeel Some that Episcopus and Pastor of one flocke was at the first all one as D. Raynolds Some that there was alwaies one principall which by common vse was called a B. being chiefe though not alone both in gouernment and ordination as D. Fulke Some that BB. be in a higher degree of superioritie but not Princes that not they onely are Pastors that they haue the right of consecration though not onely as D. Willet Some that the sole and supreame authority in a B. is tyranny as Bullinger Some that the gouernment of the Church by the first institution was not Monarchicall but Aristocraticall as Chamier Some that elections were not in corners nor by one as Gualther Some that Presbiters may ordaine as being all one with BB. in office as Sadeel Some that Priests had voices and seates in Councils as indeed they haue with vs as the councill of Constance and Basill Some that
so gouerned still Whereunto I answere according to the euident light of truth that the Presbyters gouerned the Churches as vnder the Apostles and that but for a time vntill the Apostles substituted BB. or left them as their successors committing the gouernment of the seuerall Churches vnto them To the second part of his assumption I answere that the Apostles contradicted that gouernment which hee speaketh of by common counsell of Elders ruling without a B. not so much by words as by deeds when ordayning BB. in seuerall Churches they committed the whole care thereof as Ierome speaketh or at least the chiefe care and authoritie as Ignatius testifieth to them And so leauing the Refuter to rowle the stone he speaketh of I proceed to my third argument The III. CHAPTER Prouing that the Apostles themselues ordayned Bishops Serm. Sect. 5. pag. 65. But yet I proceede to a further degree which is to proue that the Apostles themselues ordayned BB. and committed the Churches to them and therefore that the Episcopall function is without question of Apostolicall institution c. to 38. yeares pag. 69. THE refuter would faine haue me seeme to proue idem per idem but that he could not but discerne that I argue from the ordination of the persons to the institution of the function against which consequence though himselfe say that without question it is good yet I confesse he might haue taken more iust exception then he hath hitherto against any which was not of his owne making so farre is it from concluding the same by the same For he might haue said though they ordayned the persons yet Christ instituted the function and that is the iudgement of many of the Fathers who holde that our Sauiour Christ in ordayning his twelue Apostles and his seauentie two Disciples both which sorts he sent to preach the Gospell he instituted the two degrees of the ministerie BB. answering to the high Priest and Presbyters answerable to the Priests Againe those Fathers who affirme the BB. to be the successors of the Apostles doe by consequence affirme that Christ when he ordayned Apostles ordayned BB. and Cyprian in plainetermes saith so much that our Lord himselfe ordayned Apostles that is to say Bishops For the Popish conceipt that the Apostles were not made Priests till Christs last supper nor BB. till after his resurrection as it is sutable with other their opinions deuised to aduance the Popes supremacy so it is repugnant to the iudgement of the ancients contrary to the truth Seeing the very Disciples who were inferiour to the Apostles were authorized before Christs 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 ordayned by Christ or instituted by the Apostles Christ is the authour thereof either immediatly according to the former opinion or mediatly according to the latter And those things are said to be of Apostolicall institution which Christ ordayned by the Apostles The antecedent of my argument viz. that the Apostles ordayned BB. and committed the Churches to them was in the Sermon explaned and proued by shewing the time when the places where the persons whom the Apostles ordayned BB. As concerning the time I said there was some difference betweene the Church of Ierusalem and the rest in respect of their first Bishop For there because shortly after Christs passion a great number were conuerted to the faith for we read of three thousand conuerted in one day and because that was the mother Church vnto which the Christians from all parts were afterwards to haue recourse the Apostles before their dispersion statim post passionem Domini straight wayes after the passion of our Lord ordayned Iames the iust Bishop of Ierusalem as Ierome testifieth Here my refuter maketh me to argue thus culling out one part of my argumentation from the rest Iames was ordayned Bishop by the Apostles therefore the Apostles ordayned Bishops And then denieth the consequence because though Iames being an Apostle had Episcopall power in respect of ordination and iurisdiction yet it would not follow that the Apostles ordayned Diocesan Bishops in other Churches But my argument is an induction standing thus The Apostles ordayned BB. at Ierusalem and in other Churches which afterwards particularly I doe enumerate therefore they ordayned BB. That they ordayned BB. at Ierusalem I proue because they ordayned Iames the Iust and Simon the sonne of Cleophas BB. of Ierusalem That they ordayned Iames B. of Ierusalem I proue in this section That they ordained Simon the sonne of Cleophas B. of Ierusalem and Bishops in other Churches I proue afterwards according to the order of time Beginning here with Ierusalem because that Church had first a Bishop Now that Iames was by the Apostles made B. of Ierusalem I proue by these testimonies first of Ierome whose words are these Iames who is called the brother of our Lord fâ—â—named the iust straight wayes after the passion of our Lord was ordayned by the Apostles the Bishop of Ierusalem This is that Ierome on whose onely authoritie almost the Disciplinarians in this cause relye alledging out of him that Bishops were not ordayned 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 generall that the histories before his time did report that to Iames the brother of our Lord surnamed the iust the throne of the Bishopricke of the Church in Ierusalem was first committed Then particularly he citeth Clemens Alexandrinus testifying that Iames Peter and Iohn after the ascension of our Sauiour did choose Iames the iust Bishop of Ierusalem Afterwards Hegesippus who was nere the Apostles times as Ierome speaketh being as Eusebius saith in the very first succession of the Apostles to the like purpose Eusebius himselfe in his Chronicle translated by Ierome hath these words Iames the brother of our Lord is by the Apostles made the first Bishop of Ierusalem Againe in his history he not onely saith that Iames called the brother of our Lord was the first Bishop of Ierusâ—â—em but also testifieth vpon his knowledge that the Episcopall throne or chaire wherein Iames sate as Bishop of Ierusalem and wherein all the BB. of that See succeeded him was yet in his time to be seene being preserued as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a worthy and sacred monument And finally both in his historie and Chronicle he setteth down the succession of the Bishops of Ierusalem from Iames vnto Macarius whom he noteth to haue been the thirtie ninth Bishop of Ierusalem reckoning Iames the first and Simon the second and Iustus the third Zacheus the fourth c. Epiphanius also testifieth that Iames the Lords brother was
the Apostles would put off the matter till there was no remedie and I cannot much blame them if it be true which D. Bilson saith that they were to keepe the power of imposition of hands to themselues vnlesse they would loose their Apostleship It is more meruaile therefore that they would ordaine any Bishops at all as long as they liued then that they would deferre the doing of it so long as they could Which words as they contayne a meere cauill at my words not worth the answering so a meere belying of that reuerend B. who saith that the Apostles could not loose that viz. the power of imposing hands and deliuering vnto Sathan which the Fathers call Episcopall power vnlesse they lost the Apostleship withall Secondly hee obiecteth want of proofes What proofe bringeth he that the Apostles ordayned such Bishops in other Churches neither one text of Scripture nor any testimonie out of the ancient Writers onely authoritate praetoria hee telleth vs Pythagoras like they did so c. Here in complayning of the want of proofes he giueth sufficient proofe of a bad conscience In this section I did but in generall hauing noted the difference of the time declare what course the Apostles tooke first in deferring the choise of Bishops and afterwards in appointing them The proofes doe follow in the sections following shewing the places where and the persons whom the Apostles ordayned Bishops That imputation of speaking Pythagoras like hee hath often layd vpon me and yet not so oft as vniustly who haue in this Sermon and in this Treatise deliuered nothing almost without plentifull proofe or sufficient authority Thirdly hee carpeth at the names wherewith I said the first Bishoppes were called asking what is all this to the matter Would he prooue they were Diocesan Bishops because they were called by these names what a notorious cauiller is this may nothing be spoken but by way of proofe may nothing be said by declaration or explanation or preuention I knew it was obiected that Bishops are not mentioned in the scriptures the name Episcopus Bishop being giuen to Prebyters and therefore that is not like they were ordayned by the Apostles of vvhom no mention is in the Scriptures For preuention of this obiection or assoyling 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 gaue all these names saue onely the name of Apostles to all ministers The former Sermon is of ministers in generall including the Bishops and diuers things there spoken of ministers in generall doe principally belong to Bishops All Pastors are rulers or rectors of their seuerall flockes but the Bishops are rulers both of them and their flocke All ministers are called Angelâ— but the Bishop alone is the Angell of each Church or Diocese c. But by what authority saith he is the title of Apostle appropriated to BB he would haue said communicated to them with the twelue For I know no man so foolish as to appropriate it to the Bishops This reason I rendred why they be called the Apostles of the Churches because they succeeded the Apostles in the gouernment of the particular Churches whereof I gaue 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 Ierome Theodoret Caluin Thomas Aquinas if we will beleiue D. D. but if we will looke vpon the bookes themselues not one of them saith so Caluin Aquinas and some other indeed as Lyra interlineall glosse Lombard Anselme c. are of minde that Apostle there signifieth teacher and no more Caluin saith thus The name of Apostle here as in many other places is taken generally for proquolibet Euangelista for any Euangelist But by their Euangelist he vnderstandeth their Pastor and so calleth him diuers times vsing that word vpon that occasion sixe or seauen times in that place Paul sendeth to them Epaphroditus ne Pastore carerent qui recte compositum statum tueretur least they should want their Pastor who might maintaine their well ordered state On these words verse 26. He had a longing desire towards you all and was pensiue because you had heard that he was sicke Caluin noteth a signe of a true Pastor that when he was farre distant from them notwithstanding was affected with the care and desire of his flocke and when he vnderstood that his sheepe sorrowed for his sake was pensiue for their sorrow In like manner the godly carefulnesse of the Philippians for their Pastor is noted on the 27. where Paul signifieth what griefe he should haue conceiued if Epaphroditus had died Paul saith he was mooued with the losse of the Church which he saw would haue beene 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 sory that for his occasion he had beene withheld from the flocke committed to him On the twenty nineth he obserueth how desirous Paul is that good Pastors may be much esteemed c. let the reader therefore iudge whether Epaphroditus were not in Caluins iudgement the Pastor of the Philippians By the Apostle saith Ambrose he was made their Apostle that is Bishop as Ambrose expoundeth the word in other places Apostoli Episcopi sunt the Apostles are Bishops But according to the refuters sence he had beene an Apostle not of Pauls making but of their owne Ierome writing on those words my fellow Souldiour and your Apostle fellow Souldiour saith he by reason of his honour because he also had receiued the office of being an Apostle among them And on those words haue in honour such not onely him saith hee qui vester est Doctor who is your Doctor by vvhich vvord in Ieromes time Bishop most commonly was signified c. Theodoret saith thus hee 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 vnder him as hauing the place of Presbyters And from this place as afterwards I noted Theodoret gathereth that at the first they whom now wee call Bishops were called Apostles Thus Epaphroditus was the Apostle of the Philippians Thomas Aquinas hee calleth him brother saith he by reason of his faith fellow worker in the labour of preaching fellow souldier because they had suffered tribulation together your Apostle that is Doctor Hic fuit Episcopus Philippensium Hee was the Bishop of the Philippians And so saith Bullinger Philippensium Episcopus erat With what face therefore could the Refuter denie that any one of these Authors did say that hee was therefore called the Apostle of the Philippians because hee vvas their Bishop and Pastor And so are they to be
them alone as extraordinarie persons vvhose authoritie should dye with them but to those also which should succeed them in the like authoritie vntill the end But whether the Bishops were to be their successours or the whole congregation or the Presbyterie belongeth not to the assumption but rather to the proposition Howbeit that which he saith either in denying the Bishops to be the successours of Timothie and Titus or affirming the congregation and Presbyterie to haue succeeded them in the power of ordination and iurisdiction is spoken altogether as against the truth so without proofe I will therefore returne to the proposition which is grounded on this Hypothesis that Diocesan Bishops were the successours of Timothie and Titus For if that be true then is the proposition necessary though the refuter flatly denyeth it Thus therefore I reason If the successours of Timothie and Titus were Diocesan Bishops then those things which were written to informe their successours were vvritten to informe Diocesan Bishops But the successors of Timothie Titus were Diocesan BB. Therefore those things which were vvritten to informe the successours of Timothie and Titus vvere vvritten to informe Diocesan Bishops Here the refuter thinking he had as good reason to deny the one part of this syllogisme as the other denyeth both The consequence of the proposition is feeble saith he vnlesse it were certaine that the Bishops both de facto were de iure ought to haue beene their successors That the Bishops were de facto their successors of all other Apostolical men in the gouernment of the Churches I haue already proued and there vpon haue inferred that de iure also they were Because what gouernment was not onely generally receiued in the 300. yeeres after the Apostles but also was in vse in the Apostles times in the Apostolicall Churches that without doubt was of Apostolicall institution The assumption I proue by two arguments first by this disiunction Either the Bishops were their successours or the Presbyteries or which the refuter would adde the whole congregation But neither the Presbyteries nor the whole congregation which had no greater nor other authority and power vnder Bishops then they had before vnder Timothie and Titus Therefore the Bishops were their successors Againe those who succeeded Timothie and Titus in the gouernment of the Churches of Ephesus and Creet were their successors But the Bishops of Ephesus and Creet did succeed Timothie and Titus in the gouernment of those Churches Therefore they were their successors These reasons the refuter saw not onely he taketh vpon him to answere the proofes of this last assumption And first for Timothie his successors in Ephesus it is apparant that not onely the Angell of the Church of Ephesus Apoc. 2.1 whether it were Onesimus or any other was one of his successors and Policrates the Bishop of Ephesus another But also that from Timothie vntill the Councill of Chalcedon there was a continued succession of Bishops For whereas in the Councill 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 Councill or by the Prouinciall Synode of Aisa Leontius the Bishop of Magnesia in the Prouince of Asia alledged that from St. Timothie to that time there had beene twenty seauen Bishops of Ephesus all ordained there To this he answereth nothing but that which before hath been refuted that howsoeuer the latter Bishops of those twenty seauen might be Diocesan the former were not For it is certaine that both the latter and the former were not onely Diocesan but also Metropolitan Bishops And where I number the Angell of Ephesus in this rancke he saith that I tediously begge the question But I appeale to the refuter himselfe first whether this Angell was not the B. and gouernour of the Church of Ephesus secondly whether he did not succeed Timothie in the gouernment of that Church thirdly whether he was not one of those twenty seauen Bishops mentioned by Leontius in the Councill of Chalcedon And the like may be said of Polycrates who had beene the eight Bishop of his owne kindred sauing that concerning him there is more euidence that he being Bishop of Ephesus was the Metropolitane or primate of Asia For Eusebius saith that he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was the ruler or chiefe of the Bishops of Asia who by his authoritie did assemble a Prouinciall Synode to discusse the question concerning Easter As touching Creet because there is not the like euidence the refuter taketh vpon him to deliuer diuers things without booke as if Titus had successours in the gouernment of Creet it would be auailable for Arch-bishops which were not bred a great while after but it maketh nothing for Diocesan Bishops Whereto I answere first though such Archbishops as were also called Patriarches were not from the Apostles times yet such as are Metropolitanes were And againe if Prouinciall Bishops may be proued to haue been from the Apostles times much more may Diocesan For euery Metropolitane is a Diocesan but not contrariwise And although I doe not remember that I haue any where read of the next successour to Titus yet I read of Gortyna the mother City of Creet and the Metropolitane Bishops thereof who were Arch-bishops of Creet and successors of Titus though not his immediate successours For Dionysius of Corinth who flourished at the same time with Hegesippus writing an Epistle to the Church of Gortyna together with the rest of the Churches of Creet hee commendeth Philippe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their Bishop for his renowned vertue And although he called him the Bishop of the Churches in Creet yet the Diocesan Churches had their Bishops too as the Church of Gnossus a City of Creet had Pinytus at the same time her Bishop which proueth the other to haue beene an Arch-bishop Theodorus Balsamo saith f antiquius Nomocanonum versaui c. I haue perused the ancient Code of Councils and by the subscriptions I finde that in this Councill held in Trullo Basil the Bishop of Gortyna which is the Metropolis of Creet was present And where he saith that Creet hauing many Churches had no one Bishop to gouerne them after Titus the Euangelist till Diocesan Bishops had got the sway of Ecclesiasticall matters I confesse it is true but he must remember that euen in the Apostles times there were Diocesan Bishops And in the very next age after them Philippe was Archbishop of Creet But though there were no direct proofe that Diocesan or Prouinciall Bishops were the successours of Timothie and Titus yet it might easily be gathered by other Churches from whose forme of gouernment Ephesus and Creet did not vary It cannot be denyed but what authoritie Timothie and Titus had the one in Ephesus the other in Creet the same had Marke at Alexandria Evodius at Antioch Linus at Rome c. Neither may it
saith he did they take the power of ordination and iurisdiction from the Churches in which by right it is seated but with the Churches ordayned ministers and redressed such things as were amisse though perhaps that right of laying on hands might sometimes be performed by them alone c. What is all this to the assumption which if he would deny and make this denyall good he should haue said and proued it that the function and authoritie which they exercised in Ephesus and Creet was to end with their persons and admitted no succession or was not to be continued in their successors But he roues and raues as men vse to doe which being at a non-plus would faine seeme to answere somewhat And that which he answereth besides that it is impertinent is partly also vntrue For when he saith that Timotie and Titus did not take the power of ordination and iurisdiction from the Churches c. First he would insinuate that Bishops doe as though herein there were some difference betweene Bishops and them vvhen as indeed neither Bishops nor they doe take that authority from the Church but they and all other first BB. receiued their authority from the Apostles and deriued the same to their lawfull successors Secondly he saith that the power of ordination and iurisdiction 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 owne clergy failing and the help of others vvanting the right is deuolued to the whole body of the Church But let this goe among other his Brownisticall or rather Anabaptistiall nouelties I proceed to the proofe of my assumption which hee hath layd forth thus That function and authority which is ordinarie and perpetually necessary not onely for the well being but also for the very being of the visible Churches was not to end with the persons of Timothie and Titus but to be continued in their successors But the function and authority that they had as being assigned to certaine Churches is ordinary and perpetually necessary not onely 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 certaine Churches was not to end with the persons of Timothie and Titus but to be continued in their successors The assumption is thus to be explaned the function which Timothie and Titus had as being assigned to certaine Churches was ordinary and the authority which they did exercise consisting chiefly in the power of ordination and iurisdiction was perpetually necessary This assumption the refuter would seeme to deny and yet granteth that the power of ordination and iurisdiction is perpetually necessary onely he denieth it to be necessary that there should be in euery Church an Euangelist to exercise that authority So that of the two points in the assumption the latter hee 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 hee toucheth not but denieth that which I did not affirme to wit that it was necessary there should be an Euangelist alwayes in euery Church to exercise the power of ordination and iurisdiction Did I affirme this or rather did I not teach the contrary when I said that the function whereby they did exercise that power of ordination and iurisdiction was not an extraordinary function as the Euangelisticall but ordinary as the Episcopall Now that the function which Timothie and Titus had being assigned to Ephesus and Creet was an ordinary function the very same which the Bishops that succeeded them and all other BB. both in and since the Apostles times haue exercised it is most certaine for though in them who cheifly are called Euangelists there were diuers things extraordinary besides their limitation to no certaine place as their immediate calling from Christ their extraordinary gifts of the Spirit as of reuelation and of working miracles as appeareth by Steuen and Philippe yet in Timothie and Titus and others who were called Euangelists because they were the companions of the Apostles in their iourneyes and assistants in their worke of the ministery there was nothing extraordinarie but their not limitation to any certaine Churches For their calling to the ministery was ordinary and their gifts though great yet attayned and increased by ordinary meanes When as therefore they were assigned to certaine Churches as the Pastors and gouernours thereof whereunto they were ordayned by imposition of hands and by that ordination were furnished with power of ordination and Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction their function was the same ordinary function which their successors and all other Bishops did exercise But as the refuter said it was not necessary that there should alwayes be an Euangelist in euery Church to exercise the power of ordination and iurisdiction so perhaps some more iudicious will alledge that though the power of ordination and iurisdiction be perpetually necessary yet it is not necessary that this power should alwayes be wholy in some one in euery Church as it was in Timothie 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 euer since haue administred And therefore the refuter doth greatly wrong me when hee saith that I make this Episcopall power perpetually necessary and chargeth me with contradicting my selfe in another place where I acknowledge that where the Episcopall gouernment may not be had there others may be admitted For the clearing therefore of the whole controuersie and plaine manifestation of that which I hold therein we will make vse of a distinction which the learned vse concerning matters of gouernment In all gouernments therefore there are these things to be considered potâ—stas ordo formae vel modus titulus siue applicatio potestatis ad personam vsus First the power to be exercised in gouernment then the order whereby the inferiours both to be gouerned gouerning are subordinate to the superiours after the forme and the manner of gouernment as whether it be a Monarchy where the power is in one or an Aristocraty wher it is in few or a Democraty where it is in the multitude and how each gouernment is ordered the title as whether the gouernours are put in and intituled to their power and authority by succession or by election or institution and after how they vse and exercise their authority c. Of these the two first that there should be power of gouernment and order therein in the people gouerned are essentiall perpetual as the immutable ordinances of God The other many wayes are accidentall variable But yet if question be made what forme of gouernment in the commonwealth is the best hath the best
cleane spoileth his conceipt For can any man of indifferency thinke that Ierome being an elegant writer if he had meant that the aduerbe statim should haue waited on the verbe meminit would haue disposed it thus cuius Ioannes meminit filius post passionem Domini statim ab Apostolis Hierosolymorum Episcopus ordinatus But now weigh the refuters iudgement Suppose that this place were read as Iunius would haue it and that Iames were not so presently made Bishop of Ierusalem after Christs passion as Ieromes words seeme to import but that after the Apostles he tooke the gouernment of the Church of Ierusalem as Ierome citeth out of Hegesippus what is all this but the same that my selfe set downe in the Sermon both in this place also pag. 68. in these words the Apostles first ioyntly ruled the Church at Ierusalem but being to goe into all the world and no longer to be accounted members of that particular Church ordained Iames to be Bishop And that charge which before they had in common they now comitted to him in particular And this is that which Ierome citeth out of Hegesippus who saith Iames the brother of our Lord surnamed Iustus receiued or vndertooke the Church of Ierusalem after the Apostles And if the refuter will needs expound after the Apostles to signifie after their departing from Ierusalem I must intreat him to take with him the words both of Eusebius who sometimes saith the throne of that Bishopricke was committed to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Apostles therefore before their dispersion sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Apostles therefore whiles they were present and also of Ierome who plainely saith that he was ordained Bishop of Ierusalem by the Apostles but chiefly that he will remember that the words straight wayes after the passion of our Lord are to be ioyned with the other words ordayned by the Apostles then will he acknowledge himselfe satisfied for this point § 4. Secondly I answered in respect of other Churches that which Ierome saith neither proueth that the office of Bishops and Presbyters were confounded neither doth it hinder but that the distinct office of Bishops is of Apostolicall institution Both the parts of this answere I explaned and confirmed The former thus it is true that for a time the Presbyters by common counsell gouerned the Churches but as vnder the Apostles who kept in their own hands the Episcopall authority they I meane the Presbyters hauing neither the right of ordination nor the power of outward or publike iurisdiction This therefore doth not proue that the offices of BB. Presbyters wer 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 vnder the Apostles as they were afterwards vnder 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 behauiour of the Presbyters whereof Ierome speaketh might be some inducement For parity indeed breedeth faction and confusion for the auoyding whereof when the Apostles should be absent BB. were instituted but when and where and by whom and to what end let Ierome himselfe testifie The summe is that although for a time the Churches were gouerned by the common counsell of Presbyters yet this doth not hinder but that the Episcopall function is of diuine institution For after a while the Apostles ordayned BB. as Ierome himselfe doth most plainely and fully testifie shewing the places where and the persons whom and the time when and the end wherefore they ordaynd them Now let vs see what the Refuter can reply against this answer Forsooth as if he knew or regarded no lawes of disputation he thrusts himselfe into the answerers place and maketh me the opponent casting my answer into a Syllogisme and bids me proue euery part and parcell of it or else all that I say is to little purpose himselfe in the meane while who should follow the argument which I answered and take away my answer goeth about to proue nothing but himselfe to be a shifting Sophister I thinke it was neuer heard in disputation that the opponent hauing receiued the answere and reciting the summe thereof saying sic respondes would cast it into a Syllogisme and then bid the answerer proue the parts thereof But such a disputer am I matched with And how I pray you doth he reduce my answere into a Syllogisme that vvhich I brought to cleare the former part of my answer is made the argument to proue both the parts in a filthy long Syllogisme and that vvhich I added to proue the latter part he mentioneth as straggling speches brought in to no purpose This is his analysing which whether it be done of vnskilfulnes or wilfulnes I refer it to his owne conscience I cannot iudge therof because I know not the man But if my answere must needes be reduced into Syllogismes I would intreat that the parts thereof may seuerally be concluded as they were by me seuerally explicated and then that the first Syllogisme may be this If whiles the Churches were gouerned by the common counsell of Presbyters the Presbyters did gouerne the same as vnder the Apostles the Episcopall office and authority being not in them but in the Apostles the Presbyters being such then vnder the Apostles as they were afterwards vnder the Bishops then their gouerning of the Church by common counsell doth not proue 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 obseruation that if there was a time before there were Bishops When the Presbyters gouerned the Churches as vnder the Apostles then all that while there were no Diocesan Bishops the Refuter speaketh sentences and so no distinction betweene a Bishop and a Presbyter in office This and so could not well be gathered out of the proposition being repugnant vnto it for if there were no distinction betweene the office of a Bishop and a Presbyter then were the offices confounded Suppose the common-wealth of Iewry being a Prouince vnder the Emperour of Rome had beene gouerned by the Synedrion or common counsell of the Seniors for a time vntill the Emperour had placed a soueraigne King ouer them as hee did Herod it might be said that for a time that common-wealth was gouerned by the common counsell of their Elders but as vnder the Emperour who kept the regall authority in his owne hands Hereof it might not be infered that the office of
the Senatours and of a King were confounded For the soueraignty was in the Emperour and the Senatours might haue beene the same vnder their King which they had beene vnder the Emperour c. As touching the assumption he saith it should haue beene proued and I say if he were able he should haue disproued it For my part I was in this place the answerer and the parts of the assumption be such as either had beene before cleared or seemed to neede no proofe For first that the Presbyters ruled the Churches as vnder the Apostles it is manifest That the Episcopall authority consisting specially in the power of Ordination and publicke Iurisdiction was not in them but in the Apostles partly was proued before to wit that Presbyters neuer had it and partly needed no proofe viz. that the Apostles had it And surely little need had Paul to haue sent Timothie to Ephesus and Titus to Creet to exercise the power of Ordination and publicke Iurisdiction in those Churches if the Presbyters had the same before they came But still I desire some euidence whereby the deriuation of this power of Ordination and Iurisdiction from the Apostles to the Presbyters or people may be warranted Thirdly that the Presbyters were the same vnder the Apostles then which they were afterwards vnder the Bishops I take for a certaine truth For if they were the same vnder Timothie and Titus that they were vnder the Apostles then questionlesse they were the same vnder the Bishops who haue no other function nor exercise any other authority then that which Timothie and Titus had and exercised in Ephesus and Creet And these I hope are reasons sufficient to approue the former part of my answere vntill the refuter who is the opponent be able to disproue it The second part of my answere may be concluded thus If after a while namely when the Apostles were to discontinue from the Churches which they had planted the Apostles themselues ordayned BB. then the Presbyters ruling of the Churches by common counsell for a time doth not hinder but that the Episcopall function is of Apostolicall institution But the former is true Therefore the latter The consequence needeth no proofe the assumption I proue by Ieromes owne testimony For if Ierome doe testifie that the Apostles ordayned BB. and withall doe note the time when the place where and the end wherefore then doth he giue plentifull testimony to this truth But Ierome doth testifie that the Apostles ordayned BB. and withall noteth the time when the place where and the end wherfore The time and place he noteth first generally the time when Bishops were ordayned was in the Apostles time the place where in all the world Which two if you ioyne together it will appeare that by Ieromes testimony the function of BB. is of Apostolicall institution For it is vtterly incredible that BB. should be ordayned in all parts of the Christian world in the Apostles times and yet not be of the Apostles ordayning That Ierome helde BB. to be ordayned in the Apostles time I proue out of the place alledged when factions began to spring in the Church saith Ierome 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 This argument the Refuter would discredit because Sanders vseth the like and his owne answere he would credit with the name and countenance of certaine learned men which is one of his ordinary shifts to bleare the eyes of the simple who many times respect more who speaketh then what is said But my argument standeth thus When the factions began whereof Ierome speaketh BB. were ordayned as he saith In the Apostles times the factions began whereof Ierome speaketh Therefore in the Apostles times Bishops were ordayned as he saith The effect of the answere which hee bringeth is that Ierome speaking of Schismes which did arise after the Apostles times alludeth to that speech of the Apostle not that hee thought Bishops were ordayned in those times but that hee might shew that schisme was the cause of changing the order of Church-gouernment Which answere might haue some shew of probability if Ierome himselfe did not both in other places which I cite most plainely testifie that Bishops were ordayned in the Apostles times and also in the place alledged expressely speake 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 vnusquisque eos quos baptizauerat suos putabat esse non Christi saith Ierome euery one esteemed those whom he had baptized to be his owne and not Christs Now it is apparant that this is the very thing which Paul reproueth in the Corinthians that euery one sayd they were his who had baptized them and therefore thanketh God that he had baptized none of them but Crispus and Gaius and the houshold of Stephanas For by this meanes as Caluin also obserueth the factious and ambitious teachers whom he meant vnder the name of Paul and Apollos sought to draw Disciples after them Yea but Ierome in his Epistle to Evagrius sheweth that in the Apostles times Bishop and Presbyter was all one and that afterwards Bishops were first ordayned as a remedy against schisme To this I haue answered before shewing that Ierome there proueth that the names at the first were confounded and the same men were called Presbyters and Bishops vntill one out of the Presbyters in euery Church was chosen and set aboue the rest and called a Bishop Which Ierome there confesseth to haue bin done euer since St. Markes 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 Apostolicall men I meane either Apostles or some of their companions and assistants all which while the Bishops were called Apostles as I shewed out of Theodoret the names Presbyter Episcopus being as yet confounded And whereas he saith that I answered euen now the course of gouernment was not changed at the first when factiâ—â—s began he doth but threapen kindnesse on mee for I said no such thing If therefore Ierome teacheth that Bishops were ordayned when factions began and also that in the Apostles time factions did begin then in Ieromes iudgement Bishops were ordayned in the Apostles times but Ierome teacheth both the one and the other as is manifest by that which hath beene said As touching the Place Ierome saith in toto orbe decretum est it was decreed in the whole world that one being chosen from among the Presbyters should be set ouer the rest to whom the whole care of euery Church should appertaine From whence I reason thus A generall decree in the whole Christian world could not be made in the Apostles times without the
authority and consent of the Apostles This generall decree was made in the Apostles times Therefore not without their authority and consent The assumption I proue thus This generall decree in the whole world was made either in the Apostles times or neare their times But not neare their times for there could no such generall decree be made without a generall Councill And there was no generall councill before the councill of Nice before which councill there were not onely Diocesan and Metropolitane Bishops but also Patriarches The Refuter answereth that Ieromes words deceiue mee For though Ierome saith it was decreed yet he doth not meane that it was decreed but that it came from custome and that paulatim by little and little The Refuters answere therefore maketh Ierome to contradict himselfe whose speeches notwithstanding are thus reconciled For that which hee there calleth custome in another place hee termeth an Apostolicall tradition and the Apostolicall tradition is that vniuersall decree which hee speaketh of And vvhere Ierome saith by little and little that the rootes of discension might be plucked vp the whole care was committed to one that is to be vnderstood thus that although it were agreed vpon at once and decreed to be put in practise in the vvhole vvorld yet it vvas not practised at once in the whole world but first in one Church as at Ierusalem after in Antioch then in Rome after in Alexandria in all which Churches not onely the first Bishops were ordayned in the Apostles times but their successours also and that by the testimonie of Ierome himselfe as followeth in the next proofe For hauing thus shewed in generall both the time and place out of Ierome when and where Bishops were ordayned that is to say in the Apostles times in the whole world and consequently that they were ordayned by the Apostles in the next place I declare more particularly out of Ierome that by the Apostles Bishops were first ordayned noting also the persons whom and the places where and the time when they ordayned Bishops Doth not Ierome plainely testifie that Iames was by the Apostles ordayned Bishop of Ierusalem before their departure thence that when hee had gouerned that Church 30. yeares Simon his brother or kinsman succeeded him in the Bishopricke who liuing vntill he was 120. yeares old was crucified vnder Traiane Doth not he witnesse that Ignatius was the third Bishop of Antioch in the Apostles times that Marke was the first Bishop of Alexandria and that he dying at Alexandria in the eight of Nero that is foure or fiue yeares before the death of Peter and Paul Anianus succâ—eded him Doth he not say that Clâ—mens was the fourth Bishop of Rome after Peter For saith he Linus was the second Anacletus the third all in the Apostles times Doth hee not expresly testifie that Polycarpus was S. Iohns Disciple and by him ordayned Bishop of Smyrna and is it not testified in the same Catalogue that Timothie was of blessed Paul ordayned B. of the Ephesians and that Titus was B. of Creet Hereunto the Refuter maketh an answere like himselfe that hee hath often told me that Iames Marke and Timothie neither were nor might be Bishops And I haue often tolde him of his poore shifts whereof this is one For the question being here not whether these men simply were Bishops or not but whether Ierome saith so or no I hauing alledged plaine testimonies of Ierome auerring that they were Bishops he in steed of maintayning his assertion which was that Ierome testifieth Bishops not to haue beene ordayned vntill after the Apostles times giueth Ierome the lye but answereth not to the point For if Ierome testifie 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 ordinarie Pastor of that one congregation at Smyrna and no Diocesan Bishop which euasion I haue heretofore auoided I desire this answere may be compared with the next which he maketh concerning the end The end saith Ierome was to auoid Schisme and acknowledgeth that for the same end they are to be retayned professing that the safety of the Church dependeth vpon the dignitie of the Bishop to whom if a peerelesse power and eminent aboue all be not yeelded there would be as many Schismes in the Churches as Priests The Refuter answereth that some say the remedy was almost worse then the disease But first what is this to the purpose that the Refuter had rather there should be a Schisme in euery Parish then a Bishop of the Diocese it was Ieromes iudgement that I opposed to their allegation out of Ierome And if Ierome testifie that in the Apostles times Bishops vvere ordayned to auoyd Schisme and that this was a necessarie remedie insomuch that he doubteth not to say that the safety of the Church dependeth vpon it it was as much as in this place either I intended or could by the aduersarie be required Secondly where Ierome saith that Bishops were ordayned for auoyding of Schisme hee meaneth such Schisme as the Presbyters vvhom hee calleth Sacerdotes Priests would make if there were not one in euery Church set ouer them to vvhom the care of that vvhole Church should belong Novv applie the Refuters answere concerning Polycarpus which is his ordinarie answere that the first BB. were but ordinarie Pastors of one congregation such as wee call Rectors or Pastors of seuerall parishes Were such ordained to auoide schisme among priests or were not such the priests whose schisme was to be auoided by setting one B. in euery diocese ouer them or could the refuter thinke that the ordaining of such ordinarie pastors was a remedie worse then the disease is it not therefore cleare that the Bishops whom Ierome acknowledgeth to haue beene in the Apostles times were not ordinarie Pastors of seuerall congregations or parishes equall to other Presbyters but one in euery diocese set in a superiour degree aboue the rest to preserue them in vnitie and to keepe them from schisme Thirdly where to the iudgement of Ierome he opposeth the testimonie of others who say the remedie was almost worse then the disease because this superioritie of BB. did breed the Papacy this sheweth that great and sound Dâ—uines sometimes let fall especiallie when they write 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnsound speeches grounded on weake proofes For how is it prouâ—â— that the superioritie of Bishops did breed the supremacie of the Pope Because as at the first one Presbyter was before the rest and made a Bishop so afterwards one B. was preferred aboue the rest so this custome bred the Pope and his Monarchy By which reason all superioritie should be condemned as the originall of the Popes supremacie For might not a man
as the Episcopall function hath been manifestly proued to be lawfull and good as being the ordinance of God so we would all be perswaded to acknowledge it But the refuter is like the deafe Adder that stoppeth her eare he will not be perswaded though he be conuicted For though he braggeth that this answere of his doth manifest that I haue not brought any one good proofe in the whole Sermon yet this defence of mine will make it euident that he hath not been able to disproue any one of my proofes which he hath gone about to answere for the most part with sound learning but to elude with shifts and cauillations But some will say this is not all that you vvould perswade vs vnto that the function of Bishops is lawfull and good but when you say it is of diuine institution you seeme to meane that it is diuini iuris and consequently that not onely it is lawfull but that it onely is lawfull and that all Churches are so perpetually and necessarily tyed vnto it as that no other forme of gouernment 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 diuini iuris as that necessarily it were to be obserued alwayes and in all places and so himselfe confesseth pag. 90. of his booke And therefore when he said my resolution was obscure and doubtfull for doubling I leaue to him he was disposed to cauill I referre indeed the consideration of this inference to our Disciplinarians who hauing conceipted the Presbyterian platforme to be described in the scriptures doe therefore vrge the same as perpetuall and vnchangeable signifying that if they will be constant in their iudgement they must by the same reason acknowledge the Episcopall gouernment which hath warrant in the word to be perpetuall and vnchangeable Which conceipt of theirs hath perhaps beene the cause vvhy they haue giuen out to make my Sermon odious among their followers that I maintaine the Episcopall function to be diuini iuris as being commanded of God and perpetually imposed vpon all Churches Neuerthelesse I plainely declared my resolution to be this that although we be well assured that the forme of gouernment by Bishops is the best as hauing not onely the warrant of scripture for the first institution but also the perpetuall practise of the Church from the Apostles times to our age for the continuance of it notwithstanding vve doubt not vvhere this may not be had others may be admitted neither doe we deny but that siluer is good though gold be better vvhich obiection and answere I inserted of purpose into the Sermon to preserue the credit of those reformed Churches vvhere the Presbyterian discipline is established and that they might not be exposed or left naked to the obloquies of the Papists To which my charitable endeauour the refuter opposeth himselfe as being alwaies ad oppositum without regard either of my charitable intent or of the credit of the reformed Churches labouring tooth and naile to perswade his reader that I contradict my selfe and that in the conclusion of my Sermon I did ouerthrow what before I had builded But as alwayes hitherto so now also he hath shewed his malice to be greater then his strength For though hee chargeth me as hauing often and peremptorily auouched the perpetuall necessitie of the gouernment of the Church by Diocesan Bishops yet neither often nor once neither peremptorily nor at all neither the perpetuall necessitie nor any absolute necessitie at all is vrged in any one of the allegations which hee so hotly as it were with fire and towe obiecteth The first which is obiected out of pag. 33. hath beene explained before For when I said that as the gouernment by Bishops was first ordayned for the preseruation of the Church in vnity and for the auoiding of schisme so it is for the same cause to be retained I did not meane any absolute necessitie of retaining it but that as at the first it was ordained as being thought fit expedient and needfull to auoid schisme so it is fit expedient and needfull for the same cause to be retained Neither doe I see how hee can inferre this perpetuall necessitie which he talketh of out of pag. 72. where I said the Epistles to Timothie and Titus are the very patternes and Presidents of the Episcopall function whereby the Apostle informeth them and in them all Bishops how to exercise their function touching ordination and iurisdiction For although Paul giueth his directions primarily to Timothie and Titus and to all such as should haue the like function that is to say Bishops yet if this forme of gouernment be changed those which shall exercise the like authority must follow those directions as being giuen though primarily and directly to Bishops yet secondarily and by consequence to those who though they were not Bishops should haue the like authority And to the like purpose is that alleadged out of pag. 74. and that we should not thinke as some doe that these things were spoken to them as to extraordinarie persons whose authoritie should dye with them but to them and their successors to the end of the world he straitly chargeth Timothie that the commandements and directions which hee gaue him should be kept inuiolable vnto the appearing of our Lord Iesus Christ and therefore by such as should haue the like authority vnto the end And presently after for the authority which was committed to them is perpetually necessary without which the Church neither can be gouerned as without iurisdiction neither yet continued as without ordination and therefore not peculiar to extraordinary persons but by an ordinary deriuation to be continued in those who are the successors of Timothie and Titus Here I appeale to the refuters conscience whether he be not perswaded of the truth of both these sentences Can he deny the authority which was committed to Timothie and Titus to be perpetually necessary which is the summe of the second sentence or if it be perpetually necessary that some were to haue 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 spake before the power or authority it selfe being the perpetuall ordinance of God the manner or forme of gouernment wherein that power is exercised being mutable hee would not so hotly haue vrged these allegations Yea but that pag. 79. is aboue all shew of exception saith hee where hee saith the function and authority which Timothie and Titus had was not to end with their persons but to be continued in their successors as being ordinary and perpetually necessary not onely for the well being but also for the very being of the visible Churches How this speâ—ch is to be vnderstood I distinctly shewed before not thinking I protest of this obiection made by the Refuter For when I said their function
and authority was ordinarie and perpetually necessary I meant that their function was ordinary as being Pastorall and Episcopall and that the authority which they had was perpetually necessary as was said in the former allegations If he shall perhaps vrge those words which mention the successors of Timothie and Titus to the end of the world I answere it is more then likely that they shall haue successors in the same function in some Churches to the end that is to say Bishops though in some others that forme of gouernment being altered the authority may be in those who doe not succeed them in the said function at least in the same forme and manner of gouerning This being all which he hath gained by these allegations he might haue forborne his triumphing insultations which bewray his want of iudgement For where he obiecteth against me this contradiction as though I held both that the gouernment 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 depraue my sayings For though I said the authority which Timothie 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 iurisdiction yet I neuer said that this forme of gouernment was necessary to the being of visible Churches And where hee goeth about to proue that the Episcopall gouernment is not perpetually necessary because there be many visible Churches at this day without it what doth hee else but fight with his owne shadow seeing that in fauour onely of those Churches this passage was by me inserted howbeit hee impudently ouer-reacheth when he saith almost all visible Churches are without Bishops For not to mention all other Churches which be in the Christian world which haue alwayes had and still haue Bishops and to speake onely of the reformed Churches in Europe is it not euident that the farre greater part of them is gouerned by Bishops and which is all one with Bishops by Superintendents The refuter when hee desired to the vttermost pag. 52. to enlarge the number of those Churches which haue the Presbyterian Discipline he reckoned the reformed Churches of Fraunce the Low-countreyes Saxony Heluetia Bohemia Zuricke Berne Geneua Sauoy Palatine Poland Hungary Gernsey Iersey Scotland from which number notwithstanding some Churches are to be substracted as all in Scotland and some if not all in Saxony neither doe I suppose that their Presbyterian discipline is established in Zuricke and all the Churches of Heluetia neither is any one whole kingdome ruled by that discipline So that I am perswaded there are scarse so many particular Churches or congregations gouerned by the Presbyterian discipline in all the world as are gouerned by Bishops in the Kings dominions in great Britaine and in Ireland But besides these I finde alledged by one of great wisdome and iudgement many more which are not gouerned by the Presbyterian discipline as the Churches of Denmarke Sueuia all the reformed Churches of Germany sauing 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 Brunswicke and Luneburge the Duchy of Megalopurge the Duchy of Wirtemberge all the Churches within the countreyes of the Marquesse of Brandeburge and the Marquesse of Bade all the Churches within the gouernment of the Earledome of Henneberge the Earledome of Swartzenberge the Earledome of Lenning the Earledome of Hannaw the Earledome of Oetinghe the Earledome of Mansfield the Earledome of Stalbergh the Earledome of Glich the Earledome of Rheinesterne and the Earledome 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 foure or fiue and thirty at the least free cities with their territories the most of them as large and ample as Geneua in none whereof the Presbyterian discipline is erected Which enumeration is a good euidence also to iustifie my answere to the next obiection which is this Some will say the Protestants which were the blessed instruments of God for the reformation of religion in this last age are thought to haue preferred the other discipline by Presbyteries before this by Bishops and therefore in thus magnifying the Bishops you seeme to ioyne with the Papists against them Whereunto I answered that those godly and learned men allowed the Episcopall function and simply desired the continuance thereof if with it they might haue enioyed the Gospell For proofe whereof I referred the reader to the Suruey of the pretended discipline cap. 8. pag. 110.111 c. In refuting of which answere the refuter dealeth very absurdly with me and the reuerend author of the Suruey For when I referred the reader to a Chapter of that booke contayning many notable testimonies to proue that which I said the refuter dealeth as a man resolued to deny my conclusion what proofes so euer I should bring against him And though I referre him to testimonies for number and weight sufficient either to satisfie or to conuince him if he would but haue turned to the place yet he saith hee cannot possibly see how I should haue any such opinion of those godly and learned men whose writings as he saith doe so often and so vehemently professe the contrary And that he may not seeme to speake without ground he desireth me to leaue the Surueyour and heare what he can say As if the Surueyour were not worthie to be heard when the learned refuter is to speake When as indeed our Refuter for ought I see by him is not for wisedome learning and iudgement worthie to be named with that reuerend Author on the same day But though he would seeme not to vouchsafe an answere to the Suruey yet the truth is he durst not acquaint the Reader with those testimonies which howsoeuer before I did mention for breuity sake I may not now wholy conceale from the Reader And although I might by way of requitall desire him to lay aside hâ—s misse-alledged allegations as vnworthie to be examined and to giue eare to those testimonies cited by the Surueyour yet I will vouchsafe an answere to his authorities after I haue recited some few testimonies of the chiefe Protestant writers as I find them cited by the Surueyour referring the Reader for the rest to the Suruey it selfe And first I wil begin with the Augustane confession whervnto the chiefe learned men who first were called Protestants did subscribe Caluin soone after being one of the number and with the Apologie thereof We haue oft protested say they that we doe greatly approue the Ecclesiasticall policy degrees in the Church and as much as lyeth in vs doe desire to conserue them We doe not mislike the authority of Bishops so that they would not compell vs to doe
authoritie ouer them or reprooued for suffering them And if they were not Presbyters because they called themselues Apostles be like they were better men Js it not then against sense to deny that Presbyters were subiect to the ceÌ„sure of the Bishop because he imagineth these who were subiect to their censure were better men Whatsoeuer they were whether Presbyters or in a higher degree whether of the Bishops presbytery or not whether of his diocese originally or come from other places it is plaine that they were Teachers and that being in their diocese the Bishops had authoritie either to suffer them to preach or to inhibit them to retaine them in the Communion of their Church or to expell them My other reason that BB. had correctiue power ouer the Presbyters is because Timothe and Titus had such power ouer the Presbyters of Ephesus and Creet as I proue by most euident testimonies out of Pauls epistles written to them and Epiphanius his inference on these words to Timothe Against a Presbyter receiue not thou an accusation but vnder two or three witnesses c. Therefore saith he Presbyters are subiect to the B. as to their Iudge To my inference out of S. Paul he answereth that Timothe and Titus were not BB. and that I shall neuer prooue they were I desire therefore the Reader to suspend his iudgement vntill hee come to the proofes on both sides and if he shall not find my proofes for their being BB. to be better then his to the contrarie let him beleeue me in nothing In the meane time let him know that if the generall consent of the ancient Fathers deserue any credit for a matter of fact then must it be granted that Timothe and Titus were Bishops Against Epiphanius hee obiecteth that hee tooke for granted that which Aerius constantly denied But this is one of his presumptuous and malapeit conceits for when Epiphanius prooueth against Aerius that Bishops were superiour to other Presbyters because Timothe was taking it for granted that Timothe was a Bishoppe what moderate or reasonable man would think otherwise but that this assertion that Timothe was a Bishoppe was such a receiued truth as hee knew Aërius himselfe would not deny it Serm. sect 12. pag. 50. But consider also the Presbyters as seuered in place from the Bishop and affixed to their seuerall Cures c. to offenders pag. 52. My first Argument to proue the iurisdiction of Bishops ouer Presbyters assigned to their seuerall cures is that when any place in the country was voide the Bishoppe assigned a Presbyter to them out of his Presbytery which as hath beene said before Caluin confesseth and is an euident argument as to proue the iurisdiction of the Bishop ouer the country parishes and Presbyters thereof so to demonstrate that the Bishops were Diocesan This reason because hee could not answere he would as his maner is perswade the Reader that it is needlesse Secondly I alledge that these Presbyters might doe nothing but by authority from the Bishoppe from whome they had their iurisdiction and therefore were subiect to him as their ruler Thirdly that they were subiect to his iudgement and censures These two points with their proofes hee passeth ouer as if hee made hast to the reason following which he supposeth to be the weakest For this is his maner to passe by in breuity or in silence the best proofes and if he meet with any thing which seemeth to him weaker then the rest there he resteth like aâ—lie in a raw place But by his leaue I will insist a little on these two points And first for the former point in generall the ancient Councell of Laodicea hauing ordained that Country Bishops might do nothing without the consent of the B. in the City in like maner commaundeth the Presbyters to doe nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the consent of the B. The same hath Damasus who hauing spoken of Country Bishops in like manner saith this must be held concerning Presbyters vt sine iussu proprij Episcopi nihilagant that they do nothing without the commaundement of their owne B. To omit those actions that belonged to the power of order which I haue already proued they could not performe without licence and authority from the Bishop consider how in respect of their persons those of the Clergy were subiect to the Bishop to be disposed by him First hee had authority to promote theÌ„ from one degree to another as he saw cause insomuch that if they refused to bee promoted by him they were to loose that degree from which they would not be remoued Secondly they might not remoue from one Diocese to another without his consent If they did he had authority to call them backe Or if any other Bishop should ordaine any of his Clerks without his coÌ„sent or letters dimissory and in that Church preferre him to a higher degree his own B. might reuerse 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 trauel from one City to another without the B. licence his commendatory letters This was decreed by the councell of Laodicea and diuers 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 discerne that the whole Clergy of euery Diocese was subiect to the B. as to their Ruler And that he was their iudge it is euident Cyprian testifieth that heresies and schismes arise hence that the Bishop is not obeied nec vâ—us in Ecclesia ad tempus sacerdos ad tempus index vice Christi cogitatur neither is one B. in the Church and one iudge for the time in the stead of Christ acknowledged First in their controuersies for when Clerks are at variance the B shal bring them to concord either by reason or by his power If there be a controuersie betweene Clerks saith the Councel of Chalcedon they shal not forsake their owne B. but first their cause shall be tried before him And if in their sutes they thought themselues wronged in their Bishoppes court then were they either to seâ—ke to the next BB if the matter could not be differred to the next Synode or else they might appeale to the Metropolitane or Prouinciall Synode But that the B. should be ouerruled controlled or censured by his owne Presbytery it was neuer heard of vnlesse it were by way of insurrection or rebellion Secondly in causes criminall that the Presbyters and others of the Clergy were subiect to the BB. censures it is euery where almost in the ancient Canons and Councels either expressed or presupposed If any Presbyter or Deacon saith the ancient Canon be excommunicated by the B. he may not be receiued by another
be doubted but that each of these had Bishops to their successours euen in the Apostles times as before hath beene shewed and therefore the refuter should not make it so strange that Bishops were the successours of Timothie and Titus Serm. Sect. 8. pag. 75. Against this two things are obiected first that Timothie and Titus may seeme not to haue beene appointed BB. of Ephesus and Creet because they did not continue there but were remoued to other places c. to other in Creet pag. 78. The first obiection is thus framed by the Refuter Timothie and Titus did not continue in Ephesus and Creet but were remoued to other places Therefore Timothie and Titus were not ordayned Bishops of Ephesus and Creet I answere by distinction For if by continuing they vnderstand as the words seeme to import a perpetuall residence without remouing or trauelling thence vpon any occasion then I denie the consequence or proposition which is vnderstood For by no law either of God or man are Bishops or other Pastors so affixed to their cures but that vpon speciall and extraordinarie occasion they may either for their owne necessitie or for the greater or more publicke good of the Church trauaile or remoue to other places It is sufficient that they be ordinarily resident vpon their charge If by continuing be meant ordinarie residence then I denie the antecedent and doe contrariwise affirme that although vpon speciall and extraordinary occasions they were by the Apostle called to other places as his or the Churches necessity required yet these were the places of their ordinary residence And that I proue because they both liued and died there That they continued or had their ordinary abode there in their life time I proue by testimony of Scripture and other euidence For if Paul required Timothie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to continue or abide still in Ephesus and appointed Titus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to continue to redresse vvhat vvas vvanting in Creet then vvere they to continue or haue their ordinarie 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 vnlesse first it could be proued that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a perpetuall abiding in a place without departing from it all a mans life vvhich needeth not seeing ordinarie residence which is meant by that terme which is required in BB. ordinarie Pastors may be without such perpetuall abiding Secondly except 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be vnderstood also for the whole terme of life But it sufficeth that it signifieth to continue in redressing as the Geneua translation also readeth For thereby is meant as I said that hee was not left there for a brunt but that he should as things were defectiue or wanting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 continue to redresse them and still keepe that Church in reparation For though the Church were new as the Refuter obiecteth to signifie that it should not need any reparation yet were the Bishops and Presbyters subiect to death and the places of them which dyed were to be supplied and the Church subiect to personall corruptions both for doctrine discipline manners which would need reformation And whereas their opinion who imagine that Timothie 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 Timothie I shew that in all the iourneyes of Paul into Macedony mentioned in the Acts Timothie 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 trauels and other occurrents which afterwards happened for the space of nine or tenne yeares The Acts of which time cannot otherwise be knowne 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 minde of that he may acknowledge many things to haue beene done by the Apostles which are registred in other records of anitquity though they be not mentioned in the history of the Acts of the Apostles which endeth vvith those things which happened aboue fourty yeares before the death of S. Iohn Now the Acts of the Apostles which were performed after S. Lukes history thereof were in part recorded by Hegesippus and Clemens and other auncient Authors which testifie that Paul ordayned Timothie B. of Ephesus and Titus of Creet and that he and other Apostles appointed other Bishops in other places Whose testimonies whosoeuer doe refuse to beleiue doe themselues deserue no credit To those allegations therefore out of Paul I added the credible testimony of diuers Authors viz. Dorotheus in synopsi Hieron siue 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 Timothie and Titus as they liued so also dyed the one at Ephesus the other in Creet 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 haue the Reader thinke Timothie and Titus dyed the one at Ephesus the other in Creet Therefore they were BB. there it had beene a loose consequence But he wrangleth besides the pupose It was obiected that Timothie and Titus were not Bishops of those places because they did not continue there I proue that they held their ordinary residence there not onely because S. Paul required them both to continue there but other Authors also testified that they both liued and died there The Refuter answereth and would haue the Reader content himselfe with this answere that howsoeuer 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 obserued that M. D. granteth the consequence to be good namely that they were not Bishops of Ephesus and Creet if they did not continue there but were remoued to other places Now that they were remoued himselfe confesseth c. If I had confessed that they were remoued and also that if they were remoued they were not Bishops Then I should haue granted both the antecedent of the Enthymeme which hee said before that I denyed and also the consequence But indeed I denyed the consequence in that sence which the Refuter conceiueth and yet granted that though they were sometimes remoued yet they kept ordinary residence the one at Ephesus the other in Creet And therefore their trauelling or remouing vpon extraordinary occasions doth not hinder their being BB. Doe you indeed grant that sometimes they were remoued marry that will I proue saith the