The proofe of their exposition of Ambrose disproued and the reasons why the counsell of the Seniors was neglected defended Chap. 9. Answering the testimonies which the Refuter alleageth to proue Lay-elders Chap. 10. Contayning an answere to the same testimonies and some others as they are alleaged by other Disciplinarians Chap. 11. Answering the allegations out of the Fathers for Lay-elders The second Booke proueth that the Churches which had Bishops were Dioceses and the Angels or Pastors of them Diocesan Bishops CHap. 1. Intreating of the diuers acceptations of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Church Diocese and Paraecia which is translated parish Chap. 2. Prouing by ether arguments that the ancient Churches which had Bishops were not Parishes but Dioceses Chap. 3. that the seauen Churches in Asia were Dioceses Chap. 4. That Presbyteries were appointed not to Parishes but to Dioceses Chap. 5. Answering their obiections who say that in the first 200. yeeres all the Christians in each great city were but one particular congregation assembling in one place Chap. 6. The Arguments for the new found Parish discipline answered Chap. 7. That the Angels or Bishops of the primitiue Churches were Diocesan Bishops The third Booke treateth of the superioritie of Bishops aboue other Ministers CHap. 1. Confuteth the Refuters preamble to the fourth point concerning the superiority of Bishops and defendeth mine entrance thereinto Chap. 2. Declareth in generall that Bishops were superiour to other Ministers in degree Chap. 3. Sheweth more particularly wherein the superiority of Bishops did and doth consist And first their singularity of preheminence for terme of life Chap. 4. Demonstrateth the superiority of Bishops in power and first in the power of ordination Chap. 5. Proueth the superiority of Bishops in the power of iurisdiction Chap. 6. Treateth of the titles of honour giuen to Bishops The fourth Booke proueth the Episcopall function to be of Apostolicall and diuine institution CHap. 1. That the Ecclesiasticall gouernment by Bishops was generally receiued in the first 300. yeeres after the Apostles Chap. 2. That the Episcopall gouernment was vsed in the Apostolicall Churches in the Apostles times without their dislike Chap. 3. That the Apostles themselues ordayned Bishops Chap. 4. The places where and the persons whom the Apostles ordayned Bishops but chiefly that Timothie was Bishop of Ephesus and Titus of Creet Chap. 5. Answereth to the allegations out of Ierome Chap. 6. Directly proueth the Episcopall function to be of diuine institution Chap. 7. Defendeth the conclusion of the Sermon and sheweth that the chiefe Protestants did not dissallowe the Episcopall gouernment FINIS An Ansvvere to the Preface THE scope of the refuter in his preface is as of Orators in their Proemes to prepare the Reader and if he be such a one as will be led with shewes to draw his affections to himselfe and to withdrawe them from me It containeth a Prologue to the Reader an Epilogue concluding with prayer and with praise to God The former consisteth of a declaration and of a direction to the Reader He declareth three things first the weightie causes mouing him to vndertake this worthie worke secondly his valiant resolution in vndertaking it thirdly his manner of performance As touching the first that you may not thinke him after the manner of factious spirits blinded with erroneous conceits and transported with vnquiet passions vnaduisedly or headily to haue attempted this busines he telleth you that there were two motiues that moued him thereto the one his strong opinion pag. 3 the other his vnquiet desire pag. 7. His opinion was that my sermon defending the honourable function of Bishops was most needfull to be answered for so he saith I deemed it as needfull to be answered as any booke our Opposites haue at any time set forth And that no man should thinke this his opinion to be fantasticall or erroneous hee confirmeth it with diuers reasons but such as who shall compare them either with the truth or with his opinion for the proofe whereof they are brought or one with another he shall see a pleasant representation of the Matachine euery one fighting with another The first reason because he sawe the Sermon tended directly to proue that the calling of our L. BB. as they now exercise it in the Church of England is to be holden Iure diuino by diuine right not as an humane ordinance their ancient and wonted tenure c. In which speech are diuerse vntruthes For first with what eye did hee see that directly proclaimed in the Sermon which directly and expressely I did disclaime pag. 92. where I did professe that although I hold the calling of BB. in respect of their first institution to be an Apostolicall and so a diuine ordinance yet that I doe not maintaine it to be Diuini juris as intending thereby that it is generally perpetually and immutably necessarie as though there could not be a true Church without it which himselfe also acknowledgeth pag. 90. of his booke 2. where I spake of the substance of their calling with what eye did he see me defending their exercise of it As if he would make the reader belieue that I went about to iustifie all the exercise of their function which in all euen the best gouernements whatsoeuer is subiect to personall abuses 3. Neither is it true that the ancient tenure of BB. was onely Iure humano vnlesse he restraine the ancieÌ„tnesse he speakes of to these latter times which are but as yesterday For in the primitiue Church as hereafter shal be plainely proued the function of BB. was without contradiction acknowledged to be a tradition or ordinance Apostolicall and the first Bishops certainely knowne to haue bene ordained by the Apostles And as his first reason fighteth with the truth so the second both with his opinion and with it selfe For why was the sermon most needfull to be answered because saith he it is euident that the doctrine therein contained howsoeuer M. D. saith it is true profitable and necessarie is vtterly false very hurtfull and obnoxious necessarie indeed to be confused at no hand to be belieued In which words 3. reasons are propunded which now come to be examined It is euident saith he that the doctrine in the sermon is vtterly false therefore it is most needfull to be confuted But say I if it be euidently false it needs no confutation Things manifestly false or true are so iudged without disputation or discourse Neither doth any thing need to be argued or disputed but that which is not euident This reason therefore if it were true would with better reason conclude against his opinion It is euident saith he that it is vtterly false therefore it needeth not to be confuted The second brâ—anch It is very hurtfull and obnoxious therfore c. Obnoxious what is this subiect or in danger to be hurt with euill tongues subiect to sophistical cauillations and malicious calumniations But hurtfull it is not for I
contrary which order Beza misliketh not but sometimes wisheth it were restored then should they come neerer the practise of the Apostolicall Churches then now they doe In the meane time as their Church is a diocesse and their Presbytery seruing for the whole diocesse so the President for the time being is diocesan But whether that be so or not once Caluins iudgement agreeth with mine in these three points It may be saith he for the latter end of the first two hundred yeeres But the conscience must ground it selfe vpon the commandement and example of the Apostles in the word of God As though we were destitute thereof and they contrariwise for their discipline had the precept and practise of the Apostles Which well may they take for granted but neuer will bee able to prooue and as though the vniuersall and perpetuall practise of all the Churches in Christendome and consent of all the Fathers in the first three hundred yeeres were not a sufficient demonstration to perswade a man that hath a sound iudgement ioined with a good conscience what was the doctrine and practise of the Apostles For if any man shall say that all the Apostolicall Churches and all the godly Fathers and glorious Martyrs did euer from the Apostles times obserue a discipline and gouernement of the Church repugnant to that which the Apostles had prescribed I doubt not to say of such a man that as hee is void of modesty so hath he no great store either of iudgement or honesty But how farre forth Caluin agreeth with vs will appeare by that chapter which I alleaged the title whereof is this Concerning the state of the ancient Church and the maner of gouerning which was in vse before the papacy The which as he saith in the beginning will represent vnto our eies a certaine image of the diuine institution For although the Bishops of those times made many canons whereby they might seeme to expresse more then was expressed in the holy scriptures notwithstanding with so good caution they framed their whole administration according to that only rule of Gods word that you may easily perceiue that they had almost nothing in this behalfe dissâ—nant froÌ„ the word of God This is a good testimony you will say giuen to the discipline of the primitiue Church but doth hee testifie that the three points you speake of are agreeable thereunto that shall you now heare And first concerning the Presbyteries hee saith as before I alleaged euerie Citie had their Colledge of Presbyters who were Pastors and Teachers c. The Refuter repeateth the words which I cited out of Caluin thus that the Presbyteries consisted of Ministers Thereof giuing this censure Crafâ—ily or carelesly is this spoken The former if wittingly hee left out onely the latter if he did not heed it Who denieth that the Presbyteries consisted of ministers Wil it follow thence that therefore there were no other gouerning-Elders No man can be so ignorant or so shamelesse as to say that Caluin was of opinion that the Presbyteries consisted of Ministers onely either in the Apostles times or in the age following What shall become of mâ—â— now no man being so ignorant and shamelesse I hope to salue both presentlie I confesse good sir that Caluin collecteth two sorts of Elders out of 1. Tim. 5.17 I confesse also that speaking in generall of the practise of the Church he saith coldly and in few words the rest of the Presbyters were set ouer the censure of maners and corrections But when he commeth more particularly to relate the practise of the antient Church he giueth full testimony to the truth For can any man vnderstand Caluin as saying they had any other Presbyery besides the colledge of Presbyters in euery Church Doth not Caluin plainly say euery citie had their colledge of Presbyters who were Pastors and Teachers Yes that he doth but the word only was either craftily or carelesly omitted Heare then the words of Caluin Habebant ergo singulae ciuitates Presbyterorum collegium qui pastores erant ac Doctores Nam apud populuÌ„ munus docendi exhortandi corrigendi quod Paulus episcopis iniungit omnes obibant quo semen post se relinquerent iunioribus qui sacra militae nomen dederant crudiendis nanabant operam Euery citie therefore had a colledge of Presbyters who were Pastors and Teachers For both they exercised all of them the function of teaching exhorting and correcting which Paul enioyneth to Bishoppes and also that they might leaue a seed behind them they imploied their labour in teaching the younger sort who had giuen their names to serue in the sacred warfare that is the younger sort of the Clergy Thus therefore J reason The Colledge of Presbyters according to Caluins iudgement consisted onelie of Ministers The Presbytery of each Citie was the colledge of the Presbyters Therefore the Presbyterie of each City according to Caluins iudgement consisted onely of Ministers The assumption is euident The proposition himselfe proueth when hee saith omnes all of them exercised the officâ— of teaching c. which Paul prescribeth to BB. c. What can be more plaine For where there are none but Ministers there are Ministers only where all exercise the function of teaching and preaching to the people which Paul inioyned Bishops and instructing the younger sort of the clergy there are none but Ministers Therefore where all exercise the function of teaching and preaching c. there are Ministers only As touching the second Caluin most plainly giueth testimony to it in the next words following Vnicuique ciuitaâ—i erat attributa certa regio qua Presbyteros iude sumeret velut corpori ecclesiae illius accenseretur To euery Citie was attributed a certaine region or country which from thence should receiue their Presbyters and be reckoned as being of the body of that Church What can be more plaine that each Church contained the citie and country adioyning that both citie and country made but one Church as it were one body whereof the head was the citie the other members the parishes in the country that the Presbyteries were only in cities and that the country parishes receiued each of them their Presbyter when they wanted from thence Who therefore to vse his owne words could be either so ignorant as not to see or so shamelesse as not to acknowledge that the Churches in Caluins iudgement were dioceses How doth he auoid this Forsooth Caluin doth not name dioceses But doth he not meane dioceses when he speaketh of Churches containing each of them a citie and country adioyning Yea but he doth not tie the power of ecclesiasticall gouernment to the Bishops Church No doth he acknowledgeth no Presbytery but in the cities of which the Bishops were Presidents As for country parishes they had not Presbyteries but seuerall Presbyters and those they had as Caluin saith from the Presbytery of the citie Besides when he maketh the citie and country to be
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
antecedent I prooue by Pauls substituting Timothe at Ephesus and Titus in Creet to that end that they might ordaine elders notwithstanding that there were diuerse Presbyters in both those Churches before Whereto he answereth that it had been lawfull for the Presbyters and people to haue ordained but at the first they were lesse fit for the purpose then an Euangelist That the people sometimes haue had some stroake in election of their Bishops I do not denie but that they euer had any right to ordaine can neuer be proued That the Presbyters had right to haue done it he should haue declared But what Presbyters doth he speake of ministers they I trust if the new conceit be true were confined ech man to his own parish neither might they intermeddle in other parishes euerie parish hauing sufficient authoritie within it selfe neither can it be thought that the Presbyters of latter times should be fit and that they which were ordained by the Apostles themselues were not fit for the execution of their power assuredly if it were not fit for them to ordaine but for Timothe and Titus by the same reason neither is it fit for Presbyters afterwards but for Bishops who succeeded Timothe and Titus Jf he say the lay Presbyters and the people had right to ordaine he must first proue which he will neuer be able to doe that euer there were such Presbyters and then he must proue that they and the people had right to ordaine ministers which when he hath performed he may hope to proue any thing The latter part of the antecedent I proue thus Who were the successors of Timothe and Titus for the gouernment of Ephesus and Creet to them after their decease was their power of ordination deriued The Bishops of Ephesus and Creet were the successessours of Timothe and Titus for the gouernment of those Churches and not Presbyters Therefore to the BB. and not to the Presbyters was the power of Ordination deriued Hereto he answereth that Timothe and Titus were Euangelists and not Bishops and therefore that which followeth of deriuing their authoritie to their successors is meerely idle Thus no part of my syllogisme is answeared vnlesse it be the conclusion But to answeare his reason whereby he goeth about 〈◊〉 clâ—â—â— pelâ—ere their being Euangelists whiles they attended the Apostle in his peregrinations and were not deputed to any one place doth not hinder but that they might be and were Bishops as all antiquitie with one consent testifieth when they were assigned to certaine Churches Neither is it greatly materiall as touching the force of this argument whether they were Euangelists or Bishops seeing the power which they had of ordination and jurisdiction was not to dye with them but to be transmitted to them who should succeed them in the gouernment of the Church Now that the Bishops of Ephesus and Creet and so of all other Churches did succeed Timothe and Titus and other Apostolicall men who were the first gouernors of the Churches is a most certaine truth as the singular succession of Bishops in those Churches from the Apostles times doth ineuitably euince But hereof I shall haue better occasion hereafter to speake Now that the Presbyters were not their successors it is euident for they had the selfesame authoritie and no greater vnder the Bishops who were successors to Timothe and Titus which before they had vnder them For they which had no other authoritie after them then they had vnder them could not be their successors Serm Sect. 7. p. 37. They obiect 1. Tim. 4.14 Neglect not the gift which is in thee which was giuen thee by imposition of hands of the Presbytery c. to ex authoritate pag. 39. MY answere to this testimony out of 1. Tim. 4. is That howsoeuer the Presbyterians doe vpon this place especially build the authoritie of their pretended Presbyteries yet this text maketh not for them That it maketh not for them I proue by this reason If there be but two expositions which are giuen of the word Presbyterie neither whereof doth fauour their presbyteries then the authoritie of their Presbyteries cannot be concluded out of this place But neither of the two expositions do fauour their Presbyteries Therefore their authoritie cannot be concluded hence The exceptions which he taketh against this answere are very friuolous As first that how many expositions soeuer any text in the conceit of men may admit the holy ghost except by way of allegorie intendeth but one Be it so but yet there may be question which of the diuerse expositions which be giuen is the sense of the holy Ghost vnlesse that must needs be alwaies the meaning of the holy Ghost which the refuter fancieth For my part I did not take vpon me to determine whether sense is the more likely Jt was sufficient for me that whereas there be but these two expositions which are or can be giuen neither of both maketh for the pretended Presbyteries His first exception therefore is to no purpose Now that the former exposition vnderstanding by Presbyterium the Priest-hood or office of a Presbyter maketh nothing for their Presbyteries it is more then euident And that this exposition which so plainly defeateth their Presbyteries is very probable I shewe first because the word is in that sense oft vsed though not in the new testament yet in greeke writers of the Church It suffiseth the Refuter that it is not vsed in that sense in any other place of Scripture and yet himselfe saying that the word is no wheres else vsed in all the Scriptures doth as much prejudge his own exposition as this How be it I do not deny but the worde is else where vsed in the Scriptures onely this I say that there is no other place wherein it can be drawne to signifie the Christian Presbyterie meaning either the company of Presbyters or the office of a Presbyter This then being the onely place where it is so vsed we must not expect parallele places in the Scripture to confirme either sense Secondly I shew that this may be the sense because not onely diuerse in former times as Ierome Primasius Anselmus Haymo Lyra but Caluin also doe so expound it To this his answere is worse then friuolous that though these writers doe so expound it yet Doctor Bilson doth not say that therefore it may be so vnderstood And why so I pray you because he confesseth that Chrysostome Theodoret and other Graecians expound it of the persons which did ordaine not of the function whereto Timothe was ordained Doth not Doctor Bilson say it may be so vnderstood when more then once he mentioneth it as one of the receiued expositions of that place approued by Caluin himselfe the chiefe patron for I must not say founder of the Presbyterian Discipline neither doth his relating of Chrysostomes exposition proue that he rejecteth the other no more then his alledging of Ieromes interpretation doth argue that he refuseth that of Chrysostomes but
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
therefore as the first point was bootlesse so this last is needlesse If he like not of this assumption he cannot make this conclusion which notwithstanding he maketh if he will assume that they were not sufficientlie cleared as he hath borne the reader in hand all this while then he must needs conclude against himselfe that therefore these other arguments were needfull The truth is though the former points were so sufficientlie cleared as that the refuter had nothing whereby to auoid the euident truth thereof conuicting his conscience but beggerly shifts and sophisticall euasions notwithstanding for so much as some of them with whom I had to deale are so lead with a spirit of contradiction as if they were in the contradiction of Chore the Lord open their eyes and turne their hearts I therefore thought it needfull for the more full conuiction of the gainesayers to confirme by other arguments the doctrine which I collected out of the text But where I had beene to blame for not setting downe this collection plainely were it not a point of Art sometimes to conceale Art the reader is to coy the refuters head for making so plaine a collection for his own conuiction as they say for gathering a rod for his own taile The collection being reduced into a sillogism standeth thus The calling of such as are here meant by the Angels is lawfull and good Diocesan BB. such as our be are here meant by the Angels Therefore the calling of Diocesan BB. such as ours are is lawfull and good The proposition is such as no man of vnderstanding or conscience will make question of saith the refuter we aske no more but to haue this assumption confirmed that the Angels were such and then you shall not need other arguments to proue this conclusion But the assumption say I is that which in the Sermon and in this defence thereof hitherto hath beene proued how sufficiently I referre to the reader and I appeale to the refuter This therefore may stand for the first argument I proceed to that which was expressed in the Sermon omitting what else he hath in this section as being either refuted before or vnworthy to be mentioned now Serm. Sect. 2. pag. 55. All the question now a daies is of the lawfulnes c. to pag 56. l. 1. All the question saith he of the lawfulnesse had beene ended before this time if the Angels of the Churches had beene proued to be such BB. But say I the Angels of the Churches were the BB. of the primitiue Church who in the former part of the Sermon were proued to be such and those proofes in this defence haue hitherto beene confirmed in such sort as I hope the refuter will acknowledge himselfe to be satisfied if not yet it is but folly to multiply words concerning the proofes of the former assertion for they must stand vntill the refuter or some other of more strength shall take vpon him to assaile them And I doubt not but they will stand after they haue beene assailed My argument therefore standeth thus What function hath diuine institution and approbation is lawfull and good The function of BB. such as were described in the former part of the Sermon hath diuine institution as being Angels sent of God and approbation as being Starres which Christ holdeth in his right hand Therefore the function of such BB. is lawfull and good To the assumption he hath nothing to answere besides the bare deny all thereof but that which already he hath repeated three or foure times since he entred into this fift point that diocesan BB. are not meant by the Angels and Starres and chargeth me as though I thought it enough to affirme it would haue my readers to take it vpon my bare word when the thing which I haue proued hitherto hath beene only this that the Angels or BB. of the primitiue Church were such as in the former assertion wer described But the assumption I proue in the residue of the sermon first by consequēce then directly By consequence in the next section Serm. Sect. 3. pag. 56. for what function or gouernment is of Apostolicall institution that is to be acknowledged a diuine ordinance in respect of the first institution as hauing God the author thereof The Episcopall function or gouernment by BB. is of Apostolicall institution Therefore it is a diuine ordinance c. to pag. 61. l. 2. The proposition is acknowledged not onely by Beza who saith if it proceeded from the Apostles I would be bold to ascribe it wholy as all other Apostolicall ordinances to the institution of God but also by the refuter himselfe as needing no proofe The assumption I proued by three arguments wherein I proceeded as it were by degrees two whereof saith the refuter are needlesse as if still he held it superfluous to bring more arguments then one I confesse that any one of these cords are strong enough to bind a stronger man then this refuter yet I thought it not needlesse to vse three knowing that as Salomon saith a three-fold cord is not easily broken The first of the three I thus propounded That gouernment which was generally and perpetually vsed in all Christian Churches in the first three hundred yeares after Christ and his Apostles and was not ordayned by generall Councils was vndoubtedly of Apostolicall institution This proposition I proued first by two testimonies of Augustine whereunto might be added the like testimonies out of Tertulian Constatid ab Apostolis traditum quod apud Ecclesias Apostolorum fuerit sacrosanctum T. C. saith the example of the Apostles and generall practise of the Church vnder their gouernment euen without a commandement draweth a necessitie Secondly By reason shewing that both it is incredible that all the godly Fathers and Christian Churches would abolish that gouernment which was ordayned by Christ and his Apostles and also impossible that a gouernment not receiued from the Apostles nor ordained by Councils should at once be set vp in all parts of the Christian world But the refuter saith I did not need to proue the proposition for though such a change might be possible yet it is so vnlikly that it is against both Christianity ciuility to suspect that there was any such for which grant though he could doe no other I thinke my selfe as much beholding to him as if he had granted the cause But thereupon saith he we may boldly inferre that if in the Apostles times the gouernment was in the hands of the presbitery it continued in the Church along time after their decease from which proposition I may boldly and truely assume conclude that after the Apostles times the gouernment was not in the hands of such presbiteries as the disciplinarians speake of therefore neither in the Apostles times The assumption consisteth of two parts the former that the gouernment of the Churches by such BB. was generally and
vntill that time when hee comming to Corinth saw Primus the B. with whom he conuersed there a good while reioycing together in the true faith But when I came to Rome saith he I continued with Anicetus whose Deacon Eleutherius was but Soter succeeded Anicetus and after him Eleutherius was B. Now saith he in euery succession and in euery city all things stood as the law preacheth and as the Prophets and as our Lord. And afterwards speaking of the heresies which did spring in his time after that Iames saith he surnamed the Iust had suffered Martyrdome Simon the sonne of Cleophas is made B. whom all men preferred for this cause because he was the Lords cousin wherefore they called the Church a Virgin for as yet she had not been corrupted with vaine doctrines but Thebulis because he was not made B. began to corrupt it being the broacher of one of the seauen heresies which were in the people So much of the first argument The second is taken from the testimonie of Ierome in two places the former in Titus 1. where he saith thus before that by the instinct of the deuill factions began in the Church and it was said among the people I am of Paul I 〈◊〉 of Apollos I am of Cephus the Churches were gouerned by the common counsell of the presbyters but when euery one accounted those for his whom he had baptised it was decreed in the whole world that one being chosen from the presbiters should be set ouer the rest in euery Church vnto whom the care of that whole Church or diocese should appertaine and that the seeds of schismes might be taken away For full answer to this testimony he referreth vs to another place and when he commeth thither I doubt he will not say much to the purpose In the meanetime he answereth first to the testimony itselfe and then to my inference out of it to the testimony he answereth that Ierome maketh the beginning of this constitution of BB. not in the Apostles times nor in the times immediatly succeeding the Apostles Not the former because otherwhere he saith that BB. were superiour to presbiters rather by the custome of the Church then any ordinance of God Whereto I answer that custome himselfe calleth an Apostolicall tradition and else where most plainely and fully testifieth in many places some whereof are noted in the Sermon both that BB. were in the Apostles times and also were ordayned by the Apostles themselues Not the latter because it is as I had told him against the modest charitie of a Christian to imagine that all the Church would conspire at once to thrust out the gouernment established by the Apostles and insteed thereof to bring in another of their owne But say I it is most manifest that BB. were placed in all Churches in the next age to the Apostles and therefore he must either grant that the Apostolicall Churches receiued this gouernment from the Apostles or else confesse according to his vsuall modesty in setting light by the testimony of all antiquitie that all Churches conspired to alter the gouernment which the Apostles had established But of his modestie I would know when he thinketh this gouernment by BB. began and whether he must not be forced of necessity either to lay that foule imputation vpon all the ancient Churches on all the godly Fathers and blessed Martyrs or to yeeld that they had receiued this forme of gouernment from the Apostles My inference also he denyeth When as not withstanding the allegation giueth full testimonie to the generality saying it was decreed in the whole world and of the perpetuity there can be no question if the beginning were not latter then I intended But it is plaine that by Ieroms meaning it began in the Apostles times at the first indeed he saith before BB. were ordained the same men were called Presbiteri Episcopi and vntill factions beganne the Churches were gouerned viz. in the absence of the Apostles by the common counsell of the Presbiters which may be true of the most Churches excepting that of Ierusalem by Ieromes owne confession But when factions began as those did in the Apostles times whereof he speaketh the Apostles ordayned and in the whole Christian world it was obserued that for auoiding of schisme one should be chosen from among the presbiters who should be set ouer the rest and to whom the whole care of the Church that is the diocese should appertaine As for the reasons whereby he proueth the consequence feeble they are exceeding weake First because Ierom speaketh not of the times immediately succeeding the Apostles It is very true for he speaketh of that which was done in the Apostles times as hath bene said secondly saith he because he saith it was decreed in the whole world which could not well be without a generall Councill vnlesse it soaked in by little and little till at the last it ouer-flowed all places The decree which he speaketh of could be no other but of the Apostles for as hath been said what was generally obserued in the Churches in the first three hundred yeares before there was a generall Councill to decree it proceeded vndoubtedly from the Apostles Now it is more then euident that long before the first generall councill there were not onely Diocesan BB. but Metropolitanes also yea Patriarches that which he talketh of soking in by little and little agreeth not with the generall decree whereof Ierome speaketh whereby what is instituted is ordayned at once Neither can hee assigne any time after the Apostles when BB. had either lesse charges or lesse authority then in the end of the first three or foure hundred yeares Their Diocesses oft times as hath beene shewed were lessened in processe of time but seldome or neuer enlarged Neither is it to be doubted but that their authority among Christians was greater before there were Christian Magistrates then afterwards For before they called and held their Councels by their owne authority they heard and iudged all causes among Christians they punished all kindes of faults by Ecclesiasticall censures The other testimony of Ierome is out of his commentarie on Psal. 45. which I haue mentioned before That the Church in steed of her Fathers which were the Apostles had sonnes which were the BB. who should be appointed gouernours in all parts of the world He saith first this testimonie is an allegorie vpon the 45. Psalme and not a historie of the times Which is a friuolous euasion For it is an exposition of the Prophecie by the historie or euent and so not onely he but Augustine also expoundeth the place Secondly he alledgeth that Ierome doth not say that the Church had BB. as soone as the Apostles were gone which also is friuolous For he signifieth that the BB. did succeede the Apostles in the gouernment of the Church which else where he plainly professeth saying that BB. are the successors of the Apostles
If any other had come betweene them and the Apostles those other should haue beene the Apostles successors and they the predecessors to the BB. Besides others of the Fathers in plaine termes testifie that the Apostles committed the Church euery where to the BB. and left them their successors which in the successions also of BB. in the Apostolicall Churches is plainely declared Simeon the sonne of Cleophas succeeding Iames Evodius Linus Timothie Tittu c. substituted by the Apostles Peter and Paul and succeeding them in the gouernment of those Churches wherein they were placed Thirdly he saith Ierome applied the Psalme to the practise of the times wherein he liued not expounding the meaning of the Prophecie which if he had done he must haue acknowledged that such BB. were by the ordinance of God Who could be so shameless as to say that Ierome expoundeth not the meaning of the Prophecie when hee commenteth thus Pro patribus tuis nati sunt tibi filij Fuerunt O Ecclesia Apostoli patres tui quia ipsi te genuerunt nunc autem quia illi recesserunt à mundo habes pro his Episcopos filios quia à te creati sunt sunt énim hi patres tui quia ab ipsis regeris Hee therefore expoundeth the meaning of the Prophecie applying it to the state of the Church immediatly after the decease of the Apostles and not onely to Ieromes times Why but then Ierome must be thought to haue helde the function of BB. to be a diuine ordinance that followeth not for he might hold them to be prophecied of as he also confesseth Es. 60. and yet esteeme them but an apostolical ordinance being neither immediately ordained of God nor yet prouided as generally perpetually to be necessarily obserued as those things which are said to be simply diuini iuris My third argument consisteth of two branches the former affirmatiue that the Councels Histories and Fathers with one consent giue testimony to the gouernment by BB the other negatiue that not any one pregnant testimony of any sound writer or example of any one orthodoxal or apostolicke Church viz. in the first three hundred yeares after Christ and his Apostles can be produced to the contrarie To the former he answereth that the Councels Histories and Fathers either beare witnesse of their owne times which is nothing to the purpose seeing the ancientest Councell was in the fourth age of the Church or else iudge of the BB. in former times by that which they saw then in practise taking all that had the same name of BB. to haue beene pertakers of the same authoritie If the Fathers did beare witnesse onely of their owne times it were sufficient for the proofe of my assertion seeing there were diuers in all the terme specified of three hundred yeares after the Apostles which giue testimonie vnto it as in the first age after the Apostles to omit them of the two latter Ignatius Hegesippus Irenaeus Clemens Tertullian doe giue plaine testimonie vnto it and two of them as hath beene shewed to wit Ignatius and Irenaeus were not onely Diocesan but also Metropolitane BB. But the Fathers histories and councils doe not onely speake of their owne times but also relate what was done in the Apostles times and immediatly vpon their decease Doe they not testifie with one consent as I partly shew in the two arguments following that there were BB. in the Apostles times appointed and ordayned by the Apostles themselues doe they not say that the Apostles committed the Churches to them and left them to be their successors in the gouernment of the Church is not this one of the chiefe things which Eusebius propoundeth to himselfe in his history to set down the succession of BB chiefely of those who next succeeded the Apostles in the Apostolicall Churches But let the Reader iudge of the Refuter and his cause by that which followeth The Fathers discerned not or knew no difference betweene the calling or authority of the BB. which were in their owne time and those which had beene before them but thought and wrote of them as being alike the chiefest of them in euery age from the Apostles being BB. themselues The refuter and his fellowes comming thirteene or foureteene yea almost fiueteene hundred yeares after some of them will needes haue a difference and rather then it shall not stand all the Fathers must be condemned as Idiots for not seeing that which these learned men doe see I greatly meruaile with what face or rather with what conscience the refuter could auouch these things The Nagatiue part of my reason he saith is directly false in both the parts of it as well for testimonies as examples But I desire the reader to haue an eye to the refuters dealing so shall he easily discerne to what poore shifts he is driuen first consider what was the assumption of my first Syllogisme which by these foure arguments I doe proue to wit that in the first three hundred yeeres after Christ and his Apostles the gouernment by BB. was generally and perpetually vsed This I proue in this third reason by the testimonies of Antiquity both affirmatiuely that all antiquity viz. Councils Fathers Histories with one consent giue testimony to it and also negatiuely that no testimony or example of antiquity no ancient Councill Father or History no example of any antient orthodoxall or Apostolicall Church can be produced to the contrary This any reasonable man would take to be my meaning Now consider his instances wherein he spendeth aboue sixe leaues and if any one of them be both true and direct to the purpose then say that I haue no iudgement First for testimonyes We haue pregnant testimonies saith he of the ancients and of many sound writers in these latter ages who affirme that BB. and ministers were all one in the Apostles times and that one minister exercised not authority ouer his fellow ministers as BB. since haue done and still doe First consider the persons of the witnesses which he is about to produce and then the things which they are to depose for whereas I neuer meant to extend the negatiue part of my reason further then the affirmatiue and therefore as I said that the Councils Histories and Fathers doe all giue testimonie to the Episcopall gouernment so I meant that no pregnant testimonie either of Councils Histories or Fathers which I comprised vnder the generall name of sound writer could be produced to the contrary he for instance alledgeth a company of new writers in this present age as if they were competent witnesses to depose in a matter of fact or to testifie what was done or not done in the Church foureteene or fifteene hundred yeeres agoe or as if when I chalenge them to shew any one testimony of antiquity to the contrary it were a sufficient instance to oppose against me a sort of new writers who for the most part also are parties in
are all to one purpose that at the first in the Apostles times BB. and Elders were all one that is the same men who were called Presbiters were also called BB. but by the way where were the Lay-presbiters then were they also called BB. and that till factions did arise the Churches were gouerned by the common counsell of Presbiters To these allegations I haue already made answere which I doe breifely repeate that in the Apostles times before BB. were ordayned the Churches were gouerned by the common counsell of the Presbiters as vnder the Apostles and vntill the BB. were elected from among the Presbiters in the seueral Churches the names of Presbiters Episcopus were confounded but when BB. were chosen out of the Presbiters as they were not at the first for the first BB. were Apostles as Iames and Apostolicall men as Marke Timothie and Titus Linus Evodiu◠c. and were not called Episcopi but Apostoli then for distinction sake he which was chosen from among the Presbiters and placed in a higher degree began to be called Episcopus euen in the Apostles times the name of Apostle being left to them who principally were so called But what will the refuter conclude from hence There was a time whiles the Apostles liued when thesame men were called Presbiters and BB. that is the names were confounded Therefore in the three hundred yeeres after the Apostles the Churches were not gouerned by Diocesan BB. But as the allegations were impertinent so the other aduers Lucifer is not onely impertinent but also misalledged The Bishops preferment saith Ierome according to the refuters allegation was not by necessitie of law but granted to him to honour him withall In that Dialogue there is a controuersie betweene the true Christian and the Luciferian the true Christian would haue those which were baptised by Arians to be baptised againe before they should be receiued againe vnto the communion because by their baptisme who belieued the Father alone to be God the Sonne a creature and the holy Ghost the seruant of both the holy Ghost was not communicated the Luciferian held they might be receiued without baptisme by imposition of hands whereby the holy Ghost should be giuen them which before they had not receiued and to that purpose alledgeth the practise of the Apostles who by imposition of hands gaue the holy Ghost to those whom Philippe the Deacon had baptised and the custome generally receiued of the Church that BB. by imposition of hands doe communicate the holy Ghost to them that are baptised The true Christian replyeth that BB. vse to impose hands onely on those who were baptised into the true faith and that by the baptisme giuen by a Presbiter of Deacon the holy Ghost also is conferred But saith he if here you demaund why hee that is baptized in the Church receiueth not the holy Ghost but by the hands of the B. whom we hold to be giuen in true baptisme vnderstand that this obseruation is deriued from that authority that the holy Ghost after the ascension of the Lord descended vpon the Apostles and the same thing we finde done in many places ad honorem potius Sacerdotij quà m ad legis necessitatem more for the honour of the Episcopall function then for the necessitie of a law For otherwise if onely at the prayer of the B. the holy Ghost doth descend then lamentable is their case who in Villages and Townes and in other remote places being baptized of Presbiters and Deacons doe depart out of this life before the B. visite them the safety of the Church dependeth on the dignitie of the B. c. as hath beene oft alledged That which Ierome speaketh of this one prerogatiue of BB. the refuter extendeth to his whole preferment or preheminence and saith he hath it not by any necessitie of law but is granted to him to honour him The preheminence of the B. in generall Ierome supposed to be of such necessity as that the safety of the Church dependeth vpon it but for this particular of giuing the holy Ghost he saith there was no such necessitie because in the Baptisme by a Presbiter or Deacon before the B. imposeth his hands the holy Ghost is bestowed But as I said this testimonie is also impertinent not concluding that for which it is brought For it is a strange inference their preheminence was giuen not of necessitie but to honor them therfore the Church was not gouerned by them in the three hundred years after Christ his Apostles Neither is it impertinent only to his purpose but also it concludeth for me for if BB. had their preheminence in the primitiue Church as here it is presupposed then their gouernment is proued to haue beene in vse but whether it were by an honour voluntarily giuen them or by necessitie of law that in this present point is not materiall After Ierome he citeth Augustine in an Epistle to Ierome granting that the office of a B. was greater then another Minister through a custome of the Church that had gotten the vpper hand and not otherwise If by the custome of the Church the office of a B. was become greater before Ierome and Augustines time then BB. had this preheminence in the three hundred yeares after the Apostles so farre is this testimonie from disprouing the gouernment of BB. in those times But neither is it truely alledged for he speaketh not so much of the office as the names and that not otherwise is added by the Refuter and the granting he talketh of was not a yeelding vpon necessitie but a modest cession from his right Augustine towards the end of the Epistle earnestly desireth Ierome that hee would boldly correct him wherein hee should thinke it needfull Quanquam enim secundum honorum vocabula quae iam Ecclesiae vsus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio maior sit tamen in multis rebus Augustinus Hieronymo minor est licèt etiam â minore quolibet non sit fugienda vel dedignanda correctio For though according to the names of honour Bishopship is greater then Priesthood that is is a name of greater honour or is honoured with greater titles notwithstanding in many things Augustine is inferiour to Ierome howbeit correction is not to be shunned or disdayned from euery one that is inferiour In that Episcopatus is a name of greater honour then Priesthood it is to be ascribed to the vse and custome of the Church for at the first they were confounded Againe might not some one of our BB. in King Edwards time haue vsed the same words writing to Caluin as well as Augustine vsed them towards Ierome would therefore the Refuter inferre that in the times fore-going there had not beene Diocesan BB. or that they ought not to be superiour to other Ministers Surely howsoeuer Augustine in modesty or any other being a B. was loath to preferre himselfe before Ierome or any other man of renowne being but a Presbiter
such Archbb. as are aboue Metropolitanes were not ordayned by Christ and his Apostles as D. Bilson who also is alledged as hauing beene of the Refuters minde because he citeth Ierome in Tit. 1.1 ad Euagr. Some that there were two sorts of Elders as Iunius Some vnderstanding Ieromes words of the time when factions began not of the Apostles times but afterward as Iunius These are all his witnesses besides some with whose names onely without their testimonies he thought best to make a simple flourish Now if any one of these allegations were reduced into the forme of a Syllogisme concluding the contradictorie to my assertion viz. that some auncient Councils Histories or Fathers doe testifie that in the three hundred yeares after Christ and his Apostles the gouernement by BB. was not generally and perpetually vsed it would appeare to euery one how ridiculously our refuter argueth As for example Danaeus Musculus Iunius c. doe testifie that in the three hundred yeares after Christ and his Apostles the gouernment by BB. was not generally receiued Therefore some ancient Councils Histories or Fathers doe testifie so much Yea but you speake of sound Writers in generall will he say and so I conclude Therefore some sound Writers doe testifie so much But it is plaine say I that I meane the ancient But to his argument such as it is I answere first that if these Writers had testified that which is contayned in the antecedent yet had not they beene competent witnesses in a matter of fact fourteene or fifteene hundred yeares before their time the greatest part of them being also parties in the cause But indeede not all no nor any one of his witnesses doth testifie that in the three hundred yeares after the Apostles the gouernment of Bishops was not generally receiued but all his allegations accommodated to that conclusion are most ridiculous As for example in in the Apostles times Bishops and Presbyters were the same Therefore in the three hundred yeares after the Apostles the gouernment by Bishops was not receiued Bishops were ordayned not by Gods law c. Therefore they were not in the first three hundred yeares and so of the rest But some body will say though these testimonies be impertinent to the present purpose and I must needes confesse that your Refuter did grossely abuse his vnlearned Readers in making such a flourish with them notwithstanding some of the allegations contayne assertions contrarie to some points in your Sermon Of whom in steed of answere if I should aske this question whom hee conceiueth to be aduersaries to vs in this cause he would answere those that stand for the pretended discipline And who be those Caluin Beza Danaeus lunius Sadeel and the most of those whom the Refuter hath alledged If they be aduersaries in this cause is it to be wondred that they haue deliuered contrary assertions and if they be parties in the cause are their testimonies to be admitted Verily he might better haue alledged M. Cartwright and M. Trauers then some of those whom hee did cite being more parties in the cause then they as not onely hauing written in defence of their discipline but liuing where it is practised but that hee knew the simple Reader vvho cannot be ignorant that T. C. and W. T. are parties vvas ignorant that these outlandish Writers vvere aduersaries vnto vs in the cause to vvhose assertions seeing it is folly to oppose the authorities of learned men vvho are on our side vvhom the Refuter vvould reiect as parties I oppose the testimonies of antiquity and the reasons contayned in this booke desiring the Reader in the feare of God to giue credit without partiality to that side on which there is better euidence of truth And thus hauing turned ouer and as I suppose ouerturned more then fiue leaues vvhich hee blotted vvith these testimonies I come to his examples of vvhich hee hauing not any one betweene the Apostles times and ours therefore giueth instance in the Churches of our time and in the time of the Apostles But marke I pray you vvhat vvas my assertion vvhich hee vvould seeme to contradict Was it not this that no example of any Orthodoxall or Apostolicall Church can be produced to proue that in the three hundred yeares after Christ and his Apostles the gouernment by Bishops vvas not generally receiued No saith hee vvhat say you then to the Churches of Heluetia France lowe Countries c. in our time and to the Church of Corinth Cenchrea Ephesus and Antioch in the Apostles times Marry this I say that the Refuter is a very trifler vvho pretending to giue instance of some Church vvithin three hundred yeares after the Apostles times contrarie to my assertion thinkes to satisfie his Reader eyther vvith examples of some Churches in our age or of those in the Apostles times vvhereof this present question is not I confesse that the Churches in the Apostles times at the first had not Bishoppes excepting that of Ierusalem Notwithstanding before the death of Saint Iohn the Churches had not onely Bishops but diuers of them a succession of Bishops and such were two of those which he nameth to wit Antioch and Ephesus for at Antioch there were Bishops successiuely in the Apostles times Evodius and Ignatius And at Ephesus before the Angel to whom that Epistle is directed Apoc. 2.1 Timothie About the yeare one hundred seauenty and foure Dionysius was B. of Corinth and before him was Primus who was of the same time with Anicetus Anno one hundred fifty sixe before whom there was a succession from the Apostles time as Hegesippus recordeth As for Cenchrea that neuer had a peculiar Bishop of her owne but was subiect as other Townes and Parishes of Achaâ—a to the Bishop of Corinth As touching the Churches after the Apostles times the Refuter hath nothing to obiect but what before he hath alleadged out of Iustin Martyr and Tertullian in whom there is not a word against Bishops Iustin Martyr speaketh but of one gouernour in each Church whom he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the B. saith Beza speaking so plainely for the singularity of preheminence of one B. in each Church that T. C. who would perswade that in the seueral Churches there were more Bishops then one saith that euen in Iustines time there began to peepe out something which went from the simplicity of the Gospell as that the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was common to the Elders with the Ministers of the word was it seemeth appropriated vnto one And whereas this place of Iustine was alleadged to proue the Bishops superiority ouer the Presbyters for euen Beza confesseth hee was the President of the Presbyterie who afterwards was called a Bishop hee answereth if it should be granted that Iustines President had superioritie ouer the Ministers yet how fondly is it concluded that it is Lawfull because it was And as I
haue answered his allegation before out of Tertullian for lay-elders wherein is nothing that maketh against Bishops so haue I cited pregnant places in his vvritings giuing testimony not onely to the gouernment of BB. in his time but prouing a continued succession of them from the Apostles to his time It is plaine therefore that the refuter with the help of all his collectors is not able to produce any one example of an orthodoxall and Apostolicall Church in the first three hundred yeeres after the Apostles times wherin the Episcopall gouernment was not receiued so that my argument standeth firme and sure in all the parts of it To my fourth reason concluding the perpetuity of the Episcopall gouernment in the ancient Churches from the succession of BB. deduced from the Apostles times vntill the Councill of Nice remayning as yet vpon authenticall records Eusebius euery where carefully setting downe this succession and Irenaeus and Tertullian prouing the deriuation of the orthodoxall doctrine from the Apostles to their time by the personall succession of BB. in the Churches teaching the same truth He obiecteth and saith the obiection is worth the answering that I deceiue them with the name he confesseth there was a succession of BB. but the first were not like the latter for though the latter were Diocesan Bishops yet the former were not Belike they were first Parish BB. and then titular Diocesan BB. and then ruling Diocesans then Lord Diocesans then Metropolitanes then Patriarches which being obiected vpon ridiculous grounds heretofore confuted I held scarse worth the mentioning in the Sermon It is apparant by this succession that within the compasse of euery Diocese there was onely one B. at a time there hauing bin no more in any Diocese at the end of the first or second hundred then were at the end of of foure hundred yeeres and therefore this succession doth euidently proue a perpetuitie of Diocesan BB. from the Apostles times downewards And thus the former part of my assumption is manifest Wherefore as I said in the Sermon this to a moderate Christian might seeme a sufficient commendation of the Episcopall function though no more could be said for it that in the best times of the primitiue Church it was borne of so many thousand godly and learned Bishops receiued in all true Churches approued of all the orthodoxall and learned Fathers allowed and commended of all the famous Councils The latter part that the Episcopall function was not first ordayned by generall Councils I proue by vndenyable euidence but this proofe the refuter had no mind to deale withall because it also proueâ—h the former part by such an argument as he could not tell how to answere that vvas this that the first generall Councill of Nice was so farre from first ordayning Bishops or Metropolitanes that it acknowledgeth Patriarches to haue beene long before that time in vse and confirmeth the ancient custome of subiecting diuers Prouinces to them For there were Diocesan Bishops before there were Metropolitanes actually and Metropolitanes were long before Patriarches and Patriarches had beene long in vse before the Councill of Nice and yet that Councill was held within two hundred and thirtie yeeres after the Apostle times Wherefore seeing the proposition of my syllogisme was so euidently true as that the refuter could not deny it viz. that gouernment which was generally and perpetually receiued in all Christian Churches in the first three hundred yeeres after Christ and his Apostles and not ordayned by generall Councils was vndoubtedly of Apostolicall institution and seeing the assumption was proued by foure or fiue vnanswerable arguments that the gouernment by such Bishops as were described in the former part of the Sermon was generally and perpetually vsed in all Christian Churches in the first three hundred yeeres after Christ and his Apostles and not ordayned by generall Councils therefore the conclusion is of necessarie and vndenyable truth that the gouernment of the Churches by such Bishops was vndoubtedly of Apostolicall institution After I had thus concluded affirmatiuely to proue my assertion I propounded another syllogisme concluding negatiuely against the pretended discipline therein intending to prouoke and challenge him that should take vpon him the refutation of my Sermon to bring some proofes for their gouernment in the first three hundred yeeres after Christ. The syllogisme was this That gouernment which no where was in vse in the first three hundred yeares is not of Apostolicall institution The gouernment of the Churches by a parity of ministers and assistance of Lay-elders in euery parish was no where in vse in the first three hundred yeeres Therefore it is not of Apostolicall institution The proposition is as certaine as the former the assumption I haue already proued in the former syllogisme For if the gouernment by Diocesan BB. was generally and perpetually receiued in those three hundred yeares after the Apostles then is it manifest that this gouernment which they speake of was no wherein vse But because it is infinite to proue such a negatiue by induction of particulars which might be disproued by any one instance by them which hold the affirmatiue therefore I left the proofe of the affirmatiue to the refuter Let vs see then how he answeareth forsooth by opposing the like syllogisme saying That gouernment which was generally in vse in the first three hundred yeeres is of Apostolicall institution The gouernment of the Churches by a parity of ministers and assistance of onely-gouerning Elders in euery parish was generally in vse in the first three hundred yeeres Therefore it is of Apostolicall institution And then braggeth that his proofe for their discipline is as good as mine against it Wher the refuter doth not so much bewray his ignorance in the lawes of disputation as the badnes of his cause choosing rather to boast that their gouernment was generally and perpetually vsed then to giue any one instance to proue it what needed this generall assertion vnlesse it were to beguile the simple who are lead with shewes when one perticular instance would haue serued But that the reader may vnderstand that this my assumption was vndoubtedly true I will make the refuter this faire offer that if he can bring any one pregnant and approued example of a Christian Church gouerned by a parity of ministers and assistance of onely-gouerning Elders I will promise to suscribe to their discipline wherefore let not the reader be carried away with vaine shewes neither let him belieue that their pretended discipline was instituted by the Apostles vntill they be able to shew as they neuer will be that it was sometime and some where practised within three hundred yeeres say a thousand foure hundred if you will after the Apostles The II. CHAPTER Prouing the function of BB. to be of Apostolicall institution because it was vsed in those times without their dislike Serm. Sect. 4. pag.
61. Now I proceede to the second degree ascending to the Apostles times from whence in the second place I argue thus That gouernment which euen in the Apostles times was vsed in the Apostolicall Churches and was not contradicted by them was vndoubtedly of Apostolicall institution c. ad pag. 65. WHere I take this proposition for granted namely of the aduersaries he saith I reckon without mine host yet confesseth it to be true according to their opinion who hold there may be but one gouernment in the Church and that instituted by the Apostles which is the generall opinion of the Disciplinarians confessed in effect by himselfe Pag. 130. Yea but I say afterward in fauour of the Disciplinarians therein clawing a Churle according to the homely prouerbe as appeareth by this refuter that though the gouernment by BB. is the best yet we doubt not but where this may not be had others may be admitted neither doe we deny but that siluer is good though gold be better If therefore saith he there be diuers kindes of gouernment which may be admitted then might there be a gouernment in the Churches in the Apostles times not contradicted by them which yet was not of Apostolicall institution whereto I answere first that I did not say simply that other gouernments may be admitted besides that which was ordained by the Apostles but where that cannot be had But whiles the Apostles liued that which they ordayned might be had Againe if any in the Apostles times should of their owne heads haue altered the forme of gouernment established by them and consequently haue set vp a worse it cannot be thought that either the Apostles would haue allowed it or that all Churches would haue retayned that gouernment vvhich they had not receiued from the Apostles Besides it is incredible that in the Apostles times any forme of gouernment was vsed in the Apostolicall Churches but that which was ordayned by the Apostles and therefore the proposition is more then manifest Now followeth the assumption vvhereof are two parts the one that the gouernment by BB. was vsed euen in the Apostles times the other that it was not contradicted by them The former I proue by two arguments the one because the seauen Angels were in the Apostles times and they were BB. for the substance of their calling such as ours be and therefore such BB. were in the Apostles time Ere the refuter will answere to the matter of the assumption he propoundeth two things worthy his obseruation the one that I confine the number of the Angels to seauen which neither the text doth saith he nor himselfe euer did till now Did not I before obserue in the Sermon that there was but one Angell in each of the seauen Churches and doth not the text say that the seauen Starres are the Angels of the seauen Churches I haue spoken of this point before onely let the refuter call to mind this argument among the rest The text saith the Starres were seauen The text saith that the Angels be the Starres Therefore the text saith the Angels be seauen The other is that I shunne the terme Diocesan in which notwithstanding the whole question consisteth for no man doubteth that the gouernment was by BB. in the Apostles times seeing that both ministers and ruling Elders were called BB. doth he not speak against the light of his owne conscience when he saith I auoid the name Diocesan seeing in expresse termes I said they were for the substance of their calling such as ours be If I had onely said Diocesan he might haue excepted in behalfe of the learneder sort of Disciplinarians that they doubted not but that the Angels were superintendents of the City and countrey adioyning but all the question would they say is of the superiority whether they had a singular preheminence for terme of life a superiority in degree a maiority of power in respect of ordination and iurisdiction when as therefore I say that for the substance of their calling they were such BB. as ours are I doe say not onely that they were Diocesan but also that they were superiour to other ministers in degree c. But whence I pray you hath the refuter this confidence so boldly to affirme that their ruling Elders were called BB. Caluin and M. Trauers c. confesse that BB. signifie onely preaching Elders and are your Lay-elders now become BB the people may haue ioy of such guides that cease not to broach such fansies After he hath played a little vvith the assumption hee plainely denieth it what thinke you saith he M. D. bringeth to proue it Nothing saith the refuter but that which hath already beene answeared if that were true yet that nothing is more then the refuter will euer be able to disproue and that is this that the seauen Angels were BB. all doe confesse that they were such BB. as ours be for the substance of their calling I proued in the first foure points of the Sermon yea but saith he I haue proued that for the substance of their calling they were but ordinarie ministers let the reader therefore in Gods name iudge secundum allegata probata according to the euidence which hath beene brought on both sides and where he saith I quickely haue done with the scriptures because they indeed afford but slender shew c. I answere first that I had no reason to insist longer in this proofe vnlesse I would haue repeated the former part of the Sermon againe was it not sufficient to referre them to the former part where this point was professedly handled neither is he ignorant but that in demonstration of the latter part of the assumption I bring other proofes out of the scripture But faine he would disgrace our cause with the reader as though we had no proofes in scripture which ill becommeth him that hath not one sillable in the scriptures or other monuments of antiquity to proue their Presbiterian discipline But it is vntrue that I bring nothing to proue the assumption but what was before answered For I bring two other arguments to proue that these seauen Angels were such BB. The former though this great analyser either did not or would not see it that two of these Angels were Polycarpus and Onesimus Polycarpus the B. of Smyrna and Onesimus the B. of Ephesus and what is said of two is to be vnderstood of the rest That Polycarpe was in these times the B. of Smyrna I proued by the testimonie of the Church of Smyrna testifying that he had beene the B. of the Catholicke Church in Smyrna And of Bullinger who noteth that Polycarpe had beene B. of Smyrna thirteene yeares before the reuelation was giuen and so continued for many yeares after Whereunto may be added those authenticall testimonies which after are alledged that he was made B. of Smyrna by S. Iohn That Onesimus was B. of Ephesus at this time I proue by the testimonie of
I shew that Bishops not onely were in the Apostles times but also were approued by them That they were in respect of their function approued I proue by the examples of the 7. Angels approued by S. Iohn or rather by our Sauiour Christ of Epaphroditus the Apostle or B. of the Philippians who therefore is not mentioned in the inscription of that Epistle because the Epistle was sent by him commended by S Paul as his compatner both in his function and in affliction and the Philippians commanded to haue in honour such Iames the Iust B. of Ierusalem approued of all Archippus the B. of Colossa approued of Paul Antipas who had beene B. of Pergamus commended by the holy Ghost To none of these hath the Refuter any thing to say but to Epaphroditus whom he would not therefore haue thought to haue beene a Diocesan B. because Paul calleth him his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fellow workâ—-man nor that the Apostle meant to equall him to himselfe in the Apostleship for Epaphroditus was none c. Though that word doth not proue it neither was it alledged to that end but as one of the titles of commendation giuen to Epaphroditus yet the word Apostle which I alledged doth proue it neither should the Refuter haue balked that to lay hold vpon another vnlesse it were to deceiue the simple It is therefore to be noted that as the twelue Patriarches of Christs Church which were sent into the whole world some going one way some another were called the Apostles of Christ and not the Apostles of any Church in particular excepting Iames who was the Apostle of the Iewes so those Apostolicall men who were set ouer particular Churches as the Bishops thereof were for a time called the Apostles of those Churches So Paul calleth Epaphroditus the Apostle of the Philippians and therefore it was malepertly said by the Refuter that he was not an Apostle But of this more hereafter Before I ended this point I thought it needfull to meet with that obiection which ordinarily is made out of Ierome by them who vnderstand him as if he had said that Bishops were not ordayned in the Apostles times But I shew both by the place it selfe which they alledge and by conference of other places in Ierome that hee plainely confesseth BB. to haue been ordayned in the Apostles times Ierome therfore confesseth in the place which is vsually obiected that when factions began to arise in the Church some saying I am of Paul I am of Apollos I am of Cephas which was in the Apostles times 1 Cor. 1. it was decreed in the whole world and therefore by the Apostles for who should in the Apostles times make such a generall decree but the Apostles yea and Ierome himselfe calleth the Episcopall function a tradition Apostolicall that one being chosen from among the Presbyters should be set ouer the rest vnto whom the care of the whole Church should appertaine Whereunto I added his confession of the same truth in other places For he confesseth that Iames the Iust shortly after the Passion of Christ was made Bishop of Ierusalem and continued B. there thirtie yeares euen vntill his death In the same Catalogue it is confessed that Simon succeeded the said Iames in the Bishopricke and that Timothie was B. of Ephâ—sus and Titus of Creet and Polycarpe of Smyrna in S. Iohns time that Linus Anacletus and Clemens were BB. of Rome Hee confesseth also that at Alexandria euer since S. Marke there had beene BB. chosen successiuely that S. Marke was the first B. of the Church at Alexandria and that Anianus succeeded him After whom there were two more Abilius and Cerdo in the Apostles times It is most plaine therefore that Ierome acknowledgeth BB. to haue beene in the Apostles time Now let vs see what tricke the Refuter hath to auoide such plaine euidence Forsooth because these testimonies were as he saith not knowing indeed nor greatly caring what he affirmeth brought in by me out of order and some of them come to be handled againe he will answere generally and briefly that the Bishops Ierome speaketh of were not Diocesan Lords but such as himselfe describeth where hee sheweth the custome of the Church of Alexandria c. Whether they were called Lords or not it is not greatly materiall seeing they were called the Angels and the Apostles of the Churches which are titles of greater honour neither doth it appertaine to the substance of their calling in regard whereof I defend the ancient Bishops to haue beene such as ours are And such doth Ierome describe them in the place which the Refuter meaneth For hee plainly noteth the Bishop to haue beene but one in a whole Church or Diocese to whom the care of the whole Church did belong superiour also to the Presbyters in degree c. The Refuter hauing answered my second argument in such sort as you haue heard taketh his turne to reply and that thus That gouernment which euen in the Apostles times was vsed in the Apostolicall Churches and was not contradicted by them was of Apostollicall institution The gouernment by common consent of Elders was vsed euen in the Apostles times in the Apostolicall Churches and not contradicted by them Therefore the gouernment by the common consent of Elders was of Apostolicall institution The Proposition saith he is sure on our side though it was not of his See â—ee homo homini quantum praestat that which is weake in my hand is strong in this The truth it selfe belike is so partiall as that it is true onely in his mouth For the strengthening of the assumption saith hee besides that which before I answered Sect. 3. which was besides the testimonie of Cyprian and Ierome before answered an allegation of some new Writers who are parties in the cause I will adde the testimonies of B. Whitgift D. Bilson D. Sutcliffe and D. Downame himselfe all speaking to the truth thereof He should haue done well to haue cited these testimonies so would it haue appeared that we spake according to the truth but not according to his meaning which is vntrue But I answere to his assumption and first to the former part of it by distinction If by Elders he meaneth the onely gouerning Elders as well as Ministers as hee doth or else he saith little for the pretended discipline I answere that the Church was neuer gouerned by the common Counsell of such Aldermen neither did Cyprian and Ierome testifie it nor D. Bilson D. Sutcliffe or D. Downame confesse it If by Elders he meane onely Ministers as Ierome did when he said at the first the Churches before factions did arise were gouerned by the common counsell of Elders two things may be questioned first whether this gouernment of theirs were vnsubordinate according to the new discipline and secondly whether the Apostles did intend that the Churches should be
vnderstood vvho expound the vvord Apostle by Teacher As Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and those vvhom the Refuter nameth For they did not by Apostle vnderstand euery common Teacher or teaching Presbyter but specialem doctorem saith Anselme instructorem praecipuum their chiefe instructor sayeth Dionysius Carthusianus These authors and more as they doe all giue testimony with my exposition so against that interpretation of the word Apostle which the refuter bringeth who would haue him called Apostle not in respect of any sacred function which he performed towards them but because he was their Messenger to the Apostle And of this iudgement he saith are Primasius Haymo Caietan and two others which be as much partyes in this cause as himselfe Beza and Piscator And Caluin acknowledgeth it to agree with the place Primasius saith that Epaphroditus had receiued gradum Apostolatus the degree of Apostleshippe among them Caluin doth indeed mention that interpretation but so as he preferreth the other sed prior sensus meliùs meo iudicio conuenit But the former sence in my iudgement agreeth better He could not thinke that both sences being so different agreed to the text Yea but he hath two reasons to proue his to be the more likely sence First as the words following in the same Verse and Chapt. 4.18 doe shew how he ministred to him so the same phrase is vsed to the like purpose 2 Cor. 8.23 where the brethren sent with Titus to receiue the Corinthians beneuolence are called Apostles that is messengers of the Churches I acknowledge that Epaphroditus brought a gratuity from the Philippians to Paul to supply his necessity being a prisoner in Rome And the brethren likewise who accompanyed Titus were to receiue the beneuolence of the Corinthians but it is vnlikely that either he or they were called the Apostles of the Churches in that regard It appeareth by diuers of Ignatius his Epistles that when the churches did send one vpon a Christian Embassage the B. commonly was entreated to take that Embassage vpon him In like manner the Philippians being to send as it were vpon Embassage to Paul Epaphroditus their B. vndertooke that voyage He being therfore both their B. and their Embassadour it is more likely that he was called their Apostle because he was their Bishop then for that hee was their Embassadour For it is vnlikely that the name of that sacred function of the Apostles of Christ who also himselfe is the Apostle of our profession should be vsed in the Scriptures to signifie the messengers of men Besides in both places the Apostle intendeth by this title highly to commend Epaphroditus and the others but this had beene but a small commendation that they were messengers of the Churches Againe if they in 2 Cor. 8. were called the Apostles of the Churches because they were their messengers then those Churches should haue sent them but it is euident that Paul himselfe sent them for as it was required of him Gal. 2 so had hee vndertaken to procure a supply for the reliefe of the brethren in Iudaea who were oppressed vvith famine And to that end hauing before dealt with the Corinthians sendeth Titus and two others to receiue their contribution His second reason is that it standeth not so well with the properties of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth a messenger to entitle any man in regard of his ministeriall function their Apostle to whom as his from whom hee is sent And therefore among all the titles Paul taketh to himselfe to magnifie his office he neuer calleth himselfe their or your Apostle but an Apostle of Christ and an Apostle to them Wee may therefore say of M. D. as Iunius doth of Theodoret the clearest witnesse he alledgeth he is deceiued by the aequiuocation of the word Apostolos which sometimes in a common and generall sence is giuen to any one that is sent as a messenger and sometimes more specially ascribed to those that were imployed as the Apostles in an extraordinarie and high Embassage from Christ. Here the Refuter whiles he goeth about to discouer my ignorance as though I knew not the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as he bewrayeth his owne For it is euident that in the Scriptures the vvord is vsed with reuerence as vvell to the parties to vvhom as to the party from vvhom the Apostle is sent Thus Paul calleth himselfe the Apostle of the Gentiles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and saith that Peter had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apostleship of Circumcision meaning that he was the Apostle of the Iewes because to himselfe was committed the Gospel of vncircumcision as to Peter of the circumcision So Angels haue relation not only to the sender who is God but to the parties to whom they are sent and are called their Angels And euen as Angels absolutely spoken is a title of all ministers who are sent of God but vsed with reference to the Churches whereto they are sent as the Angels of the seauen Churches doe signifie the Bishops or Pastors of the same churches so Apostoli absolutely vsed is a title of all Embassadours sent from God with authority Apostolicall though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 giuen to Paul and Barnabas and the twelue Apostles but vsed with reference to particular Churches doth signifie their Bishops And in that sence Epaphroditus is called the Apostle of the Philippians And howsoeuer the word may signifie any messenger with relation to any sender yet in the scriptures it is not vsed to signifie messengers sent from men neither is to be translated otherwise then Apostle For though our Sauiour doe seeme to speake indefinitly Iohn 13.16 of the Apostle and him that sendeth him yet it is euident that he meaneth himselfe who sent and the Apostles who were sent But admit saith the refuter that Epaphroditus were Bishop or Pastor of Philippi where abouts I will not striue how shall it be proued that Philippi was a Diocesan Church c. This is written as the most of the booke to bleare the eyes of the simple For I cannot thinke he which would vndertake this cause was so void of iudgement as the refuter here would shew himselfe to be if he wrote sincerely For I pray you what was the point which here I had in hand was it not to shew that the Bishops at the first in the Apostles times were called Apostles and doe I not proue it by this instance that Epaphroditus being the Bishop of the Philippians is therefore called their Apostle Admit it be so saith the refuter yet how shall it be proued that Philippi was a Diocesan Church and how weakely with that doth M. D. inferre that he was a Diocesan Bishop like to ours for the substance of his office All men see he deceiueth his reader with the like equiuocation in the word Bishop which in the Apostles times by his
owne confession was common to all Pastors though afterwards appropriated to some speciall persons as if he should haue said I grant that which here you doe proue but yet that followeth not hereon which you intended not That the Churches were Diocesses and the Bishops Diocesan like to ours for the substance of their office I proued before in the former part here I am so farre from inferring or prouing it that I presuppose it as sufficiently proued before But this is the poore shift which the refuter vsually flyeth vnto when he hath nothing to answere He perswaded himselfe such was his iudgement that in the question of parishes and Diocesses he had the vpper hand and therefore when he is foiled in any of the points following he flyeth to that as his refuge yea but though this be so as you say yet the Church was not a Diocese nor the Bishop a Diocesan But how little reason he hath to imagine Philippi one of the cheife Cities of Macedonia to haue beene a parish Church may be gathered by that which before hath beene said of the like Cities Where he saith I goe about to deceiue the reader with the like equiuocation of the word Bishop he doth me wrong But he and his consorts deceiue the readers when they would perswade them that because in the Apostles writings and for some part of the Apostles time the names Episcopus Presbyter were confounded namely vntill Bishops began to be chosen from among the Presbyters that therefore the offices were confounded For here I shew that when Presbyters were called Episcopi those who euer since the Apostles times haue beene called Bishops were then called the Agels and the Apostles of the Churches to whom as I noted before out of Theodoret those who were then called Episcopi that is Presbyters were subiect For as I said in the Sermon whiles the Episcopall power was in the Apostles and Apostolicke men those who had that power were called Apostles and therefore Ambrose by Apostles in some places of Scripture vnderstandeth Bishops and to the like purpose Cyprian Apostolos id est Episcopos praepositos dominus elegit the Lord chose Apostles that is Bishops and Gouernours For as Theodoret hath well obserued on 1 Tim. 3. In times past saith he they called the same men Presbyters and Bishops and those who now are called Bishops they named Apostles But in processe of time they left the name Apostle to those who are properly called Apostles and the name of Bishop they gaue to them who had beene called Apostles Thus Epaphroditus was the Apostle of the Philippians Titus of the Cretians and Timothie of the Asians Which testimony if it be conferred with some before cited out of Ierome the truth concerning this matter will appeare to be this Whiles the Bishops were Apostles and Apostolicke men for such were the first Bishops the Angels of the Churches were also called the Apostles of the Churches other Ministers being then called Presbyteri Episcopi indifferently but when the first Bishops being dead their successours were to be chosen out of the Presbyters which Ierome noteth to haue been done at Alexandria euer since the death of S. Marke and was done in all other places where were no Euangelists or Apostolicall men remayning then they left the name Apostle and for difference sake called him the Bishop Wherefore as I said in the Sermon it was not long that the name Episcopus was confounded with Presbyter For Ignatius who was a B. aboue thirtie yeares in the Apostles time after that Evodius had beene B. of Antioch aboue twenty yeares before him appropriateth the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to a Bishop and vsually distinguisheth the three degrees of the Clergie as the Church euer since the Apostles hath distinguished them by these three names Bishop Presbyter and Deacon Yea but we may gather out of Theodorets testimonie saith the Refuter that the report which M. D. maketh of Ignatius his appropriating the name of Episcopus to a Diocesan Bishop is without any sufficient warrant For seeing Ignatius liued in the Apostles times and died within sixe yeares after S. Iohn and Theodoret saith that in processe of time the name of B. was imposed it is not likely Ignatius should be the imposer of it No man includeth the processe of time within the compasse of sixe yeares any man will thinke The processe of time wherof Theodoret speaketh was as appeareth by conference of him with Ierome in the Apostles time At the first towards the beginning of the Apostles time the Gouernours of the Churches were called Apostles but in processe of time when the first Bishops who had beene Apostles or Apostolicall men were dead and now were to be chosen out of the Presbyters which was towards the latter end of the Apostles times then they began to be called Episcopi Bishops And that this was so appeareth not onely by Ignatius who continually vseth the word as the first and highest degree of the Clergie Presbyters as the second and Deacons as the third but also by other monuments of antiquity which I mentioned in the Sermon I haue the longer insisted on this point because it is of great consequence For hereby it appeareth first that when the name Presbyter and Episcopus were confounded yet the offices of Bishops and Presbyters were not confounded Secondly that Bishops being then called Apostoli were superiour to other Ministers who were called Presbyteri Episcopi And lastly that such Bishops as were superiour to other Ministers were in the Apostles times and mentioned in the Apostles writings The IIII. CHAPTER Shewing the Places where and the Persons whom the Apostles ordayned BB but chiefly that Timothie was B. of Ephesus and Titus of Creet Serm. Sect. 7. pag. 72. But we are also to shew the places where and the persons whom the Apostles ordayned BB. and first out of the scriptures c. to all ordayned there pag. 75. IN this section and the two next following I proue that Timothie and Titus were by S. Paul ordayned Bishops the one of Ephesus the other of Creet and maintaine the same assertion against their obiections Afterwards I shew out of other the auncientest monuments of antiquitie that other BB. of other places were ordayned by the Apostles This saith the Refuter is the last supply to maintaine the former antecedent by shewing the places where and the persons whom the Apostles ordayned Bishops If this faile he is vndone As who should say that all which hitherto hath beene said hath by him beene very learnedly and sufficiently refuted When as in truth hee hath not beene able to confute any one sentence or line of the Sermon hitherto with soundnesse of reason or euidence of truth And the like assurance I haue of that which followeth Now that Timothie and Titus were by the Apostle ordained Bishops I proue by a two-fold reason which I ioyned together is thus to be
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
them alone as extraordinarie persons vvhose authoritie should dye with them but to those also which should succeed them in the like authoritie vntill the end But whether the Bishops were to be their successours or the whole congregation or the Presbyterie belongeth not to the assumption but rather to the proposition Howbeit that which he saith either in denying the Bishops to be the successours of Timothie and Titus or affirming the congregation and Presbyterie to haue succeeded them in the power of ordination and iurisdiction is spoken altogether as against the truth so without proofe I will therefore returne to the proposition which is grounded on this Hypothesis that Diocesan Bishops were the successours of Timothie and Titus For if that be true then is the proposition necessary though the refuter flatly denyeth it Thus therefore I reason If the successours of Timothie and Titus were Diocesan Bishops then those things which were written to informe their successours were vvritten to informe Diocesan Bishops But the successors of Timothie Titus were Diocesan BB. Therefore those things which were vvritten to informe the successours of Timothie and Titus vvere vvritten to informe Diocesan Bishops Here the refuter thinking he had as good reason to deny the one part of this syllogisme as the other denyeth both The consequence of the proposition is feeble saith he vnlesse it were certaine that the Bishops both de facto were de iure ought to haue beene their successors That the Bishops were de facto their successors of all other Apostolical men in the gouernment of the Churches I haue already proued and there vpon haue inferred that de iure also they were Because what gouernment was not onely generally receiued in the 300. yeeres after the Apostles but also was in vse in the Apostles times in the Apostolicall Churches that without doubt was of Apostolicall institution The assumption I proue by two arguments first by this disiunction Either the Bishops were their successours or the Presbyteries or which the refuter would adde the whole congregation But neither the Presbyteries nor the whole congregation which had no greater nor other authority and power vnder Bishops then they had before vnder Timothie and Titus Therefore the Bishops were their successors Againe those who succeeded Timothie and Titus in the gouernment of the Churches of Ephesus and Creet were their successors But the Bishops of Ephesus and Creet did succeed Timothie and Titus in the gouernment of those Churches Therefore they were their successors These reasons the refuter saw not onely he taketh vpon him to answere the proofes of this last assumption And first for Timothie his successors in Ephesus it is apparant that not onely the Angell of the Church of Ephesus Apoc. 2.1 whether it were Onesimus or any other was one of his successors and Policrates the Bishop of Ephesus another But also that from Timothie vntill the Councill of Chalcedon there was a continued succession of Bishops For whereas in the Councill of Chalcedon Stephanus the Bishop of Ephesus being deposed some question did arise whether the new Bishop who was to succeed were to be chosen and ordained by the Councill or by the Prouinciall Synode of Aisa Leontius the Bishop of Magnesia in the Prouince of Asia alledged that from St. Timothie to that time there had beene twenty seauen Bishops of Ephesus all ordained there To this he answereth nothing but that which before hath been refuted that howsoeuer the latter Bishops of those twenty seauen might be Diocesan the former were not For it is certaine that both the latter and the former were not onely Diocesan but also Metropolitan Bishops And where I number the Angell of Ephesus in this rancke he saith that I tediously begge the question But I appeale to the refuter himselfe first whether this Angell was not the B. and gouernour of the Church of Ephesus secondly whether he did not succeed Timothie in the gouernment of that Church thirdly whether he was not one of those twenty seauen Bishops mentioned by Leontius in the Councill of Chalcedon And the like may be said of Polycrates who had beene the eight Bishop of his owne kindred sauing that concerning him there is more euidence that he being Bishop of Ephesus was the Metropolitane or primate of Asia For Eusebius saith that he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was the ruler or chiefe of the Bishops of Asia who by his authoritie did assemble a Prouinciall Synode to discusse the question concerning Easter As touching Creet because there is not the like euidence the refuter taketh vpon him to deliuer diuers things without booke as if Titus had successours in the gouernment of Creet it would be auailable for Arch-bishops which were not bred a great while after but it maketh nothing for Diocesan Bishops Whereto I answere first though such Archbishops as were also called Patriarches were not from the Apostles times yet such as are Metropolitanes were And againe if Prouinciall Bishops may be proued to haue been from the Apostles times much more may Diocesan For euery Metropolitane is a Diocesan but not contrariwise And although I doe not remember that I haue any where read of the next successour to Titus yet I read of Gortyna the mother City of Creet and the Metropolitane Bishops thereof who were Arch-bishops of Creet and successors of Titus though not his immediate successours For Dionysius of Corinth who flourished at the same time with Hegesippus writing an Epistle to the Church of Gortyna together with the rest of the Churches of Creet hee commendeth Philippe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their Bishop for his renowned vertue And although he called him the Bishop of the Churches in Creet yet the Diocesan Churches had their Bishops too as the Church of Gnossus a City of Creet had Pinytus at the same time her Bishop which proueth the other to haue beene an Arch-bishop Theodorus Balsamo saith f antiquius Nomocanonum versaui c. I haue perused the ancient Code of Councils and by the subscriptions I finde that in this Councill held in Trullo Basil the Bishop of Gortyna which is the Metropolis of Creet was present And where he saith that Creet hauing many Churches had no one Bishop to gouerne them after Titus the Euangelist till Diocesan Bishops had got the sway of Ecclesiasticall matters I confesse it is true but he must remember that euen in the Apostles times there were Diocesan Bishops And in the very next age after them Philippe was Archbishop of Creet But though there were no direct proofe that Diocesan or Prouinciall Bishops were the successours of Timothie and Titus yet it might easily be gathered by other Churches from whose forme of gouernment Ephesus and Creet did not vary It cannot be denyed but what authoritie Timothie and Titus had the one in Ephesus the other in Creet the same had Marke at Alexandria Evodius at Antioch Linus at Rome c. Neither may it
vvarrant I vvould say the Monarchy as hauing diuine both institution and approbation But yet so as vvhere this cannot so vvell be had the other formes of gouernment be lawfull Euen so in the Church of euery country that there should be a power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment to be exercised an order or eutaxy it is the perpetual immutable ordinance of God the Church being by his appointment a well ordered society as the wise man saith tanquam acies ordinata But whether the sway of spiritual authority shold be in one alone of euery Church or in more it seemeth not to be so essentiall though I must confesse that both in the Church of the Iewes by the appointment of God it vvas in one namely the high Priest and likewise in the primitiue Churches as hath beene shewed And as touching the title that seemeth also to be variable For the gouernours in the Church of the Iewes came to their places by succession and lineall descent but in the Churches of Christ by free election after Gods first immediate calling Now if we shall enquire what forme of Church-gouernment hath the best warrant hereby we may be resolued For it is manifest that our Sauiour Christ committed the power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment cheifly to his Apostles and that they being seuered into diuers parts of the world did gouerne the particular Churches which they had collected seuerally And howsoeuer there were diuers things extraordinary in the Apostles and peculiar to their persons as their immediat calling from Christ their vnlimited function hauing authority to exercise their Apostolicall power wheresoeuer they came their admirable extraordinary gifts of wisedome of languages of miracles their infallible inspiration direction of the holy Ghost preseruing them from errour notwithstanding there were other things in them which being perpetually necessary for the being and well being of the Church were from them to be communicated or deriued to others as the power to preach the Gospell and to administer the Sacraments and publicke prayer or liturgy the power to ordayne ministers and Pastors the power of the keyes for gouernment and exercise of Ecclesiasticall censures Now the power of preaching the word and administring the Sacraments was not from the Apostles communicated to euery Christian but to such as they ordayned ministers and by the imposition of their hands communicated that power to them The power of ordination and publicke iurisdiction was not committed by the Apostles neither to other Christians nor yet to all ministers whom they ordayned but after the ordination of Presbyters in each Church they reserued the power of ordination and publicke iurisdiction in their owne hands which after a time they communicated to those whom they set ouer the seuerall Churches to that very purpose viz. to ordayne Presbyters and to exercise publicke iurisdiction which manifestly appeareth by the Epistles to Timothie and Titus Thus was Timothie set ouer the Church of Ephesus Titus of Creet Linus of Rome Evodius of Antioch Simon of Ierusalem Marke of Alexandria c. and what authority was from the Apostles communicated to them was from them deriued to their successors not onely since but euen in the Apostles times For what authority Evodius had at Antioch the same after him had Ignatius and what Linus had at Rome the same had Anacletus Clemens Euaristus what Marke had at Alexandria the same after him had Anianus Abilius and Cerdo and all these in the Apostles times and what Timothie had at Ephesus the same had Gaius who if Dorotheus is to be creditted was his next successor Onesimus after him and Polycrates and euery one of those twenty seauen mentioned in the Councill of Chalcedon which from Timothie to that time had beene successiuely the Bishops of Ephesus These to my vnderstanding are plaine euidences to warrant the Episcopall function and to shew the deriuation of their authority from the Apostles and to perswade Christians to preferre that forme of gouernment before others For as I added and will now repeate a reason vvhich the refuter might more easily elude vvith a male pert speech calling it wauing and crauing then to answere vvith soundnesse of reason and euidence of truth If the Apostles vvhiles themselues liued thought it necessary that is needfull and behoofefull for the well ordering of the Churches already planted to substitute therein such as Timothie and Titus furnished with Episcopall power then much more after their decease haue the Churches need of such gouernours But the former is euident by the Apostles practise in Ephesus and Creet and all other Apostolicall Churches Therefore the latter may not be denyed All which notwithstanding I doe not deny but that where the gouernment by Bishops cannot be had another forme may be vsed because the modus or forme of being in the B. alone doth not seeme so to be of diuine ordinance but that it may vpon necessity be altered But if any shall reply that howsoeuer in ciuill gouernment the forme is variable yet for Church gouernment we are to keepe vs close to the word of God and what hath warrant there we are to hold perpetuall and vnchangeable by men as some of our Disciplinarians vse to argue I wish them to looke to this inference For if they doe not leaue that hold they must needes grant that the Episcopall function hauing that vvarrant in the Scriptures which I haue shewed is to be holden iure diuine And whereas to confute me or rather to fight with his owne shadow hee saith that other reformed Churches haue continued many yeares and may doe more without Bishops I confesse they haue and I wish they may continue to the end in the sincere profession of the truth But where hee saith that they haue continued in more quietnesse then ours hath done or is like to doe for that wee may thanke him and other vnquiet spirits who haue troubled the peace of Israell with vrging and obtruding their owne fancies for the ordinances of God To these reasons I added the testimonies of antiquity which with a generall consent beareth witnesse to this truth that Timothie was B. of Ephesus and Titus of Creet Of all which the Refuter maketh very light All that remaineth to proue that Timothie was B. of Ephesus and Titus of Creet is no more but this the subscriptions to the Epistles to Titus and 2 to Timothie call them Bishops as also the generall consent of the ancient Fathers and histories of the Church doe No more quoth he but the generall consent of antiquity in a matter of fact agreeable with the Scriptures Why the testimony of some one of the Fathers affirming it ought to be of more weight with vs then the deniall of the same by all the Disciplinarians in the world But let vs come to the particulars First I alledged the subscriptions annexed to the end of the Epistle to Titus and second to Timothie wherein the one is said to haue
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
the Senatours and of a King were confounded For the soueraignty was in the Emperour and the Senatours might haue beene the same vnder their King which they had beene vnder the Emperour c. As touching the assumption he saith it should haue beene proued and I say if he were able he should haue disproued it For my part I was in this place the answerer and the parts of the assumption be such as either had beene before cleared or seemed to neede no proofe For first that the Presbyters ruled the Churches as vnder the Apostles it is manifest That the Episcopall authority consisting specially in the power of Ordination and publicke Iurisdiction was not in them but in the Apostles partly was proued before to wit that Presbyters neuer had it and partly needed no proofe viz. that the Apostles had it And surely little need had Paul to haue sent Timothie to Ephesus and Titus to Creet to exercise the power of Ordination and publicke Iurisdiction in those Churches if the Presbyters had the same before they came But still I desire some euidence whereby the deriuation of this power of Ordination and Iurisdiction from the Apostles to the Presbyters or people may be warranted Thirdly that the Presbyters were the same vnder the Apostles then which they were afterwards vnder the Bishops I take for a certaine truth For if they were the same vnder Timothie and Titus that they were vnder the Apostles then questionlesse they were the same vnder the Bishops who haue no other function nor exercise any other authority then that which Timothie and Titus had and exercised in Ephesus and Creet And these I hope are reasons sufficient to approue the former part of my answere vntill the refuter who is the opponent be able to disproue it The second part of my answere may be concluded thus If after a while namely when the Apostles were to discontinue from the Churches which they had planted the Apostles themselues ordayned BB. then the Presbyters ruling of the Churches by common counsell for a time doth not hinder but that the Episcopall function is of Apostolicall institution But the former is true Therefore the latter The consequence needeth no proofe the assumption I proue by Ieromes owne testimony For if Ierome doe testifie that the Apostles ordayned BB. and withall doe note the time when the place where and the end wherefore then doth he giue plentifull testimony to this truth But Ierome doth testifie that the Apostles ordayned BB. and withall noteth the time when the place where and the end wherfore The time and place he noteth first generally the time when Bishops were ordayned was in the Apostles time the place where in all the world Which two if you ioyne together it will appeare that by Ieromes testimony the function of BB. is of Apostolicall institution For it is vtterly incredible that BB. should be ordayned in all parts of the Christian world in the Apostles times and yet not be of the Apostles ordayning That Ierome helde BB. to be ordayned in the Apostles time I proue out of the place alledged when factions began to spring in the Church saith Ierome some saying I am of Paul I am of Apollo I am of Cephas which was in the Apostles times 1 Cor. 1. and it were fond to imagine that factions did not begin till after their time This argument the Refuter would discredit because Sanders vseth the like and his owne answere he would credit with the name and countenance of certaine learned men which is one of his ordinary shifts to bleare the eyes of the simple who many times respect more who speaketh then what is said But my argument standeth thus When the factions began whereof Ierome speaketh BB. were ordayned as he saith In the Apostles times the factions began whereof Ierome speaketh Therefore in the Apostles times Bishops were ordayned as he saith The effect of the answere which hee bringeth is that Ierome speaking of Schismes which did arise after the Apostles times alludeth to that speech of the Apostle not that hee thought Bishops were ordayned in those times but that hee might shew that schisme was the cause of changing the order of Church-gouernment Which answere might haue some shew of probability if Ierome himselfe did not both in other places which I cite most plainely testifie that Bishops were ordayned in the Apostles times and also in the place alledged expressely speake of those factions which did arise in Corinth and other places in the Apostles times The factions whereof he speaketh did arise from hence that vnusquisque eos quos baptizauerat suos putabat esse non Christi saith Ierome euery one esteemed those whom he had baptized to be his owne and not Christs Now it is apparant that this is the very thing which Paul reproueth in the Corinthians that euery one sayd they were his who had baptized them and therefore thanketh God that he had baptized none of them but Crispus and Gaius and the houshold of Stephanas For by this meanes as Caluin also obserueth the factious and ambitious teachers whom he meant vnder the name of Paul and Apollos sought to draw Disciples after them Yea but Ierome in his Epistle to Evagrius sheweth that in the Apostles times Bishop and Presbyter was all one and that afterwards Bishops were first ordayned as a remedy against schisme To this I haue answered before shewing that Ierome there proueth that the names at the first were confounded and the same men were called Presbyters and Bishops vntill one out of the Presbyters in euery Church was chosen and set aboue the rest and called a Bishop Which Ierome there confesseth to haue bin done euer since St. Markes time and therefore in the time of the Apostles For the first Bishops were not chosen out of the Presbytery of the Churches whereof they were made BB. but were Apostolicall men I meane either Apostles or some of their companions and assistants all which while the Bishops were called Apostles as I shewed out of Theodoret the names Presbyter Episcopus being as yet confounded And whereas he saith that I answered euen now the course of gouernment was not changed at the first when factiâ—â—s began he doth but threapen kindnesse on mee for I said no such thing If therefore Ierome teacheth that Bishops were ordayned when factions began and also that in the Apostles time factions did begin then in Ieromes iudgement Bishops were ordayned in the Apostles times but Ierome teacheth both the one and the other as is manifest by that which hath beene said As touching the Place Ierome saith in toto orbe decretum est it was decreed in the whole world that one being chosen from among the Presbyters should be set ouer the rest to whom the whole care of euery Church should appertaine From whence I reason thus A generall decree in the whole Christian world could not be made in the Apostles times without the
answere For it appeareth that neither the Apostles or Apostolicall men being Bishops were simply bound to vse the councell of the Presbyters but that the vse of them was voluntarie after the example of Moses as Ierome saith and the auncient Bishops of the Primitiue Church who vvere of the best disposition as Cyprian by name did follow their example resoluing to doe nothing of moment without their counsell and aduise seeking therein the good and peace of the Church And this custome was vsed by all godly Bishops vntill as I said the Presbyters aduise and assistance to themselues seeming troublesome and to the B. by reason of the frequent Synodes and Synodall constitutions needlesse grew out of vse whereupon Canons vvere made that their counsell and assistance should be required an had in greater matters which is not misliked but wished to be more vsed And so much may suffice to haue answered an obiection which the refuter doth not acknowledge I proceede therefore to the third which is as it vvere the shoote-anchor of the Disciplinarians which fayling their Discipline vvill suffer shipwracke Presbyters and Bishops were all one therefore Bishops are to know that they be greater then the Presbyters rather by the custome of the Church then by the truth of Diuine disposition To this obiection I returned two answeres the first that where Ierome saith Episcopus and Presbyter is all one it may be vndertooke of the names vvhich hee proueth by many testimonies to be confounded in the vvritings of the Apostles And in this sense it is true that whereas now Episcopus is more then Presbyter it is to be ascribed to the custome of the Church as before I haue noted out of Theodoret And in the same sense Augustine is to be vnderstood vvhen hee saith according to the names of honour in which the vse of the Church hath preuailed Episcopatus Bishopship is a name of greater honour then Presbyterium The refuter comming to examine this answere saith I denyed the Antecedent vvhen as indeed I granting the Antecedent in that sense vvhich I giue in the answere denyed the consequence That although the distinction of the names vvas not by diuine disposition but by the custome of the Church yet that hindreth not but the function may be of Apostolicall institution Seeing they vvhich at the first vvere ordayned by the Apostles to the Episcopal function though they vvere not called Bishops till they were chosen out of the Presbyters yet vvere called sometimes the Apostles sometimes the Angels of the churches So that when the names were confounded the offices were not But the refuter censureth this distinction as an idle conceipt and shift hauing no colour of excuse for it As though it needed excuse vvhen I brought iust defence of it vvhich hee is not able to answere For how shall Ieromes minde be knowne in that assertion that Episcopus and Presbyter was all one but by the proofes vvhich he bringeth for it but all his proofes are that the names vvere confounded in the vvritings of the Apostles and that the same men were called Presbiteri Episcopi and that was all that Ierome could truely inferre out of those places For if hee would haue concluded out of them that the offices vvere confounded his consequences would be very weake The second defence of my answere vvas this that Ierome is to be vnderstood eyther of the names or of the offices But not of the offices therefore of the names If you shall vnderstand Ierome as affirming that the offices were confounded and denying that the office and superioritie of Bishops was of Diuine disposition in that sense that Apostolicall ordinances may be said to be of Diuine Institution you shall make Ierome not onely to striue against the streame of all Antiquitie but also to be contrarie to himselfe but this latter is absurd so is the former To the former reason the refuter answereth not but bringeth a reason or two such as they be to ouerthrow my distinctions seeking as we say clauum clauo pellere Can any man be so sotttish saith he as to imagine that the question betwixt Ierome and those Deacons was about names not offices or would Ierome reason so simply as to proue the dignitie of the Presbyters aboue Deacons because the name of Presbyter and Episcopus was all one it were absurd to spend more time in answering so vnreasonable a distinction You see how bragge our refuter is when hee seemeth to haue gotten neuer so little aduantage To his former question I answere that although the question vvas concerning the office of Presbyters and Deacons vvhether were superiour yet Ierome might and indeede did proue the Presbyters to be superiour because as the Apostles did call themselues Presbyters so Presbyters vvere called Bishops Yea but saith he in the second question Ierome would not reason so simply Whereto I answere that not onely learned men but the holy Ghost also in the Scriptures doth reason to that purpose prouing their dignitie to be greater vvho haue obtained a greater name For as the Philosophers say names are the resemblances and imitations of the things Secondly hee obiecteth the authoritie of diuerse new and I confesse worthy Diuines who thinke that Ierome maketh a Bishop and a Presbyter all one not in name onely but in office also Which is a kinde of arguing frequent with this refuter but seldome or neuer vsed by any writer of worth Against his authorities therefore that Ierome was of that iudgement I feare not to oppose the reasons which I produced and namely the second But saith hee we neede not stand in feare of that glittering flourish whereby wee are charged to make Ierome striue against the streame of all Antiquitie and to be contrarie to himselfe if eyther hee confound the functions or deny it to be an Apostolicall ordinance that Bishops should be set ouer the Presbyters What one testimonie of Antiquitie within the first two hundred yeares eyther hath beene or can be alledged to that purpose of as little force are the allegations which M. D. saith hee hath cited out of Ieromes writings In both which answeres the refuter sheweth himselfe to be very impudent For first that the office or degree of Bishop and Presbyter are distinct haue I not brought forth most plaine and plentiful proofes out of Ignatius Tertullian Origen Cyprian and other auncient writers that Bishops were ordayned by the Apostles haue I not alledged most pregnant testimonies out of Ignatius Irenaeus Tertullian Hegesippus and Clemens cited by Eusebius and can it seeme doubtfull to any that shall reade vvhat is alledged by mee and the refuter in this controuersie which way the streame of Antiquitie runneth And as for Ierome vvhat more plaine testimonies can be desired then those vvhich I brought to proue that in his iudgement Bishops vvere ordayned by the Apostles And that Ierome neuer thought that the office of Bishop and Presbyter was confounded it
A DEFENCE OF THE SERMON Preached at the Consecration of the L. Bishop of Bath and VVelles against a confutation thereof by a namelesse Author Diuided into 4 Bookes The first prouing chiefly that the lay or onely-gouerning Elders haue no warrant either in the Scriptures or other monuments of Antiquity The second shewing that the primitiue Churches indued with power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment were not Parishes properly but Dioceses and consequently that the Angels of the Churches or ancient Bishops were not parishionall but Diocesan Bishops The third defending the superioritie of Bishops aboue other Ministers and prouing that Bishops alwayes had a prioritie not onely in order but also in degree and a maioritie of power both for ordination and iurisdiction The fourth maintayning that the Episcopall function is of Apostolicall and diuine institution By GEORGE DOWNAME Doctor of Diuinitie LONDON Printed by Thomas Creed William Hall and Thomas Snodham 1611. TO THE MOST High and mighty Monarch Iames by the grace of God King of great Britayne France and Ireland defender of the faith c. All true happinesse and prosperitie in this life and eternall felicitie in the life to come THE prudent speech of the politicke Historiographer most gracious and dread Soueraigne is in some sort verified of vs in this Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those which be in the middest are slaine or at the least wise assayled on both sides The Romanists on the one side blaming vs for departing too farre from the Church of Rome our innouatours accusing vs on the other side for comming too neare the same Which contrarie accusations of men being in contrarie extreames are a good euidence for vs that wee hold the meane For neither are wee departed further from the now-Roman church then it hath swarued by Apostasie from the auncient Church of Christ to which in departing from them wee are returned neither haue wee retayned eyther for the substance of Doctrine or for the forme of Discipline any thing almost agreeing with them which with them wee haue not receiued eyther from the doctrine or institution of the Apostles or from the approued practise of the Primitiue Church The which as it is to be acknowledged to the high praise of God and to the singular commendation of your Maiestie so also to the contentation and ioy of all your louing subiects God hauing vouchsafed vnto vs this especiall fauour for which his name is euer to be praised and magnified among vs that there is not a Church vnder the Sunne which both for the substance of Doctrine and forme of Discipline doth come so neare the patterne of the Prime and Apostolicall Churches as these vnder your gracious gouernment Your Maiestie also hauing beene a blessed instrument of God not onely for the retayning of the truely Catholike and Apostolicke doctrine and religion in all your Dominions but also for the establishing of the auncient and Apostolicall gouernment where it was in vse before and likewise for renewing and restoring the same though to your great cost and charges where it was formerly abolished These vnestimable benefits if wee in this land doe not acknowledge and professe our selues to haue receiued from God by your Maiestie wee must confesse our selues to be not onely vnthankefull both to God who is the gracious Authour and to your Highnesse who are the happie meanes of these benefits but also vnworthy to enioy them If we doe according to our bounden duetie acknowledge so much it remayneth that wee should testifie our thankefulnes to GOD Almightie as in respect of his true Doctrine and sound religion continued among vs by walking worthy our calling and by adorning the doctrine of God our Sauiour in all things so also in regard of the Apostolicall forme of gouernment established among vs by a due and respectiue countenancing of it on all hands For howsoeuer a great number in these dayes haue thought so much the better of themselues by how much they haue thought the worse of Bishops yet is it most certaine that the contempt of Bishops is the cause if not of all euill which notwithstanding Chrysostome seemeth to affirme yet of very much euill among vs. This contempt therefore is diligently to be preuented and auoided as by the godly and religious care both of your Highnes in preferring worthy men to this high and sacred function and of the reuerend Bishops in shewing themselues worthy of that honour whereof they would and indeed should be accounted worthy so also by instructing the people to conceiue a right of this holy and honourable calling And for as much as the pernicious schisme and diuision which is among vs proceedeth from an erroneous conceipt eyther that the Presbyterian Discipline is the holy ordinance of Christ or that the gouernment by Bishops is vnlawfull and Antichristian I was perswaded for my part that I could not performe a seruice eyther more acceptable vnto God or more profitable to his Church then to publish those arguments for the satisfaction of others which had perswaded mine owne soule not onely that the Presbyterian Discipline is a meere humane inuention and new deuise hauing no ground eyther in the Scriptures or other monuments of Antiquitie but also that the Episcopall function is of Apostolicall and Diuine institution And whereas my Sermon published in defence of the holy and honourable calling of Bishops hath been eagerly oppugned by a namelesse refuter I thought my selfe bound in conscience to deliuer the truth which I had defended from his sophisticall cauillations The which through Gods good blessing vpon my labours I haue so performed that there is scarce any one sentence of the Sermon if any at all oppugned by the aduersarie which I haue not defended by plaine euidence of truth These my labours I haue presumed to dedicate to your Maiestie as the principall Patrone vnder Christ of that truth which I defend not onely intreating your Highnes to accept in good part my poore endeauours but also commending my selfe and them to your most gracious Patronage and Royall protection The King of Kings blesse prosper and preserue your excellent Maiestie to his glorie the good of his Church and your owne euerlasting comfort Amen Your Maiesties most dutifull and loyall subiect GEORGE DOVVNAME The Contents of this Booke The first booke treateth chiefly of Lay-elders CHap. 1. Answering the Refuters Preamble concerning the Authour and matter of the Sermon and the Text. Chap. 2. Deuiding the Sermon and defending the first part thereof which he calleth the Preface Chap. 3. Defending the two first sections concerning Elders and prouing that there were no Presbyters in the primitiue Church but Ministers Chap. 4. Contayning the first reason why Lay-elders are not proued out of the 1 Tim. 5.17 Chap. 5. Maintayning the second reason Chap. 6. Mayntaining the third reason Chap. 7. That Ambrose on 1 Tim. 5.1 doth not giue testimonie to Lay-elders and that their exposition of Ambrose is vntrue Chap. 8.
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
Alexandria that order was changed Then at the soonest saith the refuter began M. D. superiority of Bishops to creep in c. Which answere if his meaning be as our refuter conceiteth is vnsound For first where he saith the order was changed in Heraclas and Dionysius that is spoken but by ghesse because Ierome nameth them Vpon which coniecture T. C. and H. I. as you haue heard did build their two diuers fancies For Ieromes meaning was not to signifie that the superioritie of Bishops was altered but as I haue shewed that vntill Heraclas and Dionysius who were not Presbyters but Teachers of the schoole in Alexandria the Presbyters euer since S. Marks time did chuse one out of their owne number That which the Refuter addeth is absurd and against Ieromes plaine words Then at the soonest began M. D. superiority of Bishops to creepe in for the superiority I spake of is superiority in degree And Ierome saith that euer from Saint Marke and therefore euen in the Apostles times the BB. had been placed in a higher degree My fift argument is also from the authority of Ierome which yeeldeth a double proofe the former that the superiority of Bishops ouer Presbyters and Presbyters aboue Deacons is an ordinance or tradition apostolicall Secondly that as the high Preist was in degree superiour to the other Preists and they to the Leuits so by an apostolicall ordinance the Bishop is superiour to the Presbyters and the Presbyters to the Deacons That wee may know saith he the apostolicall traditions are taken out of the old testament looke what Aaron and his sonnes and the Leuits were in the Temple the same let the Bishops Preists and Deacons challenge in the Church To this testimony containing two impregnable proofs for the superiority of BB. not onely de facto but also de iure the refuter thought it his wisest course to say nothing To these arguments this may be added That as the new ordination of a Deacon when he was made a Presbyter doth proue that he was aduanced to a higher degree of the ministery euen so when a Presbyter was chosen to be Bishop he was by a new ordination promoâ—ed to the Bishopricke as to a higher degree The two first canons among those which are called the Apostles appoint that a Bishop should be ordained of two or three Bishops but let a Presbyter say they be ordayned of one Bishop and likewise a Deacon and the rest of the clergy Valeriuâ— the Bishop dealth with the Primate the Bishop of Carthage by letters intreating him that Augustine who then was Presbyter might be ordained Bishop of Hippo which being obtained Augustine tooke vpon him the care of the Bishopricke maioris loci 〈…〉 and ordination of a greater place The councell of Sardica taketh order that before a man may be a Bishop he must first performe the ministery of a Reader then of a Deacon then of a Presbyter that so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by euery degree if hee be worthy he may arise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnto the height of the Bishopricke Theadoret testifieth that Iohn Chrysostome hauing been the chiefe of the Presbyters at Antioch a long time oft times might haue been chosen to the Bishopricke which he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apostolicall presidency but alwaies did flie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that principality So that though he were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the chiefe of the Presbyters yet he was no Bishop neither durst he for a long time take vpon him that degree of principality So much of the superiority of Bishops in generall CHAP. III. Shewing wherin the superiority of Bishops did and doth consist and first of the singularity of preeminence Serm. sect 3. page 32. But let vs consider more particularly wherein the superioritie of Bishops did and doth consist c. ad lin a fine 6 THe superiority of Bishops ouer other Ministers I place in three things singularity of preeminence during life the power of ordination and the power of iurisdiction all which I ground on Tit. 1.5 But where I say during life hee saith This addition needed not seeing it is grounded vpon an erroneous conceit of mine owne whereby I charge them as holding the contrary Secondly that it is not proued out of the place alleaged In the former hee sheweth how audacious he is seeing Beza the chiefe patron of the pretended discipline holdeth that the Presidents of the Presbyteries which afterwards as he saith were called Bishoppes ought to be but for a short time and that by course and esteemeth them which had a perpetuall presidenship to be Bishops humane as I haue shewed before The practise also of those Churches where the discipline is vsed doth prooue what their Founders thought was agreeable to Gods word This their conceit is euidently confuted by the Epistles to Titus and to Timothy For seeing they doe confesse that they were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Churches of Creet and Ephesus it is euident that they continued in this Presidentshippe whiles they liued there For it is absurd to imagine that Titus was sent to Creet and Timothy to Ephesus to be presidents there in their turnes and when their turnes were ended to be subiected to other of the Presbyters there in their course But these things the refuter doth but cauill at by the way For he granteth that Titus had this superioritie which we speake of his maine answer is that Titus was not a Bishop Which afterwards J proue in the Sermon by the common consent of the antient and most approoued Writers of the Church with whose affirmation in a matter of fact if this Refuters deniall shall be weighed in the ballance of an vnpartiall iudgement it will be found as light as vanitie it selfe But of this question more hereafter In the meane time J will but desire the Reader to take this for granted because it cannot be denied that if Titus was Bishop of Creet then Bishops had this threefold superioritie which I speake of Where I commend this order of Church gouernement consisting in the superiority of Bishoppes and inferioritie of other Ministers this graue and learned Refuter maketh a scorne at it saying It is a toy to please children and a gay Epiphonema wanting a note of exclamation he would haue said acclamation to grace it The which argueth his spite against the gouernment of Bishoppes rather then his might being neither able to endure the iust commendation of episcopall gouernment nor yet to confute it For what hath he but trifles and toies to obiect against it For where hee saith I begge the question supposing ech Church to be a diocesse the conscience of the Reader I hope also of the Refuter will testifie that what I suppose in this behalfe hath beene before sufficiently prooued Besides those with whom I principally contend in this point doe confesse the Churches indued with power of
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
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
cleane spoileth his conceipt For can any man of indifferency thinke that Ierome being an elegant writer if he had meant that the aduerbe statim should haue waited on the verbe meminit would haue disposed it thus cuius Ioannes meminit filius post passionem Domini statim ab Apostolis Hierosolymorum Episcopus ordinatus But now weigh the refuters iudgement Suppose that this place were read as Iunius would haue it and that Iames were not so presently made Bishop of Ierusalem after Christs passion as Ieromes words seeme to import but that after the Apostles he tooke the gouernment of the Church of Ierusalem as Ierome citeth out of Hegesippus what is all this but the same that my selfe set downe in the Sermon both in this place also pag. 68. in these words the Apostles first ioyntly ruled the Church at Ierusalem but being to goe into all the world and no longer to be accounted members of that particular Church ordained Iames to be Bishop And that charge which before they had in common they now comitted to him in particular And this is that which Ierome citeth out of Hegesippus who saith Iames the brother of our Lord surnamed Iustus receiued or vndertooke the Church of Ierusalem after the Apostles And if the refuter will needs expound after the Apostles to signifie after their departing from Ierusalem I must intreat him to take with him the words both of Eusebius who sometimes saith the throne of that Bishopricke was committed to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Apostles therefore before their dispersion sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Apostles therefore whiles they were present and also of Ierome who plainely saith that he was ordained Bishop of Ierusalem by the Apostles but chiefly that he will remember that the words straight wayes after the passion of our Lord are to be ioyned with the other words ordayned by the Apostles then will he acknowledge himselfe satisfied for this point § 4. Secondly I answered in respect of other Churches that which Ierome saith neither proueth that the office of Bishops and Presbyters were confounded neither doth it hinder but that the distinct office of Bishops is of Apostolicall institution Both the parts of this answere I explaned and confirmed The former thus it is true that for a time the Presbyters by common counsell gouerned the Churches but as vnder the Apostles who kept in their own hands the Episcopall authority they I meane the Presbyters hauing neither the right of ordination nor the power of outward or publike iurisdiction This therefore doth not proue that the offices of BB. Presbyters wer confounded The name of B. was confounded with Presbyter but the office and authority of the B. was as yet in the Apostles the Presbyters being such then vnder the Apostles as they were afterwards vnder the Bishops The latter thus but when the Apostles were to discontinue from those Churches which they had planted then were BB. substituted Whereunto the factious behauiour of the Presbyters whereof Ierome speaketh might be some inducement For parity indeed breedeth faction and confusion for the auoyding whereof when the Apostles should be absent BB. were instituted but when and where and by whom and to what end let Ierome himselfe testifie The summe is that although for a time the Churches were gouerned by the common counsell of Presbyters yet this doth not hinder but that the Episcopall function is of diuine institution For after a while the Apostles ordayned BB. as Ierome himselfe doth most plainely and fully testifie shewing the places where and the persons whom and the time when and the end wherefore they ordaynd them Now let vs see what the Refuter can reply against this answer Forsooth as if he knew or regarded no lawes of disputation he thrusts himselfe into the answerers place and maketh me the opponent casting my answer into a Syllogisme and bids me proue euery part and parcell of it or else all that I say is to little purpose himselfe in the meane while who should follow the argument which I answered and take away my answer goeth about to proue nothing but himselfe to be a shifting Sophister I thinke it was neuer heard in disputation that the opponent hauing receiued the answere and reciting the summe thereof saying sic respondes would cast it into a Syllogisme and then bid the answerer proue the parts thereof But such a disputer am I matched with And how I pray you doth he reduce my answere into a Syllogisme that vvhich I brought to cleare the former part of my answer is made the argument to proue both the parts in a filthy long Syllogisme and that vvhich I added to proue the latter part he mentioneth as straggling speches brought in to no purpose This is his analysing which whether it be done of vnskilfulnes or wilfulnes I refer it to his owne conscience I cannot iudge therof because I know not the man But if my answere must needes be reduced into Syllogismes I would intreat that the parts thereof may seuerally be concluded as they were by me seuerally explicated and then that the first Syllogisme may be this If whiles the Churches were gouerned by the common counsell of Presbyters the Presbyters did gouerne the same as vnder the Apostles the Episcopall office and authority being not in them but in the Apostles the Presbyters being such then vnder the Apostles as they were afterwards vnder the Bishops then their gouerning of the Church by common counsell doth not proue that the office of a B. and a Presbyter was confounded But the antecedent is true in all the parts thereof Therefore the consequent The consequence I did illustrate by this distinction the name of Bishop was confounded with Presbyter but the office was not for that was not in the Presbyters but in the Apostles The consequence when it was worse for the addition of the second part the Refuter granted yet he thought good to gather out of it this worthy obseruation that if there was a time before there were Bishops When the Presbyters gouerned the Churches as vnder the Apostles then all that while there were no Diocesan Bishops the Refuter speaketh sentences and so no distinction betweene a Bishop and a Presbyter in office This and so could not well be gathered out of the proposition being repugnant vnto it for if there were no distinction betweene the office of a Bishop and a Presbyter then were the offices confounded Suppose the common-wealth of Iewry being a Prouince vnder the Emperour of Rome had beene gouerned by the Synedrion or common counsell of the Seniors for a time vntill the Emperour had placed a soueraigne King ouer them as hee did Herod it might be said that for a time that common-wealth was gouerned by the common counsell of their Elders but as vnder the Emperour who kept the regall authority in his owne hands Hereof it might not be infered that the office of
in 2 Tim. 4. m Hier. in Catalog n Chrysost. in Phil. 1. o 1 Tim. 4.14 p Prefat in Epi. 1 ad Tim. q in Ephes. 4. r â—ares 75. s Prefaâ— in 1 Tim. t in 2 Tim. 1. v in 1 Tim. 3. vv prefat in Tit. x Praesat in 1 Tim. y In 1 Tim. 1. z In 2 Tim. 1.6 a Pastor cur part 2. c. 11. b De vita morte sanctorum 87. 88. c Apud Antonin part 1. tit 6. c. 28. § 6. Vincent specul l. 10. c. 38. d Theophyl in Eph. 4. e Praefat. in 1 Tim. f Prolog in Tit. g Oecum in 1 Tim. 1. h In Tit. 1. i In Eph. 4. k Lib. 2. c. 34. l Caluâ— in Epist. ad Tim. 1. m Centur. 1. l. 2. c. 10. in Ioan. Euang. n in Tit. 1.5 o in 1 Tim. 5.19 § 19. His answere to these testimonies p T.C. l. 2. part 1.3.14 q Ad Trall r in Phil. 1.1 s Ad Trallian t In 1 Tim. 3. â— Timotheum Presbyterum ordinatum significat v In Eph. 4. § 20. Examples of other BB. made by the Apostles a Euseb. Chron. ann 4 5. hist. l. 3. c. 22. b Ad Antioch c Iren. l. 3. c 3. d Euseb. l. 5. c. 6. l. 3. c. 4. et c. 13. 22. e Niceph. l. 14. c. 39. Greg. l. 6. Epist. 37. Euseb. lib. 2. c. 24. Hier proaem in Matt. in Catal. in Marco ad Euagr. Dor. in synops Euseb. Chron. an 65. 86. 99. f Euseb. hist. l. 4. c. 22. Chron. an 63. g Iren. l. 3. c. 3. Eus. l. 3. c. 35. l. 4. c. 14. Tertull. de praescript Hier. in Catal. h Eus. l. 3. c. 23. i Iren. l. 4. c. 63. l. 3. c. 3. l. 5. Tertull. de praescripâ— k Cypr. l. 4. Epi. 9 l Hier. ad Euagr. m ad Marell de error Monta. n li. 4. c. 18. o Epist. 55. ad Ambros. p Ire 3. c. 3. q August Hier. in Psa. 44. Ad Nepotian de â— ordin Eccles. § 2. The first allegation Hier. in Tit. 1. Ad pag. 148. Catalog in Iacobo § 3. Ieromes speech vntrue in respect of Ierusalem Catalog in Iaco. Contr. Bellarm. controu 5. l. 1. c. 15. § 18. Lib. 2. c. 23. Ibid. Eusebius in his Chronicle noteth Iames to haue beene made B of Ierusalem in the same yeere wherin Christ was crucified that is according to his computation Anno 33. In respect of other Churches Ieromes testimonie doth not proue that for which it is alledged 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist. Ad pag. 149. § 5. The Presbyters gouerning the Church by common counsell doth not proue that the office of Presbyters and BB. is confounded § 6. The Presbyters ruling the Church by coÌ„mon counsell for a time doth not hinder but that the Episcopall function is of Apostolicall institution The time in generall when BB. were first ordayned according to Ierome Ad pag. 150. a 1 Cor 1.14.16 b in 1 Cor. 4.14 c 1 Cor. 4.6 § 7. The place in generall where BB. were ordayned according to Ierome In Tit. 1. Ad pag. 151. e Ad Euagr. § 8. Ierome testifieth in particular whom where when wherfore the Apostles ordayned Bishops f Catal. in Iacobo g Catal. in Simone h Catal. in Ign. i Proaem in Mat. k Catal. in Marco l Catal. in Clem. m Catal. in Polycarp n Catal. in Timoth Tit. § 9. The end of ordayning BB. according to Ierome Aduers Lucifer In excelfjiori gradu ad Euagr. § 10. That the superioritie of BB. did not breed the Papacy Calu. Iust. l. 4. c. 4. § 4. Bez. Confes. c. 5. § 29. Zanch. de relig obseru in cap. 25. Con. Nic. c. 6. § 11. Ieromes inference vrged § 12. Ad pag. 152. The chiefe obiection that BB. are greater then Presbyters by the custome of the church not by Diuine ordinance n Phil. 1.1 Acts 20.17.28 Tit. 1.5.7 1 Pet. 5. o Epist. 19. ad Hier. § 13. The refuters reply that Ierome is not to be vnderstood as speaking of the names q Heb. 1. r Plat. Arist. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 s Hier. in Phil. 1. t Hier. in 1 Tim. 3 The second answere u Ad Euagr. Ad pag 153. vv Hier. ad Euagr. August quaest ex vet nou test 101. In vvhat sence I hold this assertion that the Episcopall function is of diuine institution Lib. 1. Epist. 3. Acts 15. Acts 20.28 § 2. That the BB. were ordained of God Ad pag. 154. a 1 Tim. 4.14 b Chrysost. hom 4. Grac. 5. latin in 1 Tim. 1. c Theodoret. d Theophil e Oecum in 1 Tit. 4. f Calu. in 1 Tim. 4. g 2 Tim. 4.5 h in Col. 4.17 sect 3. The Bishops of the seauen Churches had diuine institution Ad pag. 155. 156. i Apoc. 12.1 Ad pag. 157. Ob. 1. The Episcopall gouernment so held to be of diuine institution as notwithstanding where it may not be had another forme of gouernment may be admitted § 2. Contradiction falsly obiected Ad pag. 158. § 3. Whether more reformed Churches are gouerned by the Episcopall or by the Presbyterian discipline Suru pag. 362. § 4. Ob. 2. The first and principall Protestants did not disallowe the Episcopall function Ad pag. 159. § 5. Suruey pag. 110 111.112 c. a Histor. confess August per Chytr p. 109. b Apol. Confess August per Pap. pag 137. c Ibid. pag. 305. d Melanct. to Camerar in histor Confess August per Chytr p. 389. e Concion Georg. Princ. Anhalt fol. 6. f Calu. to Sadol g Artic. protest cap. de vnit Ecclesiae h Resp. protest i De Reform aduers Eccles. p. 95. k De vi vsis ministr p. 565. l De Regno Christi pag. 67. m De cura curat p. 251. n Loc. comm de Ecclesia p. 699. § 6. Iohn Wickliffe q As in that which the Refuter calleth the twelfth article and Pighius his question r Thom. Iames his Apologie for Wickliffe prouing his conformity with the now Church of England Epist. dedic cap. 8. s. 21. s In Phil. 1.1 Ordo sacerdotalis non suscipit magis mâ—nus Ad pag. 160. Bal. Centur. 6.1 § 7 Iohn Hus. u The words are dicit illam significationem extortam à scholaribus vv The refuter putteth in Priests x Hus. de Eccl. c. 7. y De Eccles. c. 10 15. z Ex Bed in Luc. 10. Ierome of Prage a Act. Mon. in the history of Ierome of Prage § 9. M. Luther c Supr §. 5. Ad pag. 161. d Camerar in vita Phil. Melancth Zuinglius e Ecclesiast Oecolampadius Ph. Melancthon Ad pag. 162. f Hist. August Confess pag. 306. g Ibid. pag. 304. h In vita Philippi Melancth Tindall i Pag. 251. k Pag. 133. 135. § 10. In precept 8. Ad pag. 164. n In Apoc. 17.3 o Act. Mon. pag. 20. edit 1570. § 11. Histor. August confes per Chytr Non agitur vt dominatio eripiatur Episcopis sâ—d hoc vnumpetitur vt patiantur Euangelium purè â—oceri See the confession of the church of Sueueland Harm confes s. 11. Ad pag. 165. Conc. Afric c. 22. Carth. Grac. â—55 § 12. De relig obseru in cap. 25. § 10. 11. Hist. August Confes. per Chytr Loc. com pag. 699. Suru 118. De repub l 2. c. 6. Anno. 1523. § 12. Ad pag. 166.
to shew that the dioceses or circuits of Churches were vsually lessened but that they were any wheres inlarged he will hardly shew Therefore looke what the circuits of the Churches or Bishops charges were in Eusebius or Epiphanius his time the same at the least they were in the first two hundred yeeres And whereas I alleage one of the antient canons called the Apostles nor that I thinke they were of the Apostles owne penning but that for their antientnesse and authority they are so called and by all sorts of writers so alleaged he chargeth me with seeking to bleare mens eyes with the name of the Apostles Canons In that I said they were so called it doth sufficienttly both here and where after I cite them shew my meaning But let vs heare what he can say against them for my mind giueth me he will leaue them in better credit then hee found them If wee were so simple saith he as to take them for their doing yet should not a man of his profession so abuse our simplicity He knoweth there was a time when Rome her selfe saw too much in them to acknowledge them for the Apostles See Gratians decree dist 15. c. sancta Romana dist 16. cap. canones In both places it is said that they are apohryphall as we call the bookes of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdome not because they are either false or counterfet but because they are not acknowledged to be of the Apostles owne writing for if they were they ought to be esteemed of canonicall authority like the other scriptures Notwithstanding they are ecclesiasticall canons which for their great antiquity and authentike authority are commonly called Apostolicall receiued of antient Fathers and approoued by Councels And although some of them may be suspected as foisted in or depraued by heretikes yet those which are specially cited by Fathers and Councels as authentike are without exception being of as great credit as any other ecclesiasticall writings whatsoeuer Such is the canon wee speake of the words whereof which I cited being verbatim recited in the Councell of Antioch I will not discusse this controuersie wherein much may be said on both sides Only this J will say that as Damascen exceeded the truth in reckoning them with the canonicall scriptures so some learned and iudicious men haue been much ouerseene in too much censuring of them as first that they are condemned in the canon law when indeed the very scope of the 16. distinction is to authorize them and to acknowledge them though not as canonicall scriptures yet as authenticall canons Secondly that Isidor condemneth them Whereas indeed the words of Isidor in the true copy are these That by reason of their authority we prefixe before the other councels the canons called the Apostles although of some they are called apocryphal because the greater part receiue them and the holy fathers haue by synodall authority ratified them and placed them among canonicall constitutions Thirdly that they are condemned by the Councell in Trullo when as indeed that Councell reiecting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the constitutions of Clement which also were called Apostolicall because they were depraued by heretikes authorized the canons decreeing that the 85. canons shall remaine firme and sure which of their holy and blessed fore-fathers were receiued and confirmed and deliuered vnto them in the name of the holy and glorious Apostles And whereas some thinke that Epiphanius is the first that mentioneth them I finde it to bee otherwise For diuers of them are cited before his time being sometimes called absolutely the canons sometimes the ecclesiasticall canons sometimes the antient receiued canons of our Fathers sometimes Apostolicall canons as I haue partly noted before Neither is the authority of the generall Councell held at Ephesus though after Epiphanius his time to be neglected which calleth them the canons of the holy Apostles So much of those canons and also of this section which though it doe most directly and necessarily conclude that Bishops were set ouer dioceses yet he calleth it a needlesse discourse which because he knew not how to answere he taketh leaue to passe by it Serm. sect 5. pag. 26. These three points whereof hitherto I haue intreated are of such euident c. to page 28. line 6. In this section I conclude the three first points with the testimony of Caluin whom I produce not as this sophister cauilleth as a captiue by way of triumph but as one that taketh part with vs against our new sect of Disciplinarians especially in the second and third point which their dissenting from Caluin Beza and other learned Authors of discipline he alwaies cunningly dissembleth And that his authority may be of more weight as I confesse him to haue bin a worthy seruant of Christ whose memory with me is blessed so I professe him to haue bin the first or chiefe founder of the Presbyterian or Geneuian discipline in setting vp whereof the Bishopricke being dissolued and the common weale reduced to a popular State I acknowledge him to haue dealt very wisely his proiect of discipline being the best that that Citie did seeme at that time capable of there being no hope that either a Bishop or a Presbytery consisting wholly of Ministers would be admitted But he cannot indure to heare that Caluin should bee esteemed the first founder of this discipline For coÌ„futation whereof he telleth vs what we haue heard an hundred times but neuer shall see proued that this discipline was both practised in the Apostles times and primitiue Church and hath testimony from many learned men Ignatius Tertullian Cyprian Ambrose c. Wickliffe the Waldenses Luther and diuers others hereafter to be named that liued before Caluin writ hee should haue said that writ before Caluin liued and then not one word of all this goodly speech had been true which as I haue manifested already in respect of Ignatius Tertullian Cyprian Ambrose Luther so farre as they haue been alleaged so shall I in respect of Wickliffe and the Waldenses whoneuer once dreamed of their lay presbyteries and much lesse of their new-found parish discipline Neither can he abide that Caluin should be said to agree with vs in these three points but he must abide it for truth will preuaile But that were exceeding strange saith hee that he should ouerthrow that discipline which he was so carefull to establish Let him not abuse the Reader his agreeing with vs in the second and third point ouerthroweth the new-found parish discipline but agreeth with the doctrine of the learned Reformers and with the practise of Geneua vnderstanding by B. as they doe the President of their Presbytery their Church being a diocesse consisting of many parishes ouer which one Presbytery only is appointed Of which Presbytery if the President were perpetuall â—as he was in Caluins time and as alwaies he was in the primitiue Church there being not one instance to be giuen to the