â—â—daciousnes of wicked men be feared that what they cannot doe by right and equity they may â—ccomplish by rash and desperate courses actum est de episcopatus vigore de ecclesiae gubernandae sublimi ac diuina potestate then farewell the vigour of episcopall authority and that high and diuine power of gouerning the Church But more fully is this authority described in the Councels of Antioch and Constantinople and also in the writings of Ierome Euery Bishop saith the Councell of Antioch hath authoritie of his owne See both to gouerne it according to the feare of God which is before his eies and to haue a prouident care of the whole Countrey which is vnder his Citie as also to ordaine Presbyters and Deacons and to gouerne all things with iudgement The Councell held in Trullo decreed that forasmuch as some Cities being occupied by the Barbarians inuading Christian kingdomes the Bishops of the said Cities could not enioy their seat and performe such offices there as belong to the episcopall function that they should retaine their eminent dignitie and authoritie so that they may canonically exercise ordination of the diuers degrees of Clerkes and that they may vse within their bounds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the authoritie of their Prelacie and that all their administration be firme and lawfull But what saith Ierome He hauing intreated of the other degrees of the Clergie at the last commeth to intreat de praecipuo gradu Ecclesiae of the chiefe degree of the Church qui ordo episcopalis est which is the order of Bishops the power whereof he setteth downe in these words Hee ordaineth Priests and Leuites that is Presbyters and Deacons c. Hee gouerneth the Church of God he sheweth what euery one ought to do he condâ—mneth he receiueth he bindeth hee looseth that which was bound hee hath the keyes of the kingdome of heauen hee openeth and shutteth the throne of God meaning heauen hauing nothing meaning no ecclesiasticall order aboue him c. But the superioritie of Bishops ouer Presbyters I shewed in the sermon by comparing the iurisdiction of BB. with that which Presbyters haue both in regard of the greatnesse and largenesse and also in respect of the deriuation thereof The Presbyters iurisdiction is ouer the flocke of one parish the iurisdiction of the Bishop is ouer the whole Diocese The Presbyters is priuate in the court of conscience the Bishops publike and in the externall Court also The Presbyter gouerneth the people onely of one flocke the Bishop gouerneth not only the people of the whole Diocese but the Presbyters also themselues The Presbyters receiue institution vnto their iurisdiction from the Bishop and exercise it vnder the Bishop of the Diocese who hahauing as the Councell of Antioch and Ierome say the care of the whole Church or Diocese admit the Presbyters in partem solicitudinis into part of their care by giuing them institution to their seuerall parishes The Presbyters doe answer to the sonnes of Aaron and are the successours of the 70. Disciples as diuers of the Fathers doe teach but the Bishops answer to Aaron and are the successors of the Apostles as I proue by the testimonie of Ierome who saith that in the true Church Bishops doe hold the place of the Apostles and of Irenaeus that the Apostles left the Bishops their successors deliuering vnto them their owne place of gouernment To all this the Refuter maketh a dilatorie answer not purposing indeede to answer these allegations at all Of these points I purpose not saith he to say any thing in this place because the former concerning the difference of the Bishops and Presbyters iurisdiction must presently be disputed the latter is to be discussed in the last point of his fiue And thus hath he by a cleanly deuice auâ—ided these allegations which he knew not how to answer and very featly rid his hands of them But if the Reader shall vpon examination finde that hee speaketh nothing to these allegations and proofes in the places whereunto he is differred hee must needes thinke that their cause of sinceritie as they call it is not very sincerely handled Hauing thus in generall noted the superioritie of Bishops in the power of iurisdiction let vs now descend vnto particulars The authoritie therefore of the Bishop respecteth either the things of the Church or the persons Whatsoeuer things saith the Councell of Antioch appertaine to the Church are to be gouerned husbanded and disposed by the iudgement and authoritie of the Bishop to whose trust the whole people is committed and the soules of the congregation And againe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Bishop hath the power or authoritie of those things which belong to the Church And this authoritie the Bishops had from the beginning for as what was at the first giuen to the Church was laid at the Apostles feet so afterwards what was contributed was committed saith Iustine Martyr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Bishop Heereof you may reade more Conc. Gangr c. 7. 8. Concil Tol. 3. c. 19. 4 c. 32. Balsam in Concil Carth. Gr. c. 36. alias 33. As touching persons they were distinguished at the first into Clericos Laicos vnto whom afterward a third sort was added viz. Monachi monasticall persons who though they were sequestred from the companie and societie of secular men as they count them yet were they not exempted from the iurisdiction of the Bishop The great Councell of Chalcedon determined that no man should build a monastery any where or house of prayer without the consent of the Bishop of the Citie and that those which in euery Citie or Countrey did leade a monasticall life should bee subiect to the Bishop See more c. 8. Conc. Afric c. 47. Agath c. 27. 58. Theod. Balsam saith that Monkes were more subiect to the Bishop then to the Gouernour of the monasterie As touching the Laitie I said Serm. sect 10. pag. 46. to pag. 47. l. 6. I should not neede to prooue the Bishops authoritie ouer the people of their Diocese if I demonstrate their rule ouer the Presbyters thereof c. Not neede saith the Refuter Yeâ— you must prooue the power of censuring the people to be their only right vnlesse you yeeld that preeminence to be giuen them jure humano as indeede it must be seeing they haue it not potestate ordinis by the power of their order The Refuter is to be borne with if hee talke at randon seeing he is as it seemeth out of his element The thing which I was to prooue if it had beene needfull was that whereas Presbyters did gouerne each one the people of a parish and that priuately the Bishop gouerneth the people of the whole diocese and that publikelie the which I held needlesse to prooue because before it was prooued that they had the charge of the whole Diocese
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
of God as well as those which concerned the ceremoniall law Neither do I therefore reiect the exposition of Beza and some others who by the causes of God vnderstand Ecclesiasticall causes and by the causes of the king ciuill causes because it is preiudiciall to my defence but because it is repugnant to the truth for though their interpretation were admitted it would no more proue that there were two distinct Synâ—dria then that which I doe embrace For though Zebadiah the prince of Iuda was the chiefe in the causes of the King as Amariah the high priest was the chiefe in the causes of God yet were they Colleagues and coassessors in the same counsell as Iosephus also doth witnesse For speaking of this act of Iosaphat he saith that he being returned to Ierusalem appointed iudges there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Priests and Leuits and of the chiefe or principall men of the people requiring them to exercise iust iudgement but especially that they should be diligent in determining those difficult causes that should be brought to them from inferiour iudgement seats but the chiefe or presidents of them as colleagues and coassessors be appointed Amasiah the Priest and Zabadiah of the tribe of Iuda and relating the law Deu. 17.8 he saith if the iudges in the cities be not able to determine any cause it is entirely to be sent to the holy citie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and let the high Priest and the Prophet that is the scribe or Doctor of the law saith Sigonius and the senate assembling together pronounce what seemeth right Besides it is manifest that the counsell at Ierusalem after the captiuitie which consisted of priests and Leuits besides the Seniors of the people and whereof the high priest was president as Bertram confesseth hauing authoritie to assemble it c. Act. 5.21 Matt. 26.57.59 was the high councell of state called the Sanedrin or Synedrion or coÌ„sistorium Gazith which dealt in causes not onely Ecclesiasticall but also ciuil and in causes criminall and capitall Neither happened this by the ambition of the priests but by the ordinance of God in respect of the first institution Deut. 17. and instauration by Iosaphat 2. Chron. 19. and by his approbation as Caluin witnesseth in respect of the erection of it after the captiuity For as the Lord promised by Esay to restore their iudges and counsellers after the captiuitie as before so Ezekiell prophecieth that the Priests after the captiuitie should not onely teach the people and iudge betweene holy and prophane betweene cleane and vncleane but also that they should stand vp to iudge controuersies iudging according to Gods iudgement Iosephus also testifieth that the Priests were ordained by Moses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ouerseers of all iudges of controuersies and punishers of such as are by the law condemned And so much for the present shall suffice concerning the counsell at Ierusalem vntill I come to answere Caluins opinion As touching Ecclesiasticall Presbyters in other cities Beza hath nothing but his owne coniectures For the courts of iudgement which both Moses instituted and Iosaphat renewed though they had Leuites among them were to deale not onely in Ecclesiasticall but also in ciuill and criminall causes The reasons which he bringeth for distinct Ecclesiasticall senates are three First because the Archisynagogi had as it is probable Seniors of the people ioyned with them Secondly because the name of Church in this place of Mathew is giuen to them which could not be vnlesse they did consist of the laitie as wel as the clergie Thirdly because as the ciuill consistories assembled in the gates so the Ecclesiasticall in the Synagogues To the first I answere that a probabilitie if this were such as indeed it is not is no proofe to the 2. that the name Ecclesia is not giuen to the Archisynagogi but to the Rulers of Christs Church assembling in his name with whom he promised his presence and to whom he committed the power of the keyes to whom also the name Ecclesia which may be giuen to any company of Christians be it but of two or three meeting in the name of Christ doth fitly agree Thirdly he telleth vs of Ecclesiasticall consistories ordained by Moses and renewed by Iosaphat sitting in Synagogues when there is not once mention in the old testament either of Ecclesiasticall consistories or yet of Synagogues And in the new such iudges are mentioned in Synagogues as punished by stripes Bertram also witnesseth that in the Synagogues of the cities iudgements were exercised by ordinarie iudges the greater and weightier causes as also the appeales of the lesse being referred to the counsell â—t Ierusalem And againe that the people came to the Synagogues to prayer to heare the law and the Prophets and to heare the iudgement of Moses law as well ciuill as Ecclesiasticall And so much of Beza Caluiâ— by Ecclesia vnderstandeth the Synedrion or Sanedrin of the Iewes instituted by them after their returne from Babylon which he conceiueth to haue beene an Ecclesiasticall senate to which belonged the censure of doctrine maners hauing the power oâ— excoÌ„munication c. What this Synedrion was Caluin himselfe shall tell vs It is certaine saith he that the Iewes when they were returned from the Babylonian banishment because they might not make a King did imitate this example of appointing 70. Elders Num. 11 in ordaining the Synedrion Onely so much honour was granted to the memorie of Dauid and the Kings that out of their stocke they would choose 70. gouernours in whom should be the chiefe power And this course continued vntill Herod c. The Sanedrin indeed was the high counsell of state which was to iudge of causes not only Ecclesiasticall but also ciuill and criminal yea capitall hauing the authoritie of the sword and power of life and death Whereby they adiudged malefactors conuicted of capital crimes to one of these foure kinds of death stoning burning killing with the sword and strangling hauing also authoritie to ordaine Sanedrioth that is the consistories of iudges in other cities to whom alone it appertained to iudge the cause of a tribe of a false Prophet of the high Priest c. And howsoeuer their power was much restrained after Iewrie became a prouince subiect to the Romanes notwithstanding the Romanes hauing granted the Iewes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 libertie to liue according to their owne lawes permitted them to exercise authoritie both in iudging not onely Ecclesiasticall but also ciuill and criminall causes and also in punishing by stripes and imprisonment and sometimes by death Moreouer by the law of God he that disobeyed the sentence of this counsell was not as our Sauiour Christ heere saith to be held as an heathen or Publican but he was to die the death Finally there was but one Synedrion for the whole estate of the Iewes by the appointment of God and that in the
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
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
much as may be we may bring in the ancient discipline Where indeed we see mention of Seniors and of ancient discipline but that they meant nothing lesse then to bring in Lay-elders or to establish the pretended parish-discipline or to acknowledge that it was the ancient discipline of the Church I will out of the booke it selfe make manifest Wherein the whole gouernement and discipline of our Church by Archbishops Bishops Archdeacons rurall Deanes c. is established And cōcerning BB. this is there decreed that the B. is at fit seasons to giue holy orders to institute fit Ministers to Ecclesiasticall benefices to remoue vnfit to heare the testimonies of the Church and complaints of their Pastors to compound controuersies arising betwixt the Ministers and the Churches to correct by Ecclesiasticall censures vices and corrupt manners to prescribe orders for amendment of life to excommunicate those which wilfully and obstinatly resist to receiue into grace those which be penitent to visit the whole Diocesse as well in places exēpted as not euery third yeare And finally let BB. take care of all things which ex Dei prescrpto by the ordinance of God belong to them and which our Ecclesiasticall lawes haue committed to their knowledge and iudgements And that by Seniors they did not meane any Ecclesiasticall officers it is apparant for where they reckon vp all Ecclesiasticall officers prescribing their duties beginning at clearks or sextons so proceeding to Church-wardens to Deacons to Presbyters or Ministers to archpresbyters or rural deanes to archdeacōs so to Cathedral Churches to Deanes to Prebendaries to BB. prescribing the obedience which must be yeelded to them they doe not once mention Seniors or their office If therfore it be asked whō they vnderstand by Seniors in the place alleadged I answer that they vnderstand some of the principall housholders in euery parish whom in some places they call Vestry-men in some maisters of the parish in some ancients of the parish With what conscience therefore that booke was alleadged as approuing Lay-elders or acknowledging the new-found parish-discipline for the ancient discipline let the reader iudge The second he setteth downe in these words A doctrine I say cleane contrarie to the professed iudgement of all our worthy writers who in their answeres to the Papists that plead for their Hierarchie with the same reasons that M. D. doth for his doe determine that the gouernement our BB. exercise ouer other ministers is Iure humano by the positiue law of men onely the which if M. D. saith true is false so the Papists are left vnanswered Whereunto I answere first that the popish opinion is farre different from that which I hold For they hold the order and superioritie of BB. to be Iure diuino implying thereby a perpetuall necessitie thereof Insomuch that where BB are not to ordaine they thinke there can be no ministers or priests consequently no Church I hold otherewise as the refuter himselfe else-where acknowledgeth in whose words I will relate my opinion as he hath set it downe that I make the calling of BB. no further of diuine institution then as being ordained by the Apostles it proceeded from God without implying thereby any necessarie perpetuitie thereof For which he quoteth pag. 92. of my Sermon If therefore the Papists doe bring the like arguments to proue their opinion which is so vnlike to mine nothing hindereth but my arguments may be good though theirs be nought For those arguments which demonstratiuely proue the Episcopall function to be of Apostolicall institution doe not straightwaies proue it to be Diuini iuris Wherefore my opinion being so different from the popish conceit who seeth not that the iudgemēt of our Diuines which is opposed to the doctrine of the Papists is not opposite to mine for though they doe not holde the Episcopall function to be inioyned diuino iure as perpetually necessarie yet what man of sound learning doth or can deny but that the first BB. were ordained by the Apostles The third he deliuereth in these tearmes Yea a doctrine contrariant to the lawes of our land which make it one part of the Kings iurisdiction to grant to our BB. that Ecclesiasticall power they now exercise ouer vs and also to take it from them at his pleasure the which his Highnes taketh to himselfe and giueth to all Kings where he professeth that God hath left it to the libertie and freewill of Princes to alter the Church gouernement at their pleasure The iurisdiction which BB exercise is either spirituall respecting the soule as to binde or loose the soules of men or corporall respecting the outward man as to binde and loose the bodies The former is deriued to them from the Apostles the latter is committed vnto them by the King to whose crowne all commanding and compulsiue power is annexed Againe wee are to distinguish betweene the power it selfe and the exercise of it For although the power it selfe which is an habituall or potentiall right to exercise that which belongeth to the said power be deriued to them from the Apostles as a diuine ordinance notwithstanding where is a Christian Prince assisting and directing them by his lawes they may not actually exercise their power but according to his lawes Ecclesiasticall I call them his because by whomsoeuer at the first they were decreed yet so many as are in force with vs they are the Kings Ecclesiasticall lawe As for the authoritie whereof the reuerend Iudge speaketh in the place quoted in the margent it is the authoritie of the high Commission which the BB exercise not as they are BB for others who be not BB haue the same but as they are the Kings Commissioners in causes Ecclesiasticall As touching the other allegation it seemeth the refuter whiles he talketh of libertie to alter at their pleasure thinks it left to his libertie to alter the Kings words at his pleasure The King indeed doth say that it is granted to euery Christian King Prince and Common-wealth to prescribe to their subiects that outward forme of Ecclesiastical regiment which may seeme best to agree with the forme of their ciuill gouernement but so as they swarue not at all frō the grounds of faith and true religion But that it may appeare how little the iudgement of our most Orthodoxall and iudicious King doth differ from that which I deliuered in my Sermon I will craue leaue to recite his words That BB. ought to be in the Church I euer maintained as an Apostolike institution and so the ordinance of God contrarie to the Puritanes and likewise to Bellarmine who denieth that BB. haue their iurisdiction from God Now then to come to the point this argument maketh wholy against the pretended discipline and not against the gouernement of Bishops as I maintaine it The gouernement of Bishops is by our lawes allowed so is not the pretended discipline And though I holde the gouernement
c to pag. 5. own case That these 2. things are offered to our consideration saith the refuter wee denie not but if he had walked with a right foote in the path hee entred into hee should by his Text haue taught vs the meaning of these 2. points and not quite contrarie as hee goes about by these two points to teach vs the meaning of his Text. To whom I will not giue that answere which Festus did to Paul that too much learning hath made him madde for hee seemeth not to be greatly sicke of that disease but I may truely say that too much anger and wrath which is furor breuis which he vnmeasurably sheweth in this Section hath made him so to forget himselfe that hee wrangleth without witte and against sense Vnlesse any man that is in his wittes will say that it is not lawfull for a Preacher to explane his Text. For what was it that in this Section I had in hand was it not to indeuour the explication of my Text and to shew what manner of BB are here meant by the Angels of the Churches for the explicatioÌ„ wherof what could more fitly be propounded then the consideration of these 2. things viz what manner of Churches they were whereof they were the Angels or BB and what manner of preheminence they had in those Churches in regard wherof they are termed the Angels of the Churches that from my Text rightly expounded of Diocesan BB. I might deduce the doctrine of the lawfulnes of their calling and from it inferre the vse Indeed if I had bene now propounding the doctrine gathered out of the Text or vrging the vse therevpon inferred there had bene reason I should prooue them as afterwards I doe by the Text already explicated But when I am about to explicate the Text propound the points that are therein questionable to be discussed for the clearing of the Text who seeth not that the handling of these points is the very explication of the Text and the Text that which is explicated And if the Text be that which is explicated who could bee so senselesse as either to require that the points should be explaned by the Text or to finde fault that by the handling of them the Text is explaned But now hee is pleased of his grace to consider them And wheras I yeeld as a reason of my propounding the former point to bee discussed diuers new-fangled Assertions of the new-found parish discipline whereof I spake but too mildely as you may see hee chargeth mee with bitter inueighing scornefull vpbraiding ouerflowing of the gall with spitting out vnsauoury reproaches making a calumnious out-crie in the ende of the Section and much adoe he had not to apply to mee that saying of Salomon with whome it better fitteth let the Reader iudge Proud haughtie and scornefull is his name that worketh in his arrogancie wrath and in the ende out of the super-aboundance of his charitie hee is afraide for mee that I care not to loose much of my peace within that all I here speake is Night worke proceeding from great distemper of the braine c. Was my aduersaries backe or conscience rather galled was hee guiltie to himselfe of being one of the coyners of those newe opinions that hee thus flingeth and kicketh when they are so gentlie touched Who knowing that those Assertions were some of those 16. positions for the tryall whereof the vnchristian and vnmodest offer of disputation was made which are there magnified as beeing such chiefe points in controuersie betweene vs and the Papists that if in them the BB. ioyning as they pretend with the Papists haue the truth then extreme wrong is offered to the Church of Rome by our separating therefrom and all Protestant Churches are for that cause Schismaticall that if the Priests and Iesuites can satisfie them in these points they would bee reconciled to the Church of Rome Who I say knowing this could with more mildnesse haue spoken of such Schismaticall nouelties For where hee saith that almost all of them haue bene alwayes generallie maintained and practised by all soundly reformed Churches hee seemeth either not to care what hee speaketh or by soundly reformed Churches to meane none but Brownists or such like Betweene whom and these vnchristian and immodest challengers there went as wee say but a paire of sheeres These remaining after a sort in the peece the other beeing by open Schisme cut off Which againe they haue manifested in their late petition to the Kings Maiestie This being the summe of their suite that they may be tollerated Schismatickes But to let passe their new-coyned positions excepting those that concerne this cause with the Libellers bitter wranglings and vaine ianglings There are two things in answere to this Section which I may not let passe the one is his defence of the challengers the other a great aduantage taken against a word which as hee saith I dropt by the way His defence is against that calumnious outcrie as hee calleth it in the ende of the Section where I brieflie note that by what reason they denie the Bishops to bee members of the true Church because forsooth they bee not of some certaine parish by the same they may as well denie the King who hauing a more generall reference to all the Churches within his dominions as being the Gouernour of them all in Great Brittaine and Irelâ—nd is further from being a member of one onely parish then anie Bishop in this Kingdome Hee answereth that the challengers hold the King and his Houshold to bee an entire Church of it selfe But tell mee doe they hold it to bee a true Church that so the King may be thought to be a member of a true Church Or if they doe Why may they not with the like reason acknowledge a Bishop and his familie to bee an entire familie by themselues But it is no matter what they holde vnlesse they were more learned and iudicious The aduantage which is taken at my words had need to bee verie great or else the refuter and his copartners doe shewe themselues to be very weake men seeing it is fiue times repeated in print once in their late petition with great amplifications once in the Abortiue booke with this note in the margent sic tu beas amicos Thrice in this Booke with great triumphes and insultations not onely in the treatise it selfe but also euery where in the margent demanding with scorne in this place Is this your kindnesse to your friends in the second sic tu beas amicos in the third quid facias odio sic vbi amore noces The Reader must needes expect some great matter seeing these hilles thus to swell The words whereat they take aduantage were these Least they might seeme to set vp an absolute Popeling in euerie parish who should haue not onely supreame but also sole authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall they adioyne to him that
is to their Parish Bishop a Consistorie of Lay or onely gouerning Elders Out of which words they frame this proposition They which haue not onely supreme but also sole authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall are absolute Popelings hereto they adde an assumption of their owne All Diocesan Bishops haue not onely supreme but also sole authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall and from thence inferre their victorious triumphing conclusion therefore all Diocesan Bishops are absolute Popelings And this they say is mine owne reason whereby I make Diocesan Bishops absolute Popelings Mine owne reason in which there is nothing mine but the proposition which also is stretched beyond not onely my meaning but euen my words this proposition I denie not may bee framed out of my words they who giue to a Bishop not onely supreme but also sole authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall doe seeme to set vp an absolute Popeling From which words if they had bene retained this might haue bene concluded if I did giue to our Bishops both supreme and sole authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall as I doe not that then I might seeme to set vp absolute Popelings But it were well with my aduersaries if to seeme and to bee were all one And yet I doe not so much as seeme to anie that is wise and indifferent to make our Bishops as they say absolute Popelings The application of this to the BB. is made in the assumption which is both false and foolish and is not mine but theirs They say it is not onely impleyed and intended but is one of the chiefe and principall points I vndertake to proue throughout my Sermon But their saying is false and friuolous How doe they prooue it For the question beeing saith our refuter whether the Churches should bee gouerned by Pastors and Elders or by Diocesan Bishops whereas they say by Pastors and Elders adioyning the Elders to the Pastors and making them both subiect to the whole congregation c. M.D. taketh all from them all and putteth the reynes into his Diocesan alone so making him by his owne rule the absolute Popeling Here I intreate the Reader to keepe in store for future vse the state of the question as it is here propounded by the refuter In the meane time let vs after his owne manner examine his argument The question being whether the Churches should be gouerned by Pastors and Elders for I will for your credites sake leaue out that Brownisticall and Anabaptisticall dotage concerning the chiefe authoritie of the people or by Diocesan BB. whosoeuer taketh all from Pastors and Elders and shall I adde the people too and putteth the reynes into the hands of the Diocesan alone he giueth him not onely supreme but also sole authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall and so maketh him an absolute Popeling But the question being as I said M. D. taketh all authoritie from the Pastors Elders and people and putteth the reynes into the hands of the Diocesan Bishop alone Therefore M. D. giueth to the Diocesan not onely supreme but also sole authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall and so by his owne rule maketh him an absolute Popeling Sect. 10. To let you see how the refuter climbeth a ladder of vntruthes to seat our Bishops in the Papacy I will begin with his assumption wherein are two vntruthes First that I take all authoritie from the Pastors Elders and people The Elders indeed I reiect as a new deuise in the parishioners I acknowledge some authoritie in choosing or consenting to the choyse of some Church-officers but authoritie to gouerne much lesse to ordaine depose and depriue their Pastor I know not any They are the sheepe which must heare their pastors voyce and be obedient to their spirituall guides They are the flocke which must be ruled and taught not followed and obeyed As touching the pastors of parishes I leaue to them that pastorall power which euer was granted to them since the first distinguishing of parishes and allotting of seuerall Presbyters to them that is to say both poâ—â—statem ordinis the power of order as they are Ministers potestatem iurisdictionis spiritualis seu internae a power of spirituall and inward iurisdiction to rule their flocke after a priuate manner as it were in foro conscientiae in the court of conscience as they are pastors of that flocke By which power they rule and guide their flocke not onely in their publike Ministery but also in their priuate attendance or if yee will so call it superintendence as occasion shal be offered For as touching their publicke ministery they are the leaders and guides of the people in Gods seruice they preach the word therein teaching confuting instructing reprouing correcting their hearers they administer the sacraments as the stewards of Gods house by the one admitting into Gods family those which belong to his couenant by the other nourishing the houshold of Christ in due season and both by the word and sacraments exercising so much of the power of the keyes as of right belongeth to them as well binding the notoriously scandalous and impenitent by denouncing the threatnings of God against them in the word and by repelling them for the time from the sacrament as also loosing the penitent belieuers by applying to them the gracious promises of the Gospell and adding thereto the sacraments as seales So that all power is not taken from the pastors neither is all giuen to the Bishop alone For in the gouernement of the Church others are ioyned with him some vnder him some aboue him Vnder him in the mother Church or Cathedrall the Deane and Chapter which in the ancient Church as hereafter wee shall shewe were called Archpresbyters and presbyteri ciuitatis in the other Churches of the Diocesse diuided into seuerall precincts the Archdeacons and rurall Deanes gouerning them as the Chorepiscopi were wont in the primitiue Church Not to speake of the Chancellers and Officials the former being adioyned to the Bishops the latter to the Archdeacons by reason of their skill in the Ecclesiasticall lawes Aboue him not onely the Archbishop and his courts but also the prouinciall Synodes assembling chiefly for ordaining Ecclesiasticall Canons and constitutions by which the Bishops are to rule and to be ruled In making whereof though the Ecclesiasticall authoritie especially appeareth yet neither all the Bishops alone and much lesse any one Bishop concludeth any thing but with the consent of the Presbytery And therefore this may to the former authoritie of Ministers be added that in making Ecclesiasticall lawes they haue a voyce either by themselues if they be sent to the Synode or by such as themselues shall choose Sect. 11. In the proposition likewise are two vntruthes For first it is not generally true as it is necessarily intended in the proposition for otherwise the Syllogisme is a meere Paralogisme that whosoeuer doth giue to the Bishop alone the power which is taken from the seuerall pastors with their Elders and parishes doth straightwaies
giue the sole authoritie Ecclesiasticall to the Bishop Indeed if we were so madde as to thinke that there were no Ecclesiasticall gouernement but parishionall there were something in his speech But when besides and aboue the gouernement not onely parishionall but also Diocesan we acknowledge a superiour authoritie in the Archbishop and his courts in the prouinciall synodes especially that authoritie of making Church-lawes whereby both Dioceses and parishes are to be ruled it is apparent that although I did take all authoritie from parish-bishops and their Elders yet it would not follow that I giue the whole authoritie Ecclesiasticall to the Diocesan alone But that which hee saith of my ascribing the supreme authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall to the Diocesan Bishops that is the supreme and the loudest lye and maketh the assumption of his chiefe Syllogisme most euidently false Doe I or any of vs say that the Diocesan Bishop hath the supreme authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall doth not our Church subiect the Bishop to the Archbishop and prouinciall Synodes doth not appeale lye from the sentence of the Bishop to the Archbishop and likewise from him to the Kings Delegates doth not himselfe acknowledge pag. 69. the Bishops so to be subiected to the two Archbishops as that if we may iudge by the outward appearance and practise we may in his opinion seeme to haue but two Churches and those prouinciall the one of Canterbury and the other of Yorke doe wee not all with one consent acknowledge the Kings Maiestie to haue the supreme authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall and whereas the greatest authoritie of Churchmen is exercised in Synodes and the greatest authoritie of Synodes is the making of Church-lawes yet the ratification of them we submit to the King according to the Practise of the ancient Churches liuing vnder Orthodoxall Kings in so much that they and all our Church-lawes are called the Kings Ecclesiasticall lawe Now then if neither I take all authoritie from the pastors nor giue all to the Bishops nor ascribe vnto them◠sole nor supreme authoritie what haue the libellers gained by all their triumphing outcryes but the manifestation of their owne manifold vntruthes Yea but the title of absolute Popelings agreeth better to our Diocesan BB. then to their parish BB. Neither did I say that they are such but that if they did not ioyne vnto them a consistory of Elders they would seeme to set vp not onely a Popeling but an absolute Popeling in euery parish a petite pope indeed their pastor is in regard of that supremacy they ascribe vnto him making him the supreme Ecclesiasticall officer in euery Church which wee deny to our Bishops and were it not that hee hath a consistory ioyned to him as the Pope hath of Cardinals hee would bee more then a pope And againe whereas our Bishops are to be guided by lawes which by their superiors are imposed vpon them their pastors with their Elders and people hauing as the Pope saith he hath a supreme immediate and independent authoritie sufficient for the gouernement of their Churches in all causes Ecclesiastical and therefore for making of Ecclesiasticall lawes they are to be gouerned by their owne lawes For the chiefe thing in Ecclesiasticall gouernement is the authoritie to prescribe lawes Ecclesiasticall If therefore each parish hath as they say it hath sufficient authoritie within it selfe for the gouernement of it selfe in all causes Ecclesiasticall immediately deriued from Christ then questionlesse they haue authoritie to prescribe lawes Ecclesiasticall And as the Pope doth not acknowledge the superioritie of a synode to impose lawes vpon him no more doe they They will giue synodes leaue to deliberate of that which may be best and to perswade thereto but they will not be ruled by them As for the Kings supremacie in causes Ecclesiastical how it may stand with their maine assertion wherein they ascribe to euery parish an independent authoritie immediately deriued from Christ sufficient for the gouernement of it selfe in all causes Ecclesiasticall I will not dispute Serm. Sect. 3. pag. 5. Concerning the secōd viz. what was the preheminence of these BB. in the Churches in respect whereof they are called the Angels of the Churches others more wise and learned then the former granting they were BB. of whole cities the countries adioyning that is to say of Dioceses notwithstanding the sway of the gouernement they ascribe to the Presbyteries of those Churches consisting partly of Ministers and partly of annual or Lay-presbyters making these Angels or Bishops nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or presidents of those Presbyteries and such presidents as were not superior to other Ministers in degree c. to pag. 6. in their turnes Of the two points seruing to shew by way of explication of the text what manner of Bishops were meant by the Angels the latter I propounded in this section to be examined A reason whereof I alledge a controuersie betwixt vs and another sort of disciplinarians who are as I said more wise and learned then the former who though they grant that which the former denied yet doe greatly differ from vs concerning the preheminence which the Angels or ancient Bishops had in the Churches So that in this section are 2. things first the proposition of the second point concerning the preheminence of BB. in respect whereof they were called the Angels of the Churches secondly a reason thereof To the proposition he answereth that they had this name Angels in regard of their generall calling of the ministerie not because of any soueraignetie or supremacie ouer other their fellow Ministers as he saith I imply here and plainely but vntruely affirme afterwards In which fewe words are 2. vntruthes Whereof the former is an errour that they are to tearmed in respect of their generall calling of the ministery For though to be called Angels generally agreeth to all Ministers yet for one and but one among many Ministers in one and the same Church to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called the Angell of that Church is not a common title belonging to all Ministers in regard of their generall calling but a peculiar stile belonging to one who had singular preheminence aboue the rest that is to say a Bishop So saith D. Raynolds in the Church of Ephesus though it had sundry Elders and pastors to guide it yet among those sundry was there one chiefe whō our Sauiour calleth the Angell of the Church and writeth that to him which by him the rest should know And this is he whom afterward in the primitiue Church the fathers called Bishop As touching the latter where he saith that I doe here imply that the Bishops haue a soueraignety or supremacy ouer other Ministers and afterwards doe affirme it plainely that plainely is a plaine lie Soueraignetie and supremacy ouer other Ministers none but Papists giue to their Bishop and they to none but to the Bishop of Rome Superioritie indeed belongeth to
though so much be signified without it No it will not serue the turne for though Presbyter doe alwaies and onely signifie a Minister and neuer signifie an onely gouerning Elder yet there might bee gouerning Elders who were signified by other names Why but then there were no Presbyters but Ministers which was the point to be proued And what then becommeth which is the chiefe scope of this place of all those testimonies wherein the word Presbyter is mentioned which T. C. and others doe alledge supposing the most of the places in the scriptures councils and fathers where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presbyter is mentioned to be so many proofes of your gouerning Elders call you this a weake proofe which doth not onely at once bereaue you of all those testimonies where Presbyter is mentioned and wherein your chiefe strength did lie but also proue that there were no Presbyters but Ministers This consequence therefore was not to be denied And much lesse the other For if there cannot be produced so much as any one pregnant testimonie out of the scriptures councils or fathers mentioning or meaning any lay annuall onely-gouerning Elders with what proofs will they vrge them or with what conscience can they obtrude them as the ordinance of Christ An argument taken from the scriptures alone negatiuè was wont to be a sufficient disproofe of any pretended ordinance of Christ and shall not an argument holde negatiuely from Scriptures Fathers Councels and all Notwithstanding the consequence must needs be infirme and weake for although there be no proofe of any Lay-annuall-onely gouerning elders yet may there be indeed is for all that proofe sufficient for such only gouerning Presbyters as are ecclesiâ—sticall and to be perpetuall Wherefore which way soeuer the proposition lye the consequence therof I flatly deny saith our ryming refuter But heere I intreat the Reader to trie the spirit of this Sophister For if himselfe acknowledge that my meaning is simply to denie the onely-gouerning Elders then can hee not be excused from this imputation of setting himselfe to wrangle against conscience But so much hee acknowledgeth when hee commeth to the assumption for otherwise he could not haue wrangled therewith M. D. meaing saith he is simply to denie all kinde onely-gouerning Elders therefore I denie the assumption His meaning was not to denie all but annuall and Lay-Elders therefore I flatly denie the consequence Thus you see how he is carried with a spirit of contradiction not caring to gaine say himselfe so hee may seeme to contradict mee But so farre was the consequence from being to be denyed because I mention Lay and annuall that rather it was to be graunted These words being added ad maiorem cautelam and distinctly propounded to make the consequence so much the stronger and to signifie that I spake of all Elders whatsoeuer that are not Ministers call them as you will whether Lay or annuall or onely gouerning Elders And here againe let the Reader obserue that the new sect of Disciplinarians will not haue such Elders as lately were in Scotland and still are at Geneua and the Low Countreys No they scorne such those be Lay annuall as you haue heard but these may not be so Therfore let the elder sort of Disciplinarians be accounted wise who though they were faine to yeeld that the greater part of their presbyteries should be of the Laitie yet they did foresee that the Ministers would beare the sway as indeed they ought because they were perpetuall the others annuall or but for a short time whereas these men making the Lay-Elders perpetuall and referring matters to be ruled by pluralitie of voyces absurdly subiect the Ministers to bee ruled and ouer-ruled by them who in the most Countrey-parishes are more fitte to holde the plough then to sit at the sterne of the Church And so desperate or franticke whether are they nowe growne that although they make their parish-Bishop the supreme officer in the visible Church and doe holde that euery parish hath a sufficient and independent authoritie immediately deriued from Christ for the gouernment of it selfe in all causes Ecclesiasticall Notwithstanding offer to submitte their Bishop and his Consistorie yea their whole visible Church with their whole managing of causes Ecclesiasticall to the ouersight and superintendencie of each Iustice of peace Hauing thus wrangled with the proposition hee setteth himselfe also against the assumption containing the two aforesaide Assertions The former whereof viz that the word Presbyter noting an Ecclesiasticall person in the Church of Christ euermore in the Scriptures Councells and Fathers signifieth a Minister hee denyeth For if the word onely bee added it is vtterly false For I shall make it euident saith hee that the worde Presbyter doth sometimes signifie one that is not a Minister And if it bee left out it will be false neuerthelesse For it shall appeare that sometimes the word is vsed for an Ecclesiasticall person that is no Minister So that by his owne confession all is one whether the word onely bee inserted or omitted the contradictorie being one and the same that sometimes it signifieth one that is not a Minister But though hee delay the Reader for his owne proofes which I dare assure him will not satisfie his iudicious expectation yet seeing he setteth himselfe to catch and snatch at euery word he should not haue passed by those argumeÌ„ts â—hereby I proued my Assertion and I am perswaded would not if silence had not bene his best answere For a man of his Acumen might easily out of those fewe words haue raised three syllogismes which he could not so easily answere But the labour which hee thought best to spare I will vndertake for him For 1. If the word Priest freed as it is in our Church from the popish abuse and conceiued without all relation to reall sacrifices be the proper English of presbyter as it noteth an Ecclesiasticall person then presbyter signifieth a Minister onely and as well might question bee made whether there were any Lay-priests as Lay-presbyters but the former is true therefore the latter 2. That word which in the Scriptures is confounded with Episcopus or Bishop doth signifie a Minister onely But Presbyter by their owne confession is confounded with Episcopus or Bishop Therefore presbyter doth signifie a Minister onely 3. That word which being in the Scriptures confounded with Bishop doth also note such a person as by the Apostles rule must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 able to preach doth signifie a Minister of the word onely for in none but Ministers is that propertie required But Presbyter is such a word as beeing in the Scriptures confounded with Bishop doth also note a person who must by the Apostles rule be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or able to preach Therefore the word Presbyter doth signifie a Minister onely The latter part of his assumption saith he in case he vrge the words Lay and annuall
CleruÌ„ which is translated inheritance the sacred companie Euen as we now also do call it that is to say the Clergie Which exposition if we follow then those presbyters to whoÌ„ Peter writeth prescribing vnto them how they should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is saith Caluin Episcopatu fungi exercise the office of a Bishop and noting their authority ouer the Clergie were such as we call bishops But of that by the way Now if the presbyters Act 20. were ministers and teachers as I haue proued and as all writers almost euen those that are parties in the cause do teach then by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are to vnderstand the dutie of feeding which belongeth to pastors and teachers and wil neuer be proued to belong to Lay-Elders The refuter hauing with such successe as you see endeuored to maintaine that the presbyters Act. 20. were as wel Lay-Elders as ministers and that the duties both generall of attending to themselues the whole flocke and also special of feeding the Church were required as common to Ministers with Lay-elders which assertions I haue confuted with euidence of truth in this exposition or opposition rather he doth so please himselfe as that hee doubteth not to retort my Syllogisme vpon me after this manner If the presbyters spoken of Acts 20 28 be not onely ministers but gouerning Elders also and the same with those 1. Tim 5.17 then the presbyters spoken of 1. Tim. 5.17 are not onely Ministers but gouerning Elders also But the presbyters spoken of Acts 20 28 are not onely ministers but gouerning elders also the same with those 1. Tim 5 17 Therefore the presbyters spoken of 1. Tim. 5.17 are not onely Ministers but gouerning Elders also Heere this great Logick-maister that taketh vpon him to teach and to comptroll mee in matters of Logicke bewrayeth himselfe to bee a Logicaster or smatterer in Logicke For an entire and a better Syllogisme concluding the same question as I noted before in his Analyzing of mine is here tumbled into the proposition the proposition and assumption therof not only idlely but with disaduantage to himself if he had meant to haue proued it repeated But because he hath bene at some paines with me this way to shew his own ignoraÌ„ce I will teach him to make his sillogis thus The Presbyters to whom Paul did speake Acts 20.28 were not ministers onely but Lay or gouerning Elders also The Presbyters of whom hee speaketh I. Tim. 5.17 were the Presbyters to whom he spake Acts. 20 28. Therefore the presbyters of whome hee speaketh Tim. 5.17 were not onely ministers but Lay or onely gouerning Elders also This propositioÌ„ which is but part of his own assumption wheÌ„ he shal be able to make good by any sound proofe I will subscribe to his Lay-Elders For whereas hee for want of better proofe saith that hee hath already iustified it by the ouerthrow of mine it is a most vaine bragge as I hope it doth sufficiently appeare to the reader For what one reason or shew of reason hath hee brought or can bring to proue that the Presbyters mentioned Acts. 20. were Lay or onely gouerning Elders CHAP. VI. Maintaining the third reason that Lay-Elders are not mentioned nor meant 1. Tim. 5.17 Serm. Sect. 5. pag. 11. And that hee speaketh not there of Lay or onely gouerning-Elders it may further be prooued by plaine euidence out of the text For seeing by honour in that place the Apostle vnderstandeth honourable maintenance which by their owne confession is not due to Lay-Elders it is therefore certaine that this place acknowledgeth none such Thus therfore I argue To all those Elders who are mentioned or meant in this place the honour of maintenance is due for their worke sake To the Lay-Elders the honour of maintenance is not due for their worke sake Therefore the Lay-Elders are not mentioned nor meant in this place c to pag. 13. THe refuter hauing neither learning enough to beare the weight of this argumeÌ„t nor wit enough to forbeare it in answearing therto he vttereth more gall then would well become an honest man The virus and poison of his libelling speeches I leaue to himselfe The virâ—s and force of his arguments and answeres I will take vpon me plainely to confute and both here and euery where else by the helpe of God to put him to silence First as his manner is though he dares not deny the proposition of my syllogisme to be most true and vndoubted yet he must needs cauill with it And because hee hath nothing to say against it hee hopeth with it to wound some of our side who among other interpretatioÌ„s of this place haue thought the former part of this Text might more probably be vnderstood of not preaching Ministers or Deacons c then of Lay-Elders And although I would bee loth to become a Proctor for vnlearned Ministers especially when learned may be had yet thus much I will say that if the Disciplinarians doe rightly ground vpon this place a distinction of Presbyters into two sorts that there be some preaching Presbyters some not then this text doth without coÌ„parison fauour the not preaching ministers more theÌ„ the Lay-elders Because it is a most certaine truth which I haue manifestly proued and which the refuter will neuer be able to disproue that by Presbyters ministers only are meant As for DeacoÌ„s I meane not your Lay Deacons D. B. hath better reasons to comprise them vnder Presbyters then your W. T. had vnder the name of Deacons to vnderstand your Lay-Elders though T.C. himselfe did subscribe to his opinion And wheras you challenge those reuerend men for seeking by warraÌ„t of this place to surcharge the Church with maintenance of vnpreaching Ministers and Deacons I answere they do not hold that in euery parish such ought to be maintained as you would haue your Presbyterie erected in euery parish but where better more sufficient Ministers cannot be had which was the case of many parishes in England at the beginning of Q. Elizabeths raigne c. But all his spite is against the assumption though hee spend his spite neither in disproouing it with force of argument nor in answering my proofes with any substaÌ„ce of reason but in sophistical cauilling odious wrangling For wheÌ„ he hath said what he was able I cannot tell whether he doth denie the assumption or graunt it onely hee cauilleth with my proofes of it My assumption was this To Lay-Elders the honour of maintenance is not due for their worke sake Hereunto I require a direct answere If hee say that the honour of maintenance yea double honor that is as not only Theodoreâ— but T. C. also expound 〈◊〉 plentifull maintenance is due vnto them he should haue brought sufficient proofes both to confute the iudgement of those learned Diuines who reformed as directors other Churches and condemne the practise of all reformed Churches which hauing those Presbyters doe not
scholler of diuinitie or euer he had beene made Doctor And of this authoritie is Ambrose when he is alleaged against the pretended discipline But if hee let fall a speech which seemeth and but seemeth to fauour their cause though so impertinent as if it had beene foisted in by others though in a booke wherein besides some suspected there is apparant corruption though the testimonie it selfe is mistaken by them and though their exposition thereof hath neither scripture to warrant nor consent of other writers to second nor good reason to proue it notwithstanding because they want better euidence they make so much of it that eight whole leaues are not sufficient to bestow vpon it Which I mention not that I would haue any thing detracted from the authoritie of this testimonie as though it made against vs but to shew partly the partiall dealing of the disciplinarians and partly the pouertie of their cause In my handling this testimonie the refuter obserueth three things First my deniall of their exposition with the reasons of my denyall Secondly a refutation of their proofes Thirdly an allegation of reasons omitted by Ambrose why the counsell and assistance of the Seniors in Ambrose his time was growne out of vse In the denyall it selfe he layeth vpon me such an imputation of immodestie as he did before of vnkindnesse For although he cannot be against it but that I may salua modestia confute the new writers for their false or wrong expounding Ambrose of Lay-Elders whom he neuer so much as dreamed of yet he cannot abide I should say they wrong Ambrose though I proue that they wrong him by misconstruing his words and giuing them a wrong sense And in this nice and idle cauill for want of better matter he spendeth almost a leafe aggrauating the accusation by numbring 12. Diuines of our time who vnderstand Ambrose as speaking of Lay-Elders and alleaging that it is more likely that I should mistake him then they Indeed if I were alone in this cause and did oppose my credit alone to their authoritie or expected as my aduersarie falsely accuseth me like another Pythagoras to be belieued vpon my bare word such arrogancie I confesse would not become me But he seeth and I hope feeleth that I say not any thing in this controuersie which I doe not proue by such reasons as he doth not know without sophisticall shifts and meere cauills how to answere If these new writers proue their exposition of Ambrose by any sound reason why be not their arguments produced if they speake without reason why is their bare authoritie obiected against both so many reasons as haue beene vsed to shew there neuer were such Elders and also against the generall consent of antiquitie which neuer acknowledged any Presbyters or Ecclesiasticall Elders but Ministers only Of my denyall he acknowledgeth two reasons which though they were lighter then they be are of more weight then bare testimonies especially of parties who are not to depose in their owne cause Howbeit I acknowledge but one reason though my speech may be resolued into two Syllogismes whereof the one is a prosyllogisme to the other and because he saith in steed of prouing I doe nothing but begge the question I will resolue the reason of my answere into this Syllogisme They which make Ambrose against his meaning to testify that which hath no warrant either in the scriptures or elder writings of antiquitie doe wrongfully expound him But those which expound Ambrose as giuing testimonie to Lay-Elders doe make him against his meaning to testifie that which hath no warrant either in Scriptures or elder writings of antiquitie Therefore those who expound Ambrose as giuing testimonie to Lay-Elders doe wrongfully expound him The proposition is manifest The assumption hath 2. parts the one that Lay-Elders haue no warrāt either in scriptures or in the elder writings of antiquitie The other that the sense which they giue to his words is against his meaning The former was prooued in my former challenge that not any one testimony can be produced out of the writings of the Apostles and Fathers mentioning or meaning any Lay-Elders The which is a sufficient allegation in a respondent holding the negatiue vntill the opponent by sufficient instance can proue the affirmatiue And therefore his cauill in saying either that I do but begge the question which himselfe should proue is false and foolish or that if it were granted it would not proue their exposition to be against his meaning for he might testifie that which hath no warrant either in scriptures or elder monumēts of antiquitie is both an ignorāt mistaking for those words as you see were not inserted to that end and a needlesse extenuating of Ambrose his testimonie as being such a one of whom it may be said that he testifieth that which hath no warrant either in scriptures or other monuments of antiquitie The rest of his words are meere babbling The latter I prooue by this Reason To whom Ambrose giueth testimonie hee complaineth that their councel and assistance in causes Ecclesiasticall was grown out of vse seemeth to charge the bishops with slothfulnes or pride therefore But it was not Ambrose his meaning to complaine that the councell or assistance of Lay-Elders was growne out of vse nor to charge the BB with slothfulnes or pride for it Therefore it was not his meaning to giue testimonie to Lay-Elders The truth of the proposition is euident by the words of of Ambrose himelfe The assumption is thus proued A Diocesan Bishop who not onely approoued but laboured to magnifie his owne calling and was as farre as any from subiecting either Bishops or Ministers to the Presbyteries of Lay-men as the Presbyterians doe would not complaine that the councell or assistance of Lay-Elders such as the Disciplinarians meane was not vsed or charge the Bishops with slothfulnes or pride for it But such a one was Ambrose Therefore hee would not complaine for want of Lay-Elders c. The proposition if it bee explaned will need no further proofe The Elderships of Lay-men such as the Disciplinarians stand for 1. were neuer in vse together with Bishops but either were deuised to supplie the gouernement of Bishops when they were depressed as in Geneua Scotland and the Low-Countreys or where orthodoxall Bishops were wanting as in France or are vrged to extrude Bishops as among vs 2. in their Presbyteries consisting for the greatest part of Lay-Elders all hauing equall right of Suffrage and all things beeing carried by pluralitie of voyces it is euident that the Ministers which in parish presbyteries are but one or two at the most and in others the farre lesse number are subiected to the Lay-Elders as being the greater number It is manifest therefore that a Diocesan Bishop who not onely approued but sought to magnifie his calling and was as farre as anie from subiecting Bishops or Ministers to the Presbyteries of Lay-men would not
the Monarchicall gouernement when Saul was set ouer them For vntill Saul God himselfe was the Monarch of the Iewes retaining iura Maiestatis the right of soueraignty in his owne hands chiefly in prescribing them lawes and in appointing their chiefe magistrates and gouernours especially the iudges whom he set ouer them to be as kings for a time But when the people would needs haue a king after the manner of other nations the Lord saith to Samuel they haue not reiected thee but me haue they reiected that I should not reignâ— ouer them And so farre is Samuel from commending the gouernement of the earâ—hly King in comparison of the Celestiall that describing vnto them the fashion of their future king he telleth them that whereas before God did rule them by his will and by his owne lawes onely they should now be ruled after the kings will and pleasure which would not proue very pleasant to them as he sheweth by many particulars § Sect. 8. As touching the third branch he saith the consequence thereof is of the same feather with the former If Ambrose could not endure that Bishops or Ministers should be subiected to Lay-persons then would he not complaine that Lay-Presbyters were out of vse It followeth not saith he there may be Presbyters wherein are Lay-Elders and yet the Bishops and Ministers not be subiected to them But say I where the farre greater part of the Presbyteries consisteth of Lay-men as alwaies it hath done according to the practise of Geneua and alwaies would doe according to the new Parish-discipline it cannot be auoided but that the fewer number of Ministers would be subiected to the farre greater number of Lay-Elders especially if they according to the wise conceit of our new disciplinarians may be perpetuall But whether these three branches seuerally doe inferre a necessary consequence or no it is not materiall seeing they were ioyntly propounded and seeing from them vnited a necessary consequence dependeth Wherfore the seuering of them to weaken the consequence and to breede matter of cauil was a sophisticall if not a leaud trick The leaudnes whereof will the better appeare if we consider his dealing with the assumption for he that hauing seuered the branches of the proposition exacted from euery one seuerally a necessary consequence in the assumption he will haue them all taken together For before he taketh the assumption in pieces meaning to cauill with euery part seuerally he vseth this Caution Prouided alwaies and be it remembred of the Reader that if any one of the three parts thereof proue false though the other two be neuer so true the whole assumption is in law of true reason vtterly void and of none effect But if in the proposition I be vrged to make good the consequence from each part seuerally the assuming of any one part will conclude the question As thus If I must be forced to maintaine this consequence If Ambrose were a Diocesan Bishop then would hee noâ— complaine of the want of Lay-Elders it wil be sufficient to assume thus but he was a Diocesan Bishop to coÌ„clude that therefore he would not complaine of the want of Lay-Elders It is true that it is required in my assumption as I propound it that euery branch must be true but the reasoÌ„ hereof is because they were ioyned in the proposition to make good the consequence For if they be seuerally propounded in the proposition they may also seuerally be assumed in the assumption Whiles therefore he chargeth me with a bad consequence himselfe is to be charged with a badde conscience But come we to the assumption with the first branch whereof the refuter playeth thus Ambrose saith M. D. was a Diocesâ—n Bishop Was he so indeed Had he not onely supreme but 〈◊〉 authoritie as our BB haue ouer I know not how many hundreds of Ministers in causes Ecclesiasticall Was he an absolute Pop linâ— indeed What a shame is this that he who eueÌ„ now charged so mâ—ny learned men to haue done Ambrose wrong should now be found the man â—uilty of that trespas Ambrose was no more like a Diocesan Bishop then he that is tyed by vertue of his calling to preach the word administer the sacrameÌ„ts in his owne Church c. Can a man of a sincere conscience professing as themselues terme it the cause of sinceritie be so malepartly confident in denying that whereof he is vtterly ignorant or rather can a man that taketh vpon him the defence of this controuersie as a chiefe champion of the pretended discipline and one I doubt not of the chiefe challengers of the Bishops to dispute with them in these causes be ignorant that Ambrose was a Diocesan Bishop doth he know that he was a Diocesan at the least and can he thus denie it and keepe his conscience sincere well though the taske be all one as if I should be required to proue that the Bishop of London or rather the Archbishop of Yorke is a Diocesan Bishop yet seeing my learned aduersarie denieth it and pretendeth some reason of his denyall I will first proue that Ambrose was at the least a Diocesan B and for the greatnes of his authoritie and largenes of his iurisdiction comparable with ours and in the second place I will answere his reasons First therfore you are to be aduertised that Mediolanum Millaine whereof Ambrose was Bishop not onely is a Metropolis or seate of a Metropolitan but was both in and before Ambrose his time Strabo saith it was a Metropolis wherein the gouernour of the prouince of Liguria and Aemilia kept his residence Athanasius speaking of Dionysius the Bishop of Millaine saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it also is a mother citie of Italy It is also euident and a thing confessed by Beza that the distribution of the Church into Dioceses prouinces was framed according to the diuision of the Dioceses and Prouinces vnder the Romane Empire Ambrose himself was a man of consular dignitie in Rome and being appointed gouernour of Liguria and Aemilia came to Millaine Where keeping his residence it fell out that Auxentius the Bishop being dead and the Emperour Valentinian hauing assembled as the manner was for the choise of a Metropolitan the Bishops of that uerendorum Episcoporum consueta lege Episcopus Ephesiorum est constitutus The honour and sublimitie Episcopall cannot be matched with any comparison if you compare it with the excellencie of Princes and ciuill Magistrates you shall compare gold with lead As for the people the Episcopall function hath not onely obtained to be preferred before them but also is enioyned by Euangelicall precepts with fatherly authoritie to gouerne them for they as the sheepe of Christ are committed to BB. as to rulers who together with Peter receiued that authoritie to gouerne them c. Againe these things I haue spoken saith he to shew that nothing in this world is more excellent then Bishops For his
place which God did choose in other cities whereof the one was ciuill the other ecclesiasticall consisting of the priests Leuits scribes or teachers also the seniors of the people But the reader shal easily vnderstand this latter to be a meere fiction if he consider that the Synedrion at Ierusalem which was the highest court chief councel of state hauing power of life death authority to deale in causes both ciuill ecclesiasticall coÌ„sisted of the high priest other priests and Leuites together with the Princes Seniors of the people being besides the High-priest 70. or 71. in number Of which that in Deut 17.8.9 is to bee vnderstood These were called Sanedrin and did sit in Gazith In which number those which were priests were called Seniores SacerdotuÌ„ and those which were Princes were called Seniores populi as Sigondus saith And likewise that the Sanedrioth or consistories in other cities consisted as well of the learned Leuits as of the seniors of the people Iosephus saith that to euery coÌ„sistory in the cities belonged 2. Leuites The reason heereof was because the lawes wherby that church coÌ„mon-wealth were gouerned were the lawes of God wherein the Priests Leuites Scribes were most skilfull and therefore best able to determine what was right according to the law And therfore another sort which should consist of Priests Leuits and elders of the people which should respoÌ„dere de iure as Beza imagineth this shuld was altogether needles But his proofs are as weake as his imagination was strong His only proofe for the 1. institution of the Ecclesiasticall senat is Leuit 10.10 where they were ordained saith he to shew the difference betweene holy profane betweene cleane vncleane to teach the law of God But no such thing can with any shew of probabilitie be gathered out of the text where the Lord speaking to Aaron coÌ„mandeth him his sonnes the priests by a perpetual law that they should not drink wine nor strong drink wheÌ„ they were to enter into the sanctuary whereby they might be hindered from exercising their function discreetly soberlie either in iudging betweene holie profane between cleane and vncleane or in teaching the people which duties were to be performed in the sanctuary by the priests as well seuerally as ioyntly no ecclesiasticall senate at all here instituted or if there were it should according to Bertrams conceit consist wholy of the Priests to whom alone this speech is directed As for Elders of the people they were not to intermeddle with these things The high Priest indeed if it pleased him might consult with other Priests and vse their assistance as Azariah did vse the aide of 80. 2. Chron. 26. But that there was a setled Presbyterie or senate Ecclesiasticall ordained by God we doe not read and that it should consist in part of Lay-men there is not the least semblance of likelihood His proofes that there were two diuerse Synedria instituted are these First because the number of the one is defined to be 70 the other left vncertaine Secondly because the second was not ordained at the same time with the former I answere there is neither number set downe nor time of that which neuer was His proofe for the instauration of two distinct Synedria is out of 2. Chron. 19. where he saith Iosaphat ordained two Synedria or counsells the one Ecclesiasticall for the causes of God ouer which the high Priest was chiefe the other ciuill for the causes of the King ouer which Zabadiah a Prince of Iuda was chiefe But it is euident by the text that it was one and the same high counsell of state which afterwards was called Sanedrin or Synedrion Hierosolymitaâ—uÌ„ coÌ„sisting of the Leuites and Priests and of the heads of the chiefe families in Israel ordained for the iudgements of God and controuersies of men which was to heare and determine all manner of causes that were brought vnto them from the iudgements or consistories of the inferior cities were to iudge betweene blood and blood that is slaughter and slaughter betweene the law and the precept betweene statutes and iudgements hauing among them in the causes of God Amarias the high Priest and in the causes of the King Zebadiah a Prince of Iuda as chiefe and that the Maisters or gouernours the Leuits were with them to instruct them in the law For whereas he would proue that Iosaphat ordained two distinct counsels at Ierusalem by these reasons because the dutie of the one was to deale in the causes of God the other of the King the one should determine de iure the other de facto the one had for the president the high Priest the other a Prince of Iuda none of these reasons doe proue that Iosaphat ordained any thing but that which before had beene appointed by God namely that the difficult controuersies which the iudges in the cities could not determine betweene blood and blood plea and plea plague and plague should be brought to the Synedâ—ion or counsell of the place which God shoulâ— choose the which is there noted to consist of the Priests Leuites and â—udge that is iudges saith Caluin as appeareth by the holy historie where it is declared that Iosaphat besides the Pâ—iâ—sts and Leuites chose the Princes of the families of Israel for the godly King would decline nâ—uer a whit from the rule of Gods law To this counsell the difficult causes afore said as weâ—l ciuill as Ecclesiasticall as well de facto as de iure were to be brought from other ciuill courts as appeareth both in Deut. 17.8 and also 2 Chron. 19.20 Besides it is ridiculous to imagine that the ciuill senate should determine onely de facto and that questions de iure should be brought to the Ecclesiasticall the rather because that counsell which was appointed by God Deut. 17. and renewed by Iosaphat did consist of the Priests and Leuits and Elders of the people and was to determine and to decide all questions of doubt and difficultie or if they were to seeke to an Ecclesiasticall senate it is absurd to imagine that Lay-Elders should be ioyned to the Priests and Leuits to answere de iure As for the causes of God which verse 8 are termed the iudgement and cause of the Lord and are particularized verse 10. and Deut. 17.8 betweene blood and blood betweene law and precept c. we are to vnderstand them to be not onely Ecclesiasticall but also ciuill so farre as either they were to be decided bâ— the lawes of God or concerned the obseruation or transgression of Gods law whereby that land was gouâ—rned in iudging whereof they also exercised Gods iudgement The causes of the King were such as belonged to the Kings house or his eschequer And it is fond to imagine that those causes which were to be decided by the iudicial and morâ—ll lawes of God were not the causes
the better gifts chiefly to follow after loue and to couet after spiritual gifts but amōg them to desire rather to prophecie that is to preach then to speak with tongues And whereas the holie Ghost doth marshall in order the gifts of God according to their worthines saying First second third if by helpes he should meane Deacons and by gouernments Elders then must we hold Deacons to be preferred before Elders which will not be granted If anie man doubt whether helps and gouernments are to be accounted gifts Chrysostome may resolue him who as of the former he saith that is in especial maner the gift of God so also of the latter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be fitte to gouerne and to administer spirituall things and he addeth that our duties are called Gods gifts to teach vs that our abilitie in performance of our dutie is the gift of God So Oecumenius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which also he calleth a gift though it require our labour also and industrie Nazianzen also reckoneth them among the graces of the spirit For the spirit saith he is one but the graces are not equall nor yet the receptacles of the spirit For to one by the spirite is giuen the word of Wisedome and contemplation to another the word of knowledge or reuelation to another firme vndoubted faith to another the inoperations of powers high wonders to another the gifts of healing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 helpes that is Presidencies or Patronages Gouernements that is Poedagogies of the flesh kindes of tongues interpretations of tongues I am not ignorant that some before our time haue vnderstood diuerse of these members to haue bene Ecclesiasticall functions But yet their exposition wholly agreeth with the gouernment of our Church not with the pretended discipline For by Apostles they vnderstand not only the 12. Apostles but their successors also in the gouernment of the Church that is to say the Byshops and by helps they vnderstand them who help the Bishops in the gouernment of the church as the Deanes and Archdeacons and by gouernements the gouernors or rectors of seuerall parishes These with 1. Tim 5.17 are the testimonies of Scripture which vsually be aleaged by the patrons of the presbyterie not one of them almost either omitting any of them or adding any other So that this Disputer might trulie cōclude that this is the strength and indeed all the strength they haue out of the Scriptures Which how strongly or strangely rather they haue concluded for the Lay-Elders it doth sufficiently appeare to them that haue not either a strong preiudice or a weake iudgement Assuredly if the Fathers be no stronger for them then the Scriptures then is the cause of the Lay-Elders very weake and languishing CHAP. XI Answering the Allegations out of the Fathers for Lay-Elders OF the Fathers he also braggeth as he did before of the Scriptures But in the vpshot all the force of his argumēts either out of Scriptures or Fathers relyeth vpon the authority of certaine new writers who are the most almost all of them parties in the cause Which is a kinde of arguing deuised to retaine the vnlearned in their former opinion that because so many late Diuines vnderstand the Scriptures and Fathers according to their receiued opinions they may be confirmed therein But is not this a strange kind of reasoning Ignatius Tertullian Cyprian Ambrose which are all the Fathers hee nameth but nameth as though with their names hee hoped to ouercome vs giue testimonie to Lay-Elders therefore Lay-Elders were in vse in the primitiue church when we quietly grant this consequence only desire them to proue the antecedent Is it not strange I say that this disputer should not produce the testimonies themselues endeuour by necessary euidence to demonstrate that they are to be vnderstood as speaking of Lay-Elders but to bring in a sort of new writers the most wherof are parties to depose that these ancient Fathers say as they would haue them Did they heare them say so or did they read their writings If they read their testimonies are they the same which we haue in print or some speciall manuscripts which yet are not come to light if such why are they not produced If their testimonies be vpon publike record in print why should not we examine the records thēselues trust to our owne eyes and iudgmēts rather thē to the opinions of them who are partiall in the cause Or if these new writers had reasons to perswade vs that these Fathers doe speake for Lay-Elders why are not their reasons produced By your leaue I will produce their testimonies for you And because it pittyeth me the to see well-meaning people abused I had almost said guld with glorious shewes I will let them see that not any one testimonie which you doe vse to produce out of the Fathers doth conclude for Lay-Elders And first as touching Ignatius whom hee first nameth because his testimonies were belike too hot to be handled yet hee putteth him off fairely saying that hereafter he will shew how he is to be vnderstood when he commeth to answere my quotations out of him But I quote him not in the question of Elders but among my proofs for Bishops And if hee haue no stronger proofes out of Ignatius for elders then the selfe-same that I alledge for Bishops may you not think that he is very strōg for them The truth is he perceiued they were too weake to bee vrged by him as an opponent and therefore chose to speake to them as an answerer hoping to perswade the simple reader that Lay-Elders are sufficiently proued by Ignatius his testimonie if they be not disproued thereby as hereafter you shall heare T. C. and after him the author of the counterpoison the demonstrator of discipline almost who not cite this sentence of Ignatius There is no Church which can stand without her Eldership or counsell Vnto which H.I. addeth 2. more out of his epistles to them of Tarsus Smyrna In the 1. of these Epistles Ignatius saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be subiect to the Bishop as to the Lord a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Presbyters as to the Apostles of Iesus Christ our hope Of the Deacons in the next words he sath that they be ministers of the mysteries of Christ Iesus and not of meate and drinke A reason of the former speech he rendreth in these words the Byshop is the type of the Father of all the Presbyters are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Consistory of God and a band or Colledge of the Apostles of Christ. Then followeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without these that is BB. Presbyters Deacons no elect Church is no holy congregation no assemblie of Saints This testimony proueth that as each Church had a Bishop and Deacons so also Presbyters and a presbyterie But what manner of presbyters they were it appeareth 1. by
in his throne In which throne of Iames reserued as Eusebius saith till his time the BB. of Ierusalem hauing the honour of Patriarches did succeed As touching Alexandria it is euident by that which before hath been shewed that Eusebius speaking of the Bishop there calleth him sometime the Bishop of the Church or paroecia sometimes of the Churches or paroeciae belonging to Alexandria and all in one and the same sense which plainely sheweth that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hee doth not meane that which we call a parish Which wil then better appeare when I shall proue that from Saint Marks time there were more Churches or parishes there and yet but one Church and one Bishop But suppose it were granted him that each of the Churches for a time did not exceed for their number the proportion of an ordinary congregation yet this would not proue them to haue been parishes as hath been shewed Thus and thus weakely to vse his owne words the Disputer hauing prooued his cause notwithstanding concludeth with a stout brag Now let any man iudge whether M.D. hath better proued that the Churches in those times were dioceses or I that they were parishes So say I let any man now iudge who is of iudgement and if there be any comparison betweene the plaine euidence which I haue brought and his slender proofes let me be taken for a man of no iudgement Yea but saith hee the worst is still behinde for his cause indeed but to mine aduantage For if there were not onely diocesan but also prouinciall Churches and that within the first two hundred yeeres then is it absurd to imagine that there were no Churches but parishional Neither did or doth the being of prouinciall Churches hinder dioceses or diocesan BB. These be the shallow conceipts of this disputer and his fellow challengers of disputation First that euery visible Church hath a sufficient and independent authority immediately deriued from Christ for the gouerâ—â—ent of it selfe in al causes ecclesiasticall Secondly that euery parish is or ought to be such a Church From the former of these this disputer seemeth to inferre that if diocesan Churches and BB. be subordinate to the prouinciall Churches and BB that then the prouinciall be the onely Churches And by the same reason when the prouinces were subiect to the Patriarches none but patriarchall Chuches as that of Rome Constantinople Alexandria Antioch and Ierusalem were to be esteemed Churches But let vs heare the disputer Admit the Churches were then diocesan what is that to vs who haue none such in these daies if G.P. say true And how is this proued because he saith the BB. of either prouince in England are Suffraganes or rather Curates to the two Arch-bishoppes in their seuerall prouinces euen their deputies exercising ecclesiastical iurisdiction from and vnder them It shall not be amisse therefore for M.D. to confute him the next time he writeth In the meane time you should haue answered for your selues and not put off the confutation of his reioynder to others But though you cannot confute him yet you can abuse him as by reuiling and scornefull termes in other places of your booke so here by notorious falsifying of his words For where doth he say that our Bishops bee but Suffraganes or Curates to the two Arch-bishoppes as you without shame or conscience doe belie him saith hee or meaneth he any more but this that during the time of the Archiepiscopal visitation wherby the iurisdiction of the Ordinary is suspended that ecclesiasticall iurisdiction which he practiseth he doth exercise from and vnder the Archbishop as his deputy And what is this to our purpose Yea but If we may iudge saith our Disputer by the outward practise we haue onely two Churches and they are prouinciall the one of Canterbury the other of Yorke vnsubordinate either to other or to any other ecclesiasticall power and so entire Churches such as hee would haue euery parish to be Heere by the way let the Reader iudge with what conscience the Refuter hath so oft obiected against our Bishoppes that they be petite popes hauing sole and supreme authority seeing now himselfe confesseth that according to the order and discipline of our Church they are subiect to the Metropolitanes But to the point none of these things which hee obiecteth doe hinder the being of dioceses or diocesan Bishoppes no not though they had been by G.P. called the Archbishoppes Suffraganes For whereas the Bishoppes haue been by authors which haue written within these nine hundred yeeres called Suffraganes to the Archbishoppes they meane thereby comprouinciall Bishoppes who in the election of the Metropolitanes and in the prouinciall synods held by the Metropolitanes did giue their suffrages with them not that they bee such as commonly we call Suffraganes but are as absolute Bishoppes as haue been since the first appointment of Metropolitanes and they were actually acknowledged as they were at the first intended so soone as the diuers cities of one prouince had their Bishops In all which as there was consociation among themselues as being all of one body so also subordination to the Bishop of the Metropolis or mother Citie as being their head Thus was it prouided in the canons which for their antiquity are called the Apostles canons that the Bishops of euery nation must acknowledge him that in the first or primate among them and esteeme him as the head and that they should doe nothing exceeding the bounds of their owne iurisdiction without his consent And that euery one may doe those things alone which belong to his owne Church and the Countries which bee vnder it Neither may hee meaning the Primate doe any thing without the consent of all The same is repeated and explaned as yee heard before in the Councell of Antioch calling the Primate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bishoppe which gouerneth in the mother Citie appointing him to haue the care of the whole prouince because there is concourse of men who haue businesse from all parts of the country to the mother Citie And although they forbad Bishoppes to attempt any thing beyond their compasse without his consent according to the antient canon yet they say Euery Bishoppe hath power or authority of his owne diocesse to administer or gouerne the same according to his conscience and to haue prouident care of the whole Country subiect to his Citie and to ordaine Presbyters and Deacons and to dispose of all things with iudgement It is apparant then that the being of prouinciall Churches doth not hinder the diocesan nor the authority of Metropolitanes take away the iurisdiction of diocesan Bishops Neither is any Church in the world more agreeable to the forme and gouernment of the most antient and Apostolicall Churches then this of England For at the first Metropolitanes were not subordinate to any superiour Bishoppes but were as Balsaâ—â— saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 heads by themselues of their prouinces being Bishoppes of
Ierome denies it as well as he For that which he addeth of diuers others consenting in iudgement is a vaine flourish let him name but one other in the first six hundred yeeres I thinke I might say 1000. and I wil yeeld the cause And those latter Writers which consent with him vse his words build vpon his authority so that the whole weight of this cause lieth on Ieroms shoulders whoÌ„ if I can disburdeÌ„ thereof there can nothing at all be produced out of antiquitie against the superioritie of Bishops First then I say that they abuse Ierome who match him with Aërius for besides that Aërius was a damned hereticke being a most perfect Arian as Epiphanius saith who liued at the same time liuing in a Church of Arians standing in election for the Bishopricke against Eustathius who also was an Arrian out of a discontented humor the common sourse of Schisme and heresie broached this heresie as Epiphanius Augustine censure it Presbyterum ab Episcope nulla differentia debere discerni 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denying the Superiority of Bishops both de Iure as Augustine reporteth his opinion and de facto as Epiphanius alledging that there is no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter For there is one order saith he of both one honor and one dignitie The Bishop imposeth hands so doth the Presbyter the B. giueth the lauer of Baptisme so doth the Presbyter the B. doth administer Gods worship so doth the Presbyter the B. sitteth on the throne so also doth the Presbyter But Ierome was not so mad to vse the refuters words of Aërius who indeed as Epiphanius saith was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a franticke fellow as to deny the Superioritie of BB. de facto which oftentimes he doth auouch neither doth he deny it de Iure And therfore the refuter here hath deliuered two vntruthes the one that he saith Aërius did not deny the Superioritie of BB. de facto which most manifestly he did and did it no doubt with this mind that though he missed of the Bishopricke which ambitiously he had desired yet he would be thought as good a man as a Bishop The other that he saith Ierome denied the Superiority of BB. de Iure For it is most euident by many testimonies alledged in the Sermon that Ierome held the Superiority of Bishops to be lawfull and necessary For though somewheres he saith that Bishops are greater then Presbyters rather by the custome of the Church then by the truth of Diuine disposition yet he acknowledgeth that custome to be an Apostolicall tradition and therefore either he may be vnderstood as holding the superioritie of BB. to be not Diuini but Apostolici iuris or he may be interpreted as speaking of the names prouing by diuers testimonies of the Scripture that Presbyters are called Bishops But heereof wee may not conclude that therefore Presbyters and Bishops are all one for not onely Bishops but also Apostles are called Presbyters and the Apostleship is called Bishopricke For howsoeuer all Presbyters are in the Scriptures called Angels and Bishops yet that one among many who had singular preheminence aboue the rest is by the warrant of the holy Ghost called the Angell of the Church and by the same warrant may be called the Bishop Now whereas Aërius for denying the superiority of Bishops was by Epiphanius and Augustine iudged and heretike hereby it appeareth that this alleagation not onely proueth the superiority de facto but de iure for seeing there is no heresie which is not repugnant to Gods word it is euident that they who iudged this opinion of Aerius to be an heresie did also iudge it contrarie to Gods word Neither did Epiphanius and Augustine alone condemne Aërius for an heretike but as Epiphanius reporteth all Churches both in City and Countrey did so detest him and his followers that being abandoned of all they were forced to liue in the open fields and in wods And whereas some obiect against Epiphanius and Augustine in defence of Aerius that his opinion is not heresie because Epiphanius did not sufficiently answer one of Aërius his allegations out of Scripture where Presbyters seeme to be called Bishops and that Augustine followed Epiphanius himselfe not vnderstanding how farre the name of an heretike is to be extended these are very slender exceptions to be taken by so learned a man For be it that Epiphanius did not sufficiently answere some one of Aërius his allegations is that sufficient to excuse Aërius from being an heretike seeing that testimony may be sufficiently answered as J haue shewed and seeing euery testimony alleaged by each heretike hath not alwaies beene sufficiently answered by euery one that hath written against them The Allegation which Aërius bringeth out of Phil. 1.1 doth onely proue that the Presbyters were called Bishops at what time he which was the Bishop of Philippi namely Epaphroditus was called their Apostle And it is confessed by many of the Fathers that howsoeuer there were many in Philippi which in a generall signification were called Bishops yet there was but one nay that there could be but one which properly was called the Bishop of Philippi And as touching Augustine I maruell that learned men could derogate so much from him as that he at that time especially would write vpon the authoritie of others what himselfe vnderstood not For Augustine was no youngling or nouice at that time but hee wrote that booke in his elder age euen after hee had written his bookes of Retractations at what time hee had written 230. bookes besides his Epistles and Homilies Neither doth Augustine write any thing in his preface of that booke whereby it might bee gathered that hee was in doubt whether any of those particulars which he noteth were to be judged heresies onely he saith that what maketh an Heretike can in his judgement hardly if at all be set downe in an accurate definition Notwithstanding he distributeth his intended Treaâ—ise into two parts The first of the heresies which after Christs ascension had been contrarie to his doctrine and which he could come to the knowledge of among which the heresies of Aërius haue the 53. place in the latter hee promiseth to dispute what maketh an Heretike But though he came not to that or if he did what he wrote of that point is not come to our hands yet in the conclusion of his Treatise which is extant he saith thus What the Catholike Church holdeth against these meaning all the 88. heresies which before he had recited it is but a superfluous question seeing it is sufficient in this behalfe to know Eam contra istâ— sentire nec aliquid horum in fidem quenquam dâ—bere recipere that the iudgement of the Church is contrary to these and that no man ought to receiue any of these into his beleefe And again Omnis itaque Christianus Catholicus istâ— non debet credere
Reader then by Aâ—ticus preferred to the Deacon-ship afterwards when he was Presbyter he was by the same Atticâ—â— made Bishop of Cyzicum Opâ—aâ—us as I alleaged in the Sermon assigneth to Deacons the third ministerie to Presbyters the second to BB whom he calleth principes omnuiâ—Ì„ the first Burchardus citeth this saying of Augustine being a Bishop You Presbyters know ye that your degree is the second and next to ours for euen as Bishops haue the place of the Apostles in the Church euen so the Presbyters of the other disciples the former haue the degree of Aaron the high Priest the latter of his sonnes In which words the third point also is testified Whereunto Ierome himself in more places then one giueth testimony affirming that in the Church the Bishops Presbyters and Deacons are answerable to the high Priest Priests and Leuits Now to reject these testimonies as being vnder age as though they did historically relate only what was in their own times and not dogmatically set downe the orders and degrees of the ministerie perpetually obserued in the Church of Christ is a verie vnlearned shift If any one of these as namely Ierome shal but seeme to fauor any of their assertions though in their sense he contradict himself and gainsay all others both Councils fathers against such a testimonie no exception either of minoritie of age or singularitie of opinion will be admitted but that authoritie must ouerweigh all that himself and others say to the contrarie It is a world to see how Ierome in this case is magnified and preferred before all antiquitie Who can tell better then Ierome who better acquainted with the historie of the Church then Ierome c. But when most pregnant plain testimonies are produced out of Ierome prouing the superioritie of Bishops agreeable with al antiquity then Ierome is a youngling and vnder age But where I said in the judgement of antiquitie Bishops Presbyters Deacons are answereable to the high Priest Priests and Leuits he saith This gay reason Cardinall Turrâ—cremata Bellarmine out of him bring to proue that there must be one Pope ouer the whole church as there was one high Priest among the Iewes and it proueth that as substantially as it doth this The which is wickedly spoken and desperately as many things of late haue been vttered by that faction as that the Papists arguments for the Popes Supremacie were as good as ours for the superioritie of Bishops But of these blasphemous speeches whereby they match the ordinance of Christ by his Apostles with the height of Antichrists pride I hope this Refuter his consorts will one day haue the grace to repent I confesse it is ordinary with the Papists to alledge out of the Fathers for the Popes supremacy what they testified for the superioritie of Bishops But will any be so desperate as to say the same testimonies abused and detorted by Papists do as substantially prooue that for which they are alleaged besides the true meaning of the fathers as that for which they are truely and faithfully alleaged Good reason therefore had Caluin and the rest to refute that argument because as Caluin saith There is not the like reason betweene one small people and the whole world The whole Church hath no head or vniuersall Bishop but Christ But each seuerall Church may haue their head and seuerall Bishop answerable to the high Priest of the Iewes as diuers of the Fathers haue taught Therfore Ignatius requireth the Smyrneans to honor the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the high Priest and it is an vsual thing with the Fathers not only to apply those things which were spoken of the high Priest to Bishops but also to call the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 poâ—tificem Sacerdotem summum c. and Bishoprick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There remaine yet the testimonies of Ignatius to be discussed which I produced in this 2. argumeÌ„t The authoritie wherof the refuter first calleth in question Wherin he may seeme to preiudice his own cause for T.C.W.T.D.F.H.I. and others of that alphabet haue oft times dragged some testimonies out of him yea this refuter himselfe oft times doth cite him and once I remember he threatned to prooue his lay Presbyters out of Ignatius when he should come to answere my allegations out of him which how it will be performed the reader is now to expect In the meane time little reason had he so much to cleuate the authority of those godly and learned epistles for his own confession that they are recorded in Eusebius is a good proofe they are not counterfeits But he is pleased to heare him speak And whereas Ignatius teacheth that the lay 〈◊〉 must be subiect to the DeacoÌ„s they to the Presbyters the Presbyters to the Bishop the refuter denieth the Presbyterie and Deaconship to haue been degrees of the ministery but vnderstandeth such Deacons as were only imployed in looking to the poore and such Presbyters as were only gouerning elders The vanity of which conceipt J haue sufficiently declared before if anything will suffice And I am ashamed for the refuter that he should be either so ignorant as not to know or so vnconscionable as not to acknowledge that these three Bishops Presbyters and Deacons haue alwaies since the Apostles times been esteemed three degrees of Ministers by the vniuersall and perpetual consent of all Christendome vntill our age Notwithstanding his arguments such as they are must be answered And first for Deacons he saith they were no Ministers of the word but imployed only in looking to the poore and that he proueth by the confession of D. Bilson What maner of men the Deacons were of whom Ignatius speaketh Ignatius himselfe sufficiently declareth in his Epistles to the Trallians where he calleth the Deacons the ministers of the mysteries of Christ and to the Smyrneans Deacons of Christ vnto the word of God to the Philadelphians ministring to the Bishop in the word to the Antiochians the sacred Deacons Neither doth D. Bilson deny it Only he maketh question of the 7. which were elected Act. 6. whether they were such as properly were called Deacons and are the third degree of the ministry or such as were chosen onely to be ouerseers of the poore to which purpose he citeth the generall Councill held in Trullo correcting the Canon of the Council held at Neocaesaria which appointeth that in euery Church there should be 7. Deacons in imitation of the act of the Apostles in ordaining 7. But say they we comparing the sense of the Fathers with the speech of the Apostles do finde that they spake not of men seruing at the mysteries such as properly be called Deacons but at tables alledging Chrysostome who enquiring what the office of these 7. was plainely denieth that they were Deacons whereupon they denounce as D. Bilson hath alledged that the foresaid 7. Deacons
of the sacred Ministery such as Presbyters and Deacons are with vs. And so much of my second argument The third is taken from the testimony of the great Councell of Chalcedon and may thus briefly be framed It is sacriledge to reduce a Bishop to the degree of a Presbyter Therefore BB. were superior to Presbyters in degree not onely de facto but also de iure But what is this saith he to the Apostles times and the age following Indeed if the Councell had testified the superiority of Bishops de facto onely there had been some colour for this exception especially if he could haue proued an alteration in the state of Bishops and the aduancement of them to a higher degree to haue begun after the first two hundred yeeres But seeing no such matter can truly be alleaged and seeing also that famous Councell giueth testimony to the superiority of Bishops not only de facto but also de iure and that in such sort as it deemeth it sacrilege to reduce a Bishop to the degree of a Presbyter it cannot therefore bee denied but that this is a most pregnant testimony if it bee rightly alleged Let vs therefore coÌ„sider the occasion of those words which in the copie whereon Th. Balsamo doth comment and in some manuscript Greeke copies is the twenty nine canon of that Councell When Eustathius Bishop of Berytum for so I find him termed diuers times in the Acts of that Councell in Euagrâ—m in Photius and Balsamo and not of Tyre as in Tilius his Greeke edition it is corruptly printed when Eustathius J say had withdrawne diuers Bishopricks from the Metropolitan Church of Tyrus deposing the Bishops whom Photius the Bishop of Tyrus had ordained and bringing them downe to the degree of Presbyters complaint was made to the great Councell of Chalcedon and the matter therein in propounded by the Princes in these words Concerning the Bishops ordained by Photius and degraded by Eustathius and after they had been Bishops commanded to be Presbyters what is the senteÌ„ce of this holy Synod Whereto Paschasinus and Lucentiuâ— Bishops and Bonifaciuâ— Presbyter vicegerents of the Church of Rome answered To reduce a Bishop to the degree of a Presbyter it is sacrilege if any iust cause depose them from their Bishopricke neither ought they to retaine the place of Presbyters But if without any crime they haue beene remoued from their honour they shall returne againe to their episcopall dignity Anaâ—olius the Archbishop of Constantinople said These Bishops who are said to haue descended from the episcopall dignity vnto the order of Presbyters if for iust cause they are condemned neither are they worthy of the honour of Presbyters But if without any reasonable cause they haue been deiected to a lesse degree they are worthy if they be blamelesse to recouer againe the dignity and priesthood of their Bishopricke If you thinke that these were but the priuate opinions of these men heare the censure of the whole Councell All the reuerend Bishoppes cried Righteous is the iudgement of the Fathers wee all say the same things the Fathers haue decreed iustly let the sentence of the Archbishops hold My fourth argument is drawne from the testimony of Ierome whose authority in this cause ought to be of greatest weight because he is the onely man almost among the fathers whom the Disciplinarians can alledge against the superiority of Bishops Ierome therefore saith that at Alexandria from Marke the Euangelist vnto Heraclas and Dionysius Bishops euermore the presbyters hauing chosen one from among themselues and placed him in exceâ—siori gradu in an higher degree called him Bishop euen as an armie chooseth a Generall This testimony the Refuter eleuateth in two respects The first because Ierome is vnder age Which is a very simple euasion For Ierome doth not onely testify what was in his time but also giueth plaine euidence that in the first two hundred yeeres euen from S. Marke vntill Heraclas Bishops were placed in a superior degree aboue Presbyters Secondly because Bëllarmine alleageth the sâ—me testimony to the same purpose whose allegation is answered by Châ—mier whose answer if I like not he bids me try what I can say in defence of Bellarmine against it To omit how odiously this is set downe I doe professe that I may with better credit agree with Bellarmine wherein he consenteth with all antiquity then the Refuter and his consorts can agree with Aërius wherein he dissenting from all antiquity was by Epiphanius Philaster Augustine and all the Catholike Church in his time condemned for an heretike But let vs heare his answers First that Ierome proueth by the practise of the Church of Alexandria that which before he had demonstrated out of the Scriptures to wit that a Presbyter and a Bishop differ not Neither doth he call Marke a Bishop but an Euangelist This answere might become our refuter better then Chamier For first it is vntrue that Ierome in these words proueth that a Bishop and a Presbyter differ not For doth hee not plainly say that the Bishop was placed in a higher degree and doth hee not compare him in respect of the Presbyters which chose him to the Chieftaine or Generall chosen of the Army Secondly he faileth in setting downe Ieromes purpose which was not to prooue there was no difference betwixt Bishoppes and Presbyters but to prooue that Presbyters were superior to Deacons That he proueth by many arguments First because the name Episcopus Bishop in the Scriptures is giuen to Presbyters Secondly because the Apostles and Bishops are in the Scriptures called Presbyters to which purpose he alleageth 1. Tim. 4.13 1. Pet. 5.1 2. Iohn 1. and 3. Iohn 1. And thirdly whereas it might be obiected the Bishops were set ouer Presbyters he confesseth it was done for auoiding of schisme but yet so as by the Presbyters the Bishop was chosen out of the Presbyters euer since S. Marks time vntill Heraclaâ— and Dâ—â—â—ysius as a Generall by the Army or the Arch-deacon by the Deacons out of their owne company Whereby he would also insinuate that a Presbyter is so much better then a Deacon as a Bishop is superior to an Arch deacon Thirdly where he saith that Ierome doth not call Marke a Bishop but an Euangelist and saith else where that he planted that Church It is plaine that in another place he confesseth Marke to haue been the first Bishop of Alexandria If Marke therefore were superiour in degree to the Presbyters at Alexandra as no man wil deny then must the same be confessed of Anianus and the rest of his successors as Ierome plainely testifieth Secondly he answeareth That the order by which the Presbyters chose a Bishop from among themselues continued to Heraclas and Dionysius time whom he therefore calleth Bishops to the end he might signifie that in their daies after one hundred and forty yeers were expired from Marks comming to
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
For first is not this a plaine lie and a notorious falsification of my words to say I plainly auouch a necessity of retaining the gouernment of diocesan Bishops c Where doe J mention or mean that necessity he speaketh of Could those words so is it for the same cause to be retained no otherwise be expounded then as implying an absolute necessity That is to be retained which is meet or fit expedient or conuenient profitable or needfull to be reteyned Secondly let the reader remember how oft the refuter hath charged me for saying the Bishops calling to be holden d iure diuino implying a perpetuall necessity thereof and chargeth the doctrine of my sermon to be in that respect contrary to the lawes of our land which make the forme of Church gouernment to be alterable by the King and yet here acknowledgeth for aduantage that I holde no such matter Thirdly let it be obserued how vnder this pretence of amazement he shifteth of the testimony of Cyprian which sitteth so neare to him and his consorts But the reader I hope will beare in mind the words off Cyprian noting the source of all schismes to be this when the Bishop who is but one and gouerneth the Church by the proud presumptioÌ„ of some is contemned c. And in the same epistle you ought to know saith he to Pupianus that the Bishop is in the Church and the Church in the Bishop and that whosoeuer are not with the Bishop are not in the Church and that they doe flatter themselues in vaine who haue not peace with the Priests of God that is the Bishops c. To this purpose Cyprian often writeth Neque enim aliâ—â—de haereses c. Neither haue heresies or schismes any other beginning then this that Gods Priest meaning the Bishop is not obeied Neither is one Bishop for the time nor one Iudge in Christs steed acknowledged c. Againe haec sunt initia haereticorum these bee the beginnings of heretikes these the risings and indeuors of ill minded schismatikes that they please themselues and contemne their B. with swelling pride Sic de ecclesia receditur thus doe men depart from the Church c. And in another place Hence doe men rush into heresies and schismes when they speake euill of Priests and enuy their Bishops c. The Lord open their eies who are faulty in this behalfe that they may see their sinne and touch their hearts that they may repent thereof Out of Ierome who is the onely man among the Fathers on whose authority the Disciplinarians in this cause doe relie I produce three most pregnant testimonies the first affirming that vnlesse this singularitie of preeminence be yeelded to the Bishop there will be as many schismes as Priests The second that euer since Saint Marks time the Presbyters hauing elected one placed him in a higher degree and called him Bishoppe The third that when some beganne to say J am of Paul I of Apollo which was in the Apostles time it was decreed by the whole world that one being chosen from among the Presbyters should be set ouer the rest in euery Church vnto whom the care of the whole Church should appertaine Of these allegations the first giueth testimony to this superiority de iure the other two testifying de facto beare witnesse that it hath been so in and euer since the Apostles times These testimonies are featly auoided with a promise to answere them afterwards when he will say neuer a word to the present not almost to any purpose The second part of this section wherein I prooue against Beza and the better sort of the Disciplinarians that the BB. had this singularitie of preeminence neither for a short time nor by course but were elected for terme of life this Refuter reiecteth as not worth the mentioning hee hath so oft refuted it alreadie Refuted oft I would bee sory that hee should bee able with soundnesse of reason and euidence of truth to refute any one sentence in the Sermon All the refutation of this point which hitherto wee haue had was this that I charged them with vntruths that I threaten kindnesse on them that I had need to be as eloquent as Pericles if I could perswade that any of them haue said this when as I haue brought foorth most plaine and euident allegations to this purpose And although I forbeare to mention Beza tendering his credit yet what I heere confuted is auouched by him in his twenty third chapter of his booke concerning the degrees of Ministers chiefly in the 141.142.143 pages Now because this point is of great moment though the Refuter haue tripped ouer it so lightly like a dog ouer a hot hearth as if I were afraid to touch it I will therefore endeuour to giue the Reader some further satisfaction therein by adding some other proofes What antiquity thought of the singularity of Bishops may appeare first by these two testimonies out of Cyprian and Theodoret. For when Nouatian was ordained a second Bishop in Rome besides Cornelius some of the Clergy hauing ben before Confessors who also had consented to him mooued with repentance and returning from schisme vnto the Church confessed their error saying Nos errorem nostrum confitemur c. Neithâ—r are we ignorant that there ought to be one God one Christ the Lord whom we haue confessed one holy Ghost one Bishop in a Catholike Church Likewise when Constantius being intreated by the godly Matrons in Rome gaue consent that Liberius should returne but withall appointed that hee and Felix should rule the Church in common the faithfull people deriding that sentence of the Arrian Emperor with one voice cried as Theodoret reporteth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one God one Christ one Bishop After these speeches of the true Christian people adorned with pietie and iustice Liberius returned and Felix departed to another Citie and shortly died Which came to passe by Gods good prouidence saith Sozomen that the seat of Peter should not be diffamed as gouerned at once by two rulers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a note of dissension and repugnant to the law ecclesiasticall 2. And that the adding of a second Bishop was iudged vnlawfull and esteemed as a note of schisme Cyprian in some other places besides those which before I cited doth testifie Writing therfore to the foresaid Confessors who had ioined with Nouatian Granat me saith he it greiueth me c. When I vnderstood that you there against ecclesiasticall order against the Euangelical law against the vnity of Catholicke institution haue thought that another Bishop was to be made that is to say which is vngodly and vnlawfull to be done that another Church should be instituted the members of Christrent asunder the minde and body of the Lords flocke which is but one to be torne with schismaticall emulation And in another place Where a Bishop is once
lawfully ordained whosoeuer now will be made Bishop it is necessarie that he should be put forth of the Church and that he haue not the Churches ordination who doth not hold the vnity of the Church Whosoeuer he be though he boast much of himselfe and challenge verie much to himselfe he is prophane he is an aliant he is out of the Church And for as much as after the first Bishop there cannot be a second whosoeuer after that one who ought to be alone is made he is not the second but none at all Thirdly the singularitie of preeminence in Bishops during their life is proued by their singularitie of succession both in and since the Apostles times noted by Irenaeus Tertullian Eusebius and other approued authors most plainly prouing that there was but one Bishop at once in the ancient and Apostolicall Churches Fourthly what the preeminence and superioritie of Bishops was ouer the Presbyters and others of the Clergie appeareth by this that in good writers they are said the Bishop his Presbyters the Bishops Deacons the Bishops clergy Thus Arius is said to haue been Alexanders presbyter Petrus and Irenaus Timotheâ—â— and Macarius to haue been Athanasius his Presbyters the vicegerents of Siluester in the councill of Nice were his Presbyters Thus Crispio is said to haue been Epiphaniuâ— his archdeacon Heraclides to haue been Chrysostomes deacon In a word all of the Clergie were said to be the Bishops clerks as in the councill of Africke Let no Bishop take anothers clerke without the consent of him whose clerk he is The which is a plain argument of the great preeminence which the Bishops of the primitiue Church had ouer the Presbyters and others of the clergie To these we will adde the testimonie of Bucer against whom the Refuter cannot except as being partiall for Bishops By the perpetuall obseruation of the Church saith he euen from the Apostles themselues we see it seemed good to the holie Ghost that among the Presbyters to whom the charge of the Church is specially committed one shold haue the singular charge of the Churches and in that charge and care gouerned al others for which cause the name of Bishop was attributed to these chiefe Gouernors of Churches Howbeit without the counsell of the other Presbyters they ought not to determine any thing c. Thus much of the Preeminence of Bishops CHAP. IIII. That Bishops were superior in power and first in the power of ordination Serm. sect 5. pag. 36. Let vs see if Bishops were not also superiour in power Hearken to Ierome The safety of the Church dependeth on the dignitie of the chiefe Priest or Bishop to whom if there be not yeelded exors ab omnibus eminens potestas a peerelesse power and eminent aboue all there will be so many Schismes in the Churches as there be Priests THis testimony is handled by him as Sir Christopher Blunts head was vsed after his apprehension first healed and then cut off For first he explanes the testimonie and then reiects it He restraineth Ieromes speech to the Church in his owne time viz. in the end of the fourth age saying That no man can without open violence stretch it further Which is as vnlearned a shift as euer was heard of As though Ierome had spoken onely of that which was in his time and not of that which in his judgement ought to be Was it Ieromes judgement that the superioritie of Bishops was needfull for the auoiding of Schismes in his time onely doth he not plainly teach that the superioritie of Bishops began in the Apostles times and that at the first they were ordained for auoiding of Shismes For the former doth he not say that Iames was Bishop of Ierusalem Timothe of Ephesus and Titus of Creet Doth he not say that euer since Saint Marks time there haue been Bishops placed in a superiour degree aboue the Presbytes Doth he not call the superioritie of BB. a tradition Apostolicall and doth he not say that it began in the whole world when diuisions began in the Church saying I am of Paul c. which was in the Apostles time c. As touching the latter he saith indeed that at the first the Churches vnder the Apostles before BB. were ordained were gouerned by the common Counsell of Presbyters But whereas afterwards one was elected who should be set ouer the rest In Schismatis remedium factum est It was prouided as a remedie against Schisme lest euery man drawing after him should rend in peeces the Church of Christ. And least we should think that afterwards to be referred to the times after the Apostles he addeth in the next words Nam Alexandriae For euen at Alexandria euer since Mark the Euangelist who died 5. or 6. yeares before Peter and Paul and almost 40. yeares before Saint Iohn the Presbyters haue alwaies chosen one and placed him in a higher degree and called him Bishop The like he hath in Titum 1. that when diuisions began in the Church it was decreed in the whole world that one should be set ouer the rest to whom omnis Ecclesiae cura pertineret Schismatum semina tollerentur the care of the whole Church or all the care of the Church should appertaine and that the seeds of Schismes might be taken away or as he speakth afterwards vt dissensionum plantaria euellerentur ad vnum omnem solicitudinem esse delaâ—â—â— that the first plants or sets of dissensions might be plucked out the whole care was committed to one It is most plaine therefore that in Ieromes judgement the superioritie of BB. was needfull for the auoiding of Schisme not onely in his own time but euen in the Apostles times when Bishops were first ordained And as he teacheth that BB. were instituted for auoiding of Schisme so his judgement in the place alleaged was that for the same cause they are necessarily to be reteined Yea he saith Salus Ecclesia The safetie of the Church dependeth on this dignitie of Bishops and that vnlesse a peerelesse and supereminent power be giuen vnto them there would be as many Schismes in the Churches as there be Priests But the refuter wants no reasons J warrant you to restraine Ieromes words to Ieromes time For To stretch it to the Apostles times saith he were to make Ierome a wilde headed 〈◊〉 indeed Thus Ierome if he agree not with the conceipts of some giddie heads shall be judged wild-headed And why so I pray you For three reasons First because Ierome in diuers places disputeth and concludeth that BB. and Presbyters are equall by the word of God Whereunto I answeare that this is all which Ierome in this cause saith that Bishops and Presbyters are the 〈◊〉 in the Scriptures His meaning is that before Bishops were ordained the names Episcopus Presbyter were confounded and the same men were called Presbyters and Bishops which I do not denie
But no wheres he saith that Bishops and Presbyters were equall for before BB. were ordained he could not say that Presbyters and Bishops were equall he saith they were the same After Bishops were ordained which he acknowledgeth to haue been done in the Apostles times and that by the Apostles for which cause he calleth their institution a tradition Apostolicall he plainly confesseth that one who was chosen from among the Presbyters and was called the Bishop of the Church to haue been placed in a higher degree But hereof we shall haue occasion hereafter to intreat more fully His second reason Ierome maketh Heraclas and Dionysius in Alexandria the first authors of aduancing one minister aboue another in power The words are Nam Alexandriae á Marco Euangelista vsque ad Heraclam Dionysium Episcopos Presbyteri semper vnum ex se electum in â—â—ccelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant quo modo si exercitus imperatorem faciat For euen at Alexandria euer since Mark the Euangelist vntill the Bishops Heraclas and Dionysius the Presbyters haue alwaies called one being chosen out of themselues and placed him in a higher degree Bishop euen as an armie chooseth their chiefetaine Which words as so far from giuing the least inckling of the Refuters conceit that Heraclas and Dionysius should be the first authors of aduancing Bishops that they plainely declare the Bishops euer from Saint Marks time to Heraclas and Dionysius to haue been placed in a higher degree aboue the Presbyters as the generall aboue the souldiours And truely of the two T. C. conceit who collecteth the cleane contrarie to our refuter hath the better glosse for he imagineth that vntill Heralas and Dionysius they who were chosen from among the Presbyters were called Bishops but then godly men misliking the appropriating of the name to one in a Church ceased to call him so And he might haue added with no lesse colour out of the words that the Bishops till then had been placed in a higher degree aboue other ministers but then good men misliking their aduancement aboue their fellow ministers brought them a peg lower To these conjectures the words would seeme to them that vnderstand not the right meaning thereof which heretofore I haue declared to giue some colour of likelyhood were it not that the practize of the Church did openly proclaime the contrarie Wherefore of all collectors my Refuter shal beare away the bell For he that can collect out of these words Euer vntill Heraclas and Dionysius the Bishop was placed in a higher degree that Heraclas and Dionysius were the first that aduanced the Bishops needs not doubt to collect quidlibet ex quolibet what himselfe will out of any thing whatsoeuer His third reason that Ierome in the same Epistle doth teach the contrarie is most false For Ierome plainly confesseth the Bishop to be superiour in the power of ordination and in the end concludeth that what Aaron and his sonnes and the Leuites were in the temple the same let Bishops Presbyters and Deacons challenge to themselues in the Church The Refuter hauing thus salued this testimonie of Ierome in the end rejects it For if this be true that vnlesse the Bishop haue a peerelesse power there will be as many Schismes in the Church as there be Priests then by the like reason Bellarmine may argue if there be not a peerelesse power giuen to the Pope there will be as many Schismes in the Churches as there ar Bishops but this latter consequence is naught so is the former Thus Ierome on whose only authoritie among the ancient the Disciplinarians in this cause relie when he speaketh any thing for the BB. his credit is no better with them then if he had spoken for the Popes supremacie But this is his desperate malice against the holy calling of Bishops whereby he seeketh euery where to parallele the Christian superioritie of BB. with the Antichristian supremacy of the Pope But all in vaine For though it be true in Ieromes conceit that if there were no Bishops there would be as many Schismes almost as Priests yet it doth not follow thâ—t if there were no Pope there would bee as many Schismes as Bishops For first experience teacheth how to judge of this matter for vntill the yeare 607. the Pope neuer attained to his supremacie and yet the Church was more free from Schismes before that time then since whereas contrariwise when there were no Bishops for a short season in the Apostles times in most of the Churches euery one of the Presbyters as Ierome speaketh sought to draw Disciples after him which he supposeth to haue been the occasion of instituting Bishops Secondly there is great oddes betweene BB. and the greatest number of Presbyters One Bishop say the Fathers of the Africane councill may ordaine many Presbyters but one man fit to be a Bishop is hard to be found Thirdly before there was one supreme or vniuersall Bishop there was vnitie and communion betweene all the Bishops in Christendome whose course to preserue vnitie in the Churches and to auoid Schisme was to communicate the confessions of their faith one with an other by their communicatorie pacificall or formed letters And if any were in error they sought first seuerally by their letters to reclaime them and if they preuailed not they assembled in Councils either to reduce them to vnitie or to depose them Cyprian saith that the Catholike Church is one not rent into Schismes nor diuided but euery where knit togither coharentium sibi inuicem Sacerdotum glutino copulata and coupled with the glew as it were of Bishops agreeing mutually among themselues And in another place which before hath beene alledged Therefore is the bodie of Bishops copious coupled together with the glew of mutuall concord and with the bond of vnitie that if any of our companie shall be authour of an Heresie shall endeuour to rend the flocke of Christ and to make hauocke thereof the rest may helpe c. Whereas contrariwise if there were one supreme and vniuersall Bishop whose authoritie were greater then of generall Councils as the Papists teach when he doth erre who should reclame him when he is exorbitant who should reduce him into the way when he shall draw with him innumerable troopes of soules into Hell who may say vnto him Domine cur ita facis Syr why do you so And as the Church is to be carefull for auoiding Schisme and preseruation of itselfe in the vnitie of truth which may be prouided for as it was wont yea better then it was wont where are Christian and Orthodoxall magistrates by the BB. singularitie of preeminence in euery seuerall Church and mutuall concord of them in the truth so must it be as carefull to auoid conspiring consenting in vntruth But where there is one supreme and vniuersall Bishop when he erreth and goeth astray he becommeth as we see in the Papacie the head of
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
that hee doubteth not to say that the grace which was giuen by the imposition of hands of the Presbytery was giuen by the imposition of his hands Which sheweth that if any Presbyters did ioyne with Paul it was no otherwise then as they vse to doe with BB. by the Canon of the fourth Councell of Carthage and by the discipline and order of our Church And this answereth the first thing which the Refuter inferreth vpon this exposition that if Presbytery signifie a companie of seniors as it must for J tell you his word must stand for law then it will follow that the power of ordination was not in one mans hand alone For though that alone bee of his owne adding yet it is plaine that Paul and antient BB. had this power as much alone as our Bishoppes Where I say this place maketh nothing either for their parish Presbyteries or lay Presbyteries whatsoeuer hee saith It skilleth not now what Presbytery this was Belike then it skilleth not what becommeth of the maine pillar of your Discipline so you can make any poore shift to maintaine the point which presently is in hand But if this be the onely place of scripture which mentioneth a Christian Presbytery on which also the Disciplinarians do principally build the authority of their pretended Presbyteries it maketh not a little me thinks for the iustifying of our cause that it maketh not at all for their Presbyteries which by the confession of Caluin haue no right to impose hands Neither can it bee denied but that it is sacrilegious vsurpation and horrible intrusion vpon the right of the Ministery if lay men shalt take vpon them to ordaine by imposition of hands Besides it skilleth something that the Greeke Fathers vnderstand by Presbytery a company of Bishops which as it proueth the Prerogatiue of BB. in the ordaining of BB. so doth it not impeach their superioritie in ordaining Ministers And where hee maketh 〈◊〉 say they were no Presbyters hee mistaketh the matter vnlesse hee vnderstand meere or onely-Presbyters For BB and Apostolicall men yea the Apostles themselues were Presbyters and so call themselues but they were not bare or onely-Presbyters as those bee which are not Bishops But if they were not Presbyters saith he then was the Apostle to blame to call them so If the word bee vnderstood collectiuè hee calleth the company of them which imposed hands on Timothy the Presbytery And forasmuch as not onely inferior Ministers but Bishops and Apostles are called Presbyters it being a common name to all Ministers of the word and sacraments it should not seeme strange that a company or senate of Bishops or Apostolicall men should be called a Presbytery Now that they were not meere Presbyters the Fathers proue Because Presbyters might not ordaine a Bishop neque enim fas erat saith Ambrose nec licebat vt inferior ordinaret maiorem Neither was Timothy any saith he Bluntly and peremptorilie spoken But the Fathers that before I mentioned take it for granted and it is the generall consent of all the antient Fathers as wee shall heare the authoritie of some one whereof in a matter of fact ought to ouerweigh the whole nation of Disciplinarians contradicting the same In fine distrusting this burrough hee flieth to his old starting hole out of which hee hath beene so often ferretted that the Fathers spake onely of their owne times which is nothing to the ordaining of Ministers in the Apostles times almost foure hundred yeeres before them The absurdity of which euasion the Reader may easily discerne if hee will but call to minde what were the Greeke Fathers wordes before cited and vpon what occasion they were vttered Hee speaketh here saith Chrysostome and Occumenius not of Presbyters but of Bishoppes For Presbyters did not ordaine Bishoppes Is it not most plaine that they speake of the Apostles time And were it not absurd to vnderstand them thus Paul by the Presbytery which ordained Timothy vnderstandeth Bishoppes and not Presbyters because howsoeuer in those times Presbyters might ordaine yet in our times they cannot But let me aske the Refuter this question Seeing it is agreed vpon by all that Paul here speaketh of Timothy his ordination to what function hee thinketh he was ordained If to be a Presbyter or Pastor as Caluin saith or to be a Bishoppe as all the Fathers acknowledge then was hee not onely ordained to an ordinary function in the Church but also assigned to a particular Church whereof hee was made Pastor as Caluin speaketh or Bishoppe as the Fathers affirme But that his last ordination whereof the Apostle speaketh was not to the degree of a Presbyter but of a Bishoppe appeareth by the whole Epistle wherein his singularity of preeminence ouer Presbyters and superiority in power both for ordination and iurisdiction is presupposed If he say that he was ordained to be an Euangelist to omit the singularity the nouelty of the conceit it would be knowne what Presbytery this was that imposed hands on Timothy Had the Presbytery of any parish such as our Disciplinarians dreame of consisting for the most part of laymen or the Presbytery of any particular Church though consisting wholly of Ministers authority by imposition of hands to ordaine an extraordinary function and that to be exercised in other parts of the world where themselues had nothing to doe Serm. sect 8. page 39. Yea but the Councell of Carthage say they committeth authority of imposing hands to Presbyters c. to the end of page 44 Here the Refuter meaning to make short worke hauing little to say hath made a long section which he might better haue diuided into three For three diuers things are heere performed The first an answere to the obiection our of the fourth Councell of Carthage The second a new supply of proofes for the superiority of BB. in the power of ordination Thirdly a preuention of popish cauils in fauor of some reformed Churches where the Presbyterian discipline is established As touching the first the Refuter saith that canon may serue to shew that the Fathers of this Councell thought it not fit no not to leaue ordination to the Bishop alone But because he perceiueth by that which I answered that that Canon though greatly vrged by the Disciplinarians maketh nothing against the superiority of BB. in ordaining and that it agreeth with the discipline of our Church and consequently conuicteth him of vntrue dealing seeing he â—udgeth that BB. by that canon haue not sole authority of ordaining and yet will make his Reader beleeue that I defend their sole power of ordaining which by the discipline of our Church is no more sole in our BB. then it was by that canon in the BB. of Africke for thesâ— causes I say he refuseth to vrge this canon though hee pretend hee will neither trouble the Reader nor himselfe about the examining of it because forsooth it commeth not neere the time in
the Fathers had thought the power of ordination to haue bin peculiar to BB. by any ordinance of God they would not haue allowed any such ordination as I speake of without a B it followes not For though they held the right of Baptizing to beloÌ„g to the Ministers of the Church by Gods ordinance though they held the right of imposing hands to be peculiar to the Apostles and their successors yet in a case of necessity they held baptisme without a Minister and confirmation without a B. to be lawfull In like maner though they held that the right of ordination was peculiar to Bishops by Apostolical institution therefore taught that none but Bishops could regularly and ordinarily ordaine notwithstanding in a case of necessity we may well thinke they would haue allowed of such an ordination as J spake of though as I said not as regular according to the rules of ordinary Church gouernment yet as effectuall and iustifiable in the want of a B. If he still say they wouâ—d not then must he confesse that the practise of the Disciplinarians is such as the Fathers of the Primitiue Church would in no case haue allowed and that is all the inconuenience that can come to our cause if my defence of them be not sufficient As for his cauill at my supposall of the right of ordination to belong to the power of order in BB. I haue answered before To such obiections one answer is enough two is too many And thus much of the Bishops right in ordaining CHAP. V. That Bishops were superior to other Ministers in the power of iurisdiction Serm. sect 9. pag. 45. Now I am to shew that the B. is superiour also in the power of iurisdiction The Presbyters indeede c. to the end of the page HEre the Reader is to obserue what is by me propounded to be proued not that the BB. had or haue the sole power of iurisdiction the defence whereof the Refuter euery where would faine force vpon me but that they are and were superiour in the power of iurisdiction or gouernment I deny not the Presbyters which haue charge of soules to haue iurisdiction both seuerally in their parishes and iointly in prouinciall synods And I haue confessed before that Presbyters haue with and vnder the Bishops exercised some iurisdiction I grant that godly BB. before they had the countenance and assistance of Christian Magistrates and direction of Christian lawes vsed in all matters of moment to consult with their clergy imitating therein as Ierome speaketh the example of Moses Quâ— cùm haberet in potestate solus praesse populo who when it was in his power to gouerne the people alone hee chose seuenty with whom to iudge the people This was practised by Cyprian who resolued from the beginning of his Bishopricke to doe nothing of importance alone because he would preuent dissension and scandals Ambrose also teacheth that there was a time when nothing was done without the aduice of the Presbyters who therefore by Ignatius are called the counsellours and coassessours of the B. Which course if it were vsed still as it would ease the Bishops burden very much so would it nothing detract from their superiority in gouerning the sway of their authority being no lesse when they vsed the aduice of their Presbyters then when they vsed it not For the assistance of the Presbyters was to helpe and aduice but neuer to ouerrule the Bishop Neither will any man say that the authority of a Prince who vseth the aduice of his counsell is the lesse for it but the moâ—e aduised But what the authority of BB. was in the primitiue Church in respect of gouernment I will first shew absolutely and then by way of comparison with Presbyters What the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Councell of Carthage calleth the authority of BB. was may first appeare by this that they were accounted the gouernours and rulers of the Churches meaning thereby dioceses For though there were many ministers who were Angels Pastors Bishops yâ—t there was but one in euery Church who was the Angel the Pastor the Bishop the gouernour of the Church bearing as Ignatius saith the sway of authority aboue and ouer them all But I delight to heare Ierome the onely pretended patron of the Disiplinarians who confesseth as wee haue heard that of necessity a peerelesse power and eminent aboue all is to bee attributed to Bishoppes and that the safety of the Church dependeth thereon Hee therefore in his Commentary vpon Esay chap. 60. verse 17. reading according to the Septuag I will giue thy Princes in peace and thy Bishops in righteousnesse saith Herein the Maiestie of the holy Scriptures is to bee admired which calleth principes futuros ecclesiae episcopos the Princes or Rulers which should bee of the Church Bishoppes whose visitation is all in peace and the name of their dignitie meaning their superintendencie in righteousnesse And on those words of the 45. Psalme In stead of fathers children shall be borne vnto thee O Church saith he the Apostles were thy fathers for they begate thee Now forasmuch as they are gone out of the world thou hast BB. who were borne of thee For these also are thy fathers because thou art gouerned of them And on the words following whom thou shalt make Princes in all the earth for saith he in the name of God the gospell is spread in all ends of the world in which Principes ecclesiae i. episcopi the princes of the Church that is to say the Bishops are placed On which words Augustine also doth comment to the like purpose In stead of the Apostles sonnes are borne to thee BB. are ordained thinke not thy selfe forsaken because thou seest not Peter and Paul who beg at thee of thine owne issue is sprung a fatherhood Agnoscant qui prâ—cisi sunt veniant ad vnitatem c. Let them which are precise or cut off by schisme acknowledge it and come vnto vnity The Church hath borne sonnes and in steed of her fathers hath made them princes ouer all the earth Optatus likewise calleth the BB apices principes omnium The Councell of Carthage decreed that when the Donatists returned to the Church they should be receiued each one in their degrees according to the will and pleasure of the B. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who gouerneth the Church in the same place if he shall thinke it expedient for the peace of the Church Cyprian though he had approued Cornelius his courage in that Felicissimus a wicked schismaticke attended with a troope of desperate fellowes was by him vigore pleno quo episcopum agere oportet pulsus de ecclesia with full vigour of auâ—hority and courage wherewith it behoueth a B to deale driuen out of the Church yet perceiuing him to be somwhat daunted with the threatnings of those lewd companions if this be so saith he that the
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
whom a paternall and pastorall authoritie is committed may worthily be honoured with the title of Lords To this he replieth that we call not Shepheards nor Fathers Lords and therefore the paternall or pastorall authoritie of Bishops doth not make them capable of such Lordly titles J answer that Magistrates yea Princes both in Scriptures and prophane Writers are called Pastors as well as Bishops and for the same cause are Lords Neither doe I doubt but that the title of Father being giuen by way of honour to him that is not a naturall Father is a word of as great honour at the least as Lord and that is the signification of the name Papa which hauing beene giuen in the Primitiue Church to all Bishops as a title of eminent honour is for that cause by the Pope of Rome appropriated to himselfe The second there is too great oddes betweene the titles of Bishops and other Ministers the one being called Masters the other Lords I answered there is no such great difference betweene Master and Lord that inferiour Minister which assume to themselues the title of Master should denie the title of Lord to Bishops Hee replieth as conceiuing my speech simply that there was no great difference betweene Master and Lord. If you respect their vse in relation as they are referred to their correlatiues there is no difference if the vse without relation among vs there is great difference but yet not so great as that Ministers which assume the one to themselues should denie the other to Bishops there being as great difference betwixt their degrees as their titles Where he saith it is not assumed but giuen by custome to them as Masters of Arts both parts are false for both it is giuen to all Ministers as they are Ministers though not Masters of Arts though not graduates and also I especially meant certaine Ministers who not enduring the title of Lord to be giuen to Bishops will neither tell you their name by speech nor set it downe in writing without the preface of Mastership The third if Bishops bee called Lords then are they Lords of the Church I answered it followeth no more that they are therefore Lords of the Church because they are called Lords then the Ministers are Masters of the Church because they are called Masters for neither of these titles is giuen to them with relation but as simple titles of honour and reuerence No saith he let their stiles speake Lord of Hath and Welles Lord of Rochester c. What Lord of the Cities nothing lesse but Lords of the Diocese They are Lords of neither but Lord BB. both of the City and Diocese And the relation is not in the word Lord but in the word Bishop though it bee not expressed alwaies but many times is vnderstood The Refuter hauing thus weakly friuolously and fondlie shifted off my arguments and testimonies rather then lie shifted off my arguments and testimonies rather then answered them there being not one line in my Sermon hitherto which I haue not defended with euidence of truth against his cauillations notwithstanding concludeth with a most insolent bragge as if he had as his fauourites giue out laid me on my backe And therefore as some wrestlers after they haue giuen one the foile will iet with their hands vnder their side challenging all others euen so he hauing in his weake conceit giuen me a strong ouerthrow because he findeth me too weake to stand in his armes hee challengeth all commers saying Let him that thinketh he can say more supplie his default I do vnfainedly confesse there be a great number in this Land blessed be God who are able to say much more in this cause then I am notwithstanding a stronger propugner thereof shall not neede against this oppugner And because I am assured in my conscience of the truth and goodnesse of the cause I promise the Refuter if this which now I haue written will not conuince him as I hope it will whiles he will deale as a Disputer and not as a Libeller I will neuer giue him ouer God giuing me life and health vntill I haue vtterly put him to silence In the meane time let the Reader looke backe to that which hath beene said on both sides let him call to minde if he can what one proofe this Refuter hath brought for the paritie of Ministers what one sound answer he hath giuen to any one argument or testimonie to my one proposition or assumption which I haue produced and then let him consider whether this glorious insultation proceeded not from an euill conscience to a worse purpose which is to retaine the simple seduced people in their former tearmes of factiousnes THE FOVRTH BOOKE Maintayning the fift point that the Episcopall function is of Apostolicall and diuine Institution The I. CHAPTER Prouing the Episcopall function to be of Apostolicall institution because it was generally receiued in the first 300. yeeres after the Apostles Serm. pag. 54. It remaineth that I should demonstrate not onely the lawfulnesse of the BB. calling c. to page 55. li. 7. THE Refuter finding himselfe vnable to confute this discourse of the lawfulnesse of the BB. calling would faine perswade his Reader that it is needlesse moued and mouing thereto by as friuolous reasons as euer were heard of For though it be true that this point hath already beene proued by one argument is it therefore needlesse to confirme the same by a second Did euer any man meete with such a captious trifler as would not permit a man to proue the same truth by two arguments but the one must straight be reiected as needlesse but indeed his analysis was forced as he could not but discerne both by the distribution of the Sermon page 2. and also by the transition here vsed neither was this point handled before but the former assertion whereby the text was explicated that the Angels or Bishops of the primitiue Church were diocesan Bishops and such for the substance of their calling as ours be superiour to other ministers in degree c. This which now wee are to handle is the second assertion being a doctrine gathered out of the text so explicated I confesse the former doth proue the latter and that doth commend the methode of my Sermon and both being disposed together may make this Enthymeme The Pastors or gouernours of the primitiue Church here meant by the Angels were diocesan Bishops and such for the substance of their calling as ours be Therefore the calling of such diocesan Bishops as ours be is lawfull But I contented not my selfe with collecting the doctrine out of the text but as the manner of all preachers is when they haue collected a doctrine which is controuersall I thought it needfull to proue and to confirme the same with other arguments But other arguments saith he needed not if the three middle points were sufficiently cleared what will he assume but the three former points were sufficiently cleared
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
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
the behalfe of those which had fallen promising when God should grant peace vnto them that he might returne to them the behauiour and repentance of them which had fallen should be examined in their presence and hauing signified his great dislike of the Presbiters act who not reseruing vnto him the honour of his Priesthood and chaire had without his allowance communicated with them which had fallen In the end he desireth that they which had fallen would patiently heare his counsell expect his returne that when through Gods mercy we shall come vnto you many of my fellow BB. being assembled together may according to the discipline of the Lord in the presence of the confessors examine the letters and desires of the blessed Martyrs he writeth in like manner to the Clergy that is to the Presbiters and Deacons willing them for as much as still his returne was delayed that in the case of necessity they should not expect his presence but for such as should be in danger of death to lay their hands vpon them and reconcile them especially such as had beene commended by the Martyrs as for the rest he would haue them stay till hee being restored to the Church and they all being assembled together might determine what was to be done But being importuned againe by letters from the Confessors who had desired him and by him the rest of the BB. to grant peace as themselues did to them which had fallen he writeth againe to the Presbiters and Deacons that letter which by the refuter is cited saying concerning those which had fallen and by the Confessours haue desired to be reconciled vntill it be certainely knowne what course they haue taken since their fault committed seeing it is a matter which belongeth to the Councill and iudgement of vs all I dare not preiudicate and challenge to my selfe a thing which is common and therefore appointeth that course to be taken which I mentioned out of the last Epistle and to the same purpose writeth to diuers BB. and by name to Calidonius shewing him what order he had taken in this matter and willing him to signifie the same to other BB. that the like course might be taken by them If these letters all concerning the same businesses be conferred together you may obserue first that Cyprian was a Metropolitane B. hauing authoritie to assemble and to direct his comprouinciall BB. as may appeare also by the Synodes held and Synodicall Epistles written by him Secondly that he speaketh not of Church businesse in generall but of this particular which was of so great importance that he saith it was the cause not of one Church or of one Prouince but of the whole world Thirdly that he would not deale alone in this busines but he would call a Synode of his fellow BB. besides his Clergie and in the presence of the people haue the cause of them which had fallen examined Fourthly that although he would not deale alone in this busines being a cause of so great moment but would haue it referred to the examination censure of his fellow BB. besides the concurrence of the people and his owne Clergy in this iudgement notwithstanding the chiefe stroak in this busines was in him as appeareth both by their petitions and his directions And therefore the whole cariage of this businesse doth prooue the Episcopall authoritie of the B. and Cyprians superioritie not onely ouer his owne Presbiters but also ouer his fellow Bishops so farre is it from impleading the same and further I say that Cyprian because his comming to the Bishopricke was much resisted by Felicissimus and his complices and the time wherein he liued troublesome and dangerous therefore though he might as Ierome speaketh of all Bishops rule alone as Moses yet as Moses he voluntarily vsed the assistance of others hauing as himselfe saith from the beginning of his Bishoprick determined to doe nothing by his own priuate sentence without the counsell of the Clergy and consent of the people whereby it appeareth that his vsing of the Clergies counsell and consent of the people was not of necessity but voluntary and therefore when he saw cause and did finde himselfe not to need either the counsell of the Clergy or consent of the people he would sometimes doe matters of importance as namely the ordination of Clerks alone as himselfe signifieth in an Epistle to the Presbiters Deacons and the whole people In ordaining of Clerkes I doe vse before hand to consult with you and by common counsell to weigh the manners and deserts of all but humane testimonies are not to be expected when we haue diuine suffrages and therefore signifieth that he had without them ordained Aurelius and others to be Clerks But suppose that of necessitie Cyprian was to vse the aduise or expect the presence and conscience of his Clergy in dispaching matters of importance would this be an instance against the Episcopall gouernment in those times did the fourth Councill of Cathage set foorth these two Canons the one that a B. without the Councill of his Clergie should not ordaine Clerkes requiring also that the assent or conniuence and testimony of the people should be had the other that a B. should heare no mans cause but in the presence of his Clerkes and that the sentence of the B. should be void which was not confirmed by the presence of his Clergie and yet no man doubteth but that when that Councell was held which was about foure hundred yeeres after Christ the sway of Ecclesiasticall authoritie both for ordination and iurisdiction was in the Bishop But I haue vouchafed too long an answere to so weake an allegation In the next place he mentioneth Ambrose his testimony which was as he saith debated at large in the first point It was debated indeed but nothing to this present purpose Ambrose saith that the B. was wont to vse the aduise of his Presbiters though in his time it was growne out of vse and the matter debated betweene vs was whether those Seniors were Ministers as I proued or Lay-elders as the refuter pretended but whether they were the one or the other the authoritie and gouernment of the B. was no more impayred by vsing their counsell then the authority of a Prince by vsing the aduise of his Counsellours vntill such time and in such cases as by the Canons and Canonicall law their consent was required as necessarie These two allegations if they had beene reduced into sillogismes would haue made very loose inferences and so would the testimonies of Ierom who euery where almost saith the refuter speaketh for vs. This is vauntingly spoken and yet the truth is that as no where 's indeed he speaketh for them so none of the Fathers is more plentifull of pregnant testimonies then he is for BB. as partly hath beene shewed already and more shall be declared hereafter Of the testimonies which the refuter citeth three
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
doctrine 1 Tim. 1.3 2 Tim. 2.16 Tit. 1.10.11 and 3.9 and iudges of their persons and conuersation 1 Tim. 5.19.20.21 Tit. 3.10 to which proofes he answereth nothing Wherevnto might be added the authority of Gregorie Nazianzene of Chrysostome of Oecumenius and Gregory testifying that these Epistles doe teach Bishops how to behaue themselues in the Church of God Now because the Refuters supposition is the same in efâ—ect with his assumption I will examine first what he obiecteth against the assumption vnder the name of that supposition and so proceed to his answere which he directed against the assumption The summe of that which he obiecteth against the supposition is this that though Timothie and Titus were by Paules direction to doe those things which Bishops arrogate to themselues yet they were to doe them by an higher power and therefore not as Bishops Whereto I answere that they were to be done by a power vvhich vvas to continue in the Church vntill the end and therefore not by a higher power then Episcopal And secondly that the power Episcopal whereby Bishops doe these things which Timothie and Titus had in commission is so much of the Apostolicall power as was to continue in the Church vnto the end The assumption it selfe hee denyeth saying these Epistles are not precedents of the Episcopall function c. The reason of his deniall is this What though Bishops haue now gotten that power into their hands yet were not those instructions giuen to Timothie and Titus as Bishops the Apostles dreaming of no such soueraigntie but particularly to Timothie and Titus as Euangelists and in generall to the Presbyters to whom the charge of those affaires belongeth To the Euangelists to administer in all the Churches of those Regions whither the Apostles sent or where they left them to the Presbyters to administer in their seuerall congregations or Churches Hee said euen now that Timothie and Titus did those things which BB. doe by a higher power now he saith he Apostle dreamed not of any such soueraignty as the BB. haue Where he saith these instructions were not giuen to BB. but particularly to these Euangelists to performe them in all Churches and Regions where he should place them and generally to Presbyters c. both parts are false For these directions Paul gaue to Timothie and Titus to be obserued of them as they were particularly assigned gouernours of the Churches of Ephesus and Creet and are such as are to be obserued to the end Neither are these instructions giuen in generall to Presbyters neither doth the charge of these affaires belong to them And that these things belong to the BB. I haue sufficiently proued before To make the matter plaine he bringeth in an example which is worth the hearing Suppose saith he a Democraty where the common-wealth is gouerned by the people it must needs be that in such a place there are lawes for the choosing and ordering of Officers What if this gouernment fall into the hands of the Nobilitie which continue the same lawes still in the same cases What if some mightier then the rest at the last make himselfe sole Gouernour still obseruing those fundamentall lawes which were at the first established is it to be saide that those lawes are the verie patternes and precedents of the Aristocraticall or Monarchicall gouernement whereby the first maker of those lawes would enforme in the one the Nobilitie in the other the Monarchie and in them all other how to exercise that function The administration of Church matters touching ordination and iurisdiction was first in the seuerall Churches or congregations which by their Presbyteries had the menaging of all Church businesse in processe of time it came to be restrayned to the Clergie onely the B. and his Presbyterie of Ministers onely at last as things grew worse and worse the B. like a Monarch got the reynes into his owne hands Now though the lawes of Ordination and Iurisdiction remaine the same and the practise also in some sort yet are they not patternes and presidents either of the second or third kinde of gouernment neither were they giuen to instruct the Bishop alone or the Bishop and his Clergie together Which comparison I desire may be well considered especially by the vnlearneder sort for hereby they shall discerne what manner of guides they haue desired to follow For not to contend with him about his politicke proposition not well agreeing with the rules of policy wherein we are taught that the appointment of chiefe Officers being reckoned inter iura maiestatis doth alwayes belong to them who haue the soueraigntie in the whole comparison but especially in the reddition we may behold the trim Idea of discipline which the fancie of our Refuter and his fellow-challengers hath forged For he conceiueth as if he were a Brownist or an Anabaptist that the ancient state of the Church was Democraticall that the right of Ordination and Iurisdiction was in the whole congregation of euery Parish which by their Presbyteries consisting for the greatest part of the laity had the menaging of all Church-businesse that the lawes and Canons for Church-gouernment set downe in the Epistles to Timothie and Titus were first prouided for this popular state of the Church Howbeit by the vsurpation of the B. and his Clergie the popular state was turned into an Aristocraty the B. and his Presbyterie of Ministers onely menaging the Church affaires Lastly in processe of time this Aristocraty was turned into a Monarchie the B. like a Monarch hauing got the reynes into his owne hands Now the lawes concerning Ordination and iurisdiction are still in force yet were they not patternes neither for the Monarchicall gouernment of the B. alone nor for the Aristocraticall gouernment of the Bishop and his Presbytery of ministers but for the popular and golden state of euery Parish which within it selfe had authoritie immediately deriued from Christ sufficient for the gouernment of it selfe in all causes Ecclesiasticall This forme is propounded also in the modest and Christian offer of disputation Haue not our forwarder sort of people bin well aduised thinke you to doate vpon such leaders as these who broach such a sort of dreames and dotages for which they haue not so much as the shew of any sound proofe Our refuter hath often times obiected against me though most vniustly that Pythagoras-like I looke to be creditted vpon my bare word but what proofes I pray you doth hee bring for these schismaticall nouelties First it is here presupposed that euery Church indued with power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment was a Parish all Church officers Parishionall Which dotage I haue before refuted Secondly that the forme of Church-gouernment was Democraticall or popular the cheife authority being in the people Which hath authority to be exercised partly by themselues partly by their Presbytery to elect ordayne depriue depose their Pastor or B. for the proofe whereof the
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