a Catholike Apostasie from Christ. So that this pretended remedie against Schisme causing a Catholike apostasy is as much or more to be auoided then Schisme it selfe the remedie being far worse then the feared maladie Serm. sect 6. pag. 37. This power is twofold the power of ordination and of iurisdiction c. 19. lines to Titus in Creet Where I place the power wherein Bishops are superior to Presbyters in these two things the Reader is to vnderstand that I mention the principall and most essentiall for otherwise ancient writers mention other prerogatiues of Bishops wherein their superioritie doth consist as by imposition of hands to confirme them that are baptized and publickely to reconcile the penitents to consecrate Churches c. of some whereof Ierome indeed saith they did belong ad honorem potius Sacerdotij quà m ad legis necessitatem rather to the honor of the Priesthood then to the necessitie of law But what saith the Refuter Now at the last yet saith he it seemeth that hee hath been long delaied or that he hath greatly longed in hope to do great matters to deale in this matter of ordination let vs see how it is proued that Bishops must haue sole power of ordination But where good sir do I say they must haue the sole power of ordination which you haue so oft objected and now againe do repeat make you no conscience of publishing vntruthes cannot BB. be superior to other ministers in the power of ordination and jurisdiction which is the thing which I maintaine vnlesse they haue the sole power or do I heere dispute what Bishops must haue when I onely shew what the ancient Bishops were wont to haue If he shall say that vnlesse they had the sole power of ordination they had not the superioritie which our Bishops haue I answer that our BB. haue no more the sole power of ordination then the ancient Bishops had And this I added in the Sermon that although the power of ordination was held in the primitiue Church to be so peculiar to Bishops as that ordinarilie and regularlie the ordination was not thought lawfull which was not done by a Bishop yet it doth not follow but that extraordinarily and in case of necessitie Presbyters might ordaine Howbeit I must confesse I am not able to alleage any approued examples thereof If the Refuter can which I do more then doubt of he shall do well to produce them it may tend to the credit of some other Churches it cannot be preiudiciall to the cause which I maintaine Seeing therefore the Refuter doth alter the state of the question making me to proue that which I did not intend because he could not answeare that which was propounded I should neither wrong him nor the Reader If I vouchsafed him no further answeare in this point But in very truth he is so far from refuting the superioritie of Bishops in the power of ordination which J propounded that he is not able to disproue their sole power which himselfe hath foisted into the question For as touching my first argument whereas he frameth for me this consequence It hath been the receiued opinion in the Church of God euer since the Apostles times that the right of ordination of Presbyters is such a peculiar prerogatiue of Bishops as that ordinarilie and regularlie there could be no ordination but by a Bishop therefore BB. haue sole authoritie of ordination he should haue said therefore they are superiour to other ministers in the power of ordination he passeth by this consequence though he would faine perswade his Reader that it is lyable to he cannot tell what just exception and only insisteth on the antecedent which is the assumption of his prolixe syllogisme But it is worth the hearing how he doth disproue it Forsooth It halteth downe right hauing no strength but from a false supposition and so proued to be that there were alwaies Diocesan Bishops Here the Refuter if he would haue said any thing to satisfie his Reader should haue produced some approued example of ordination either in the Apostles times or since performed by Presbyters without a Bishop whereby he might haue disproued my assertion but not being able so to doe he betaketh himselfe to his ordinarie trade of answearing by meere cauillations He talketh of a supposition whereon the assumption is grounded when as the speech is simple and categoricall as they speake and not hypotheticall and the effect of his answeare is not the deniall of a supposition but the taking away of the subiect of the question as if he should say Bishops were not therefore they had not this power For where he addeth Diocesan that is spoken vnseasonably for the question now is not what their authoritie was extensiuè whether to a Diocese or not which in this point is not materiall but what it was intensiuè in respect of other ministers By that starting hole therefore he cannot escape especially if it be added that the supposition is not as he vntruely saith false for that errour he will as I hope recant when he shall haue read what I haue alledged for the proofe of Dioceses and Diocesan Bishops And whereas he saith he hath proued it to be false that also is vntrue for he neuer went about it Nec ausus est nec potuit onely he rejected it in a glorious maner as being so manifestly false that he should not need to disproue it But suppose for a little while that the refuters and the rest of the challengers conceit were true that there were no Bishops but parishionall and that the Presbyters joyned to them were lay elders it would then be knowne when the pastorall charge was voide who did ordaine the new Bishop or Pastor You will say that is alreadie defined It is one of the maine positions which the great challengers haue offred to prooue that euery parish hath within it selfe authoritie to elect ordaine depose and depriue their Minister Not that the whole parish doth ordaine but onely the Presbyterie Very good this then is the effect of the new Disciplinarians conceit that the power of ordination belongeth ordinarily neither to Bishops nor to other ministers but to their Presbyterie consisting of lay elders But if they can proue by any one approued example that lay elders had euer or at any time right to ordaine or to impose hands I will yeeld in the whole cause My second proofe he hath peruerted proportioning it to his owne strength for he should haue framed it thus If the power of ordination were not in the Presbyters of Ephesus and Creet neither before Timothe and Titus were sent but in the Apostles nor after but in the Bishops that is to say in Timothe and Titus and their successors then the power of ordination is a prerogatiue peculiar to Bishops wherein they are superior to other ministers But both the parts of the antecedent are true therefore the consequent The former part of the
that hee doubteth not to say that the grace which was giuen by the imposition of hands of the Presbytery was giuen by the imposition of his hands Which sheweth that if any Presbyters did ioyne with Paul it was no otherwise then as they vse to doe with BB. by the Canon of the fourth Councell of Carthage and by the discipline and order of our Church And this answereth the first thing which the Refuter inferreth vpon this exposition that if Presbytery signifie a companie of seniors as it must for J tell you his word must stand for law then it will follow that the power of ordination was not in one mans hand alone For though that alone bee of his owne adding yet it is plaine that Paul and antient BB. had this power as much alone as our Bishoppes Where I say this place maketh nothing either for their parish Presbyteries or lay Presbyteries whatsoeuer hee saith It skilleth not now what Presbytery this was Belike then it skilleth not what becommeth of the maine pillar of your Discipline so you can make any poore shift to maintaine the point which presently is in hand But if this be the onely place of scripture which mentioneth a Christian Presbytery on which also the Disciplinarians do principally build the authority of their pretended Presbyteries it maketh not a little me thinks for the iustifying of our cause that it maketh not at all for their Presbyteries which by the confession of Caluin haue no right to impose hands Neither can it bee denied but that it is sacrilegious vsurpation and horrible intrusion vpon the right of the Ministery if lay men shalt take vpon them to ordaine by imposition of hands Besides it skilleth something that the Greeke Fathers vnderstand by Presbytery a company of Bishops which as it proueth the Prerogatiue of BB. in the ordaining of BB. so doth it not impeach their superioritie in ordaining Ministers And where hee maketh 〈◊〉 say they were no Presbyters hee mistaketh the matter vnlesse hee vnderstand meere or onely-Presbyters For BB and Apostolicall men yea the Apostles themselues were Presbyters and so call themselues but they were not bare or onely-Presbyters as those bee which are not Bishops But if they were not Presbyters saith he then was the Apostle to blame to call them so If the word bee vnderstood collectiuè hee calleth the company of them which imposed hands on Timothy the Presbytery And forasmuch as not onely inferior Ministers but Bishops and Apostles are called Presbyters it being a common name to all Ministers of the word and sacraments it should not seeme strange that a company or senate of Bishops or Apostolicall men should be called a Presbytery Now that they were not meere Presbyters the Fathers proue Because Presbyters might not ordaine a Bishop neque enim fas erat saith Ambrose nec licebat vt inferior ordinaret maiorem Neither was Timothy any saith he Bluntly and peremptorilie spoken But the Fathers that before I mentioned take it for granted and it is the generall consent of all the antient Fathers as wee shall heare the authoritie of some one whereof in a matter of fact ought to ouerweigh the whole nation of Disciplinarians contradicting the same In fine distrusting this burrough hee flieth to his old starting hole out of which hee hath beene so often ferretted that the Fathers spake onely of their owne times which is nothing to the ordaining of Ministers in the Apostles times almost foure hundred yeeres before them The absurdity of which euasion the Reader may easily discerne if hee will but call to minde what were the Greeke Fathers wordes before cited and vpon what occasion they were vttered Hee speaketh here saith Chrysostome and Occumenius not of Presbyters but of Bishoppes For Presbyters did not ordaine Bishoppes Is it not most plaine that they speake of the Apostles time And were it not absurd to vnderstand them thus Paul by the Presbytery which ordained Timothy vnderstandeth Bishoppes and not Presbyters because howsoeuer in those times Presbyters might ordaine yet in our times they cannot But let me aske the Refuter this question Seeing it is agreed vpon by all that Paul here speaketh of Timothy his ordination to what function hee thinketh he was ordained If to be a Presbyter or Pastor as Caluin saith or to be a Bishoppe as all the Fathers acknowledge then was hee not onely ordained to an ordinary function in the Church but also assigned to a particular Church whereof hee was made Pastor as Caluin speaketh or Bishoppe as the Fathers affirme But that his last ordination whereof the Apostle speaketh was not to the degree of a Presbyter but of a Bishoppe appeareth by the whole Epistle wherein his singularity of preeminence ouer Presbyters and superiority in power both for ordination and iurisdiction is presupposed If he say that he was ordained to be an Euangelist to omit the singularity the nouelty of the conceit it would be knowne what Presbytery this was that imposed hands on Timothy Had the Presbytery of any parish such as our Disciplinarians dreame of consisting for the most part of laymen or the Presbytery of any particular Church though consisting wholly of Ministers authority by imposition of hands to ordaine an extraordinary function and that to be exercised in other parts of the world where themselues had nothing to doe Serm. sect 8. page 39. Yea but the Councell of Carthage say they committeth authority of imposing hands to Presbyters c. to the end of page 44 Here the Refuter meaning to make short worke hauing little to say hath made a long section which he might better haue diuided into three For three diuers things are heere performed The first an answere to the obiection our of the fourth Councell of Carthage The second a new supply of proofes for the superiority of BB. in the power of ordination Thirdly a preuention of popish cauils in fauor of some reformed Churches where the Presbyterian discipline is established As touching the first the Refuter saith that canon may serue to shew that the Fathers of this Councell thought it not fit no not to leaue ordination to the Bishop alone But because he perceiueth by that which I answered that that Canon though greatly vrged by the Disciplinarians maketh nothing against the superiority of BB. in ordaining and that it agreeth with the discipline of our Church and consequently conuicteth him of vntrue dealing seeing he â—udgeth that BB. by that canon haue not sole authority of ordaining and yet will make his Reader beleeue that I defend their sole power of ordaining which by the discipline of our Church is no more sole in our BB. then it was by that canon in the BB. of Africke for thesâ— causes I say he refuseth to vrge this canon though hee pretend hee will neither trouble the Reader nor himselfe about the examining of it because forsooth it commeth not neere the time in
Refuter out of 2 Tim. 4.9 11.12.21 c. and therevpon inferre they were not Bishops But neither are all his proofes good neither is his inference sound He would proue that Timothy was not at Ephesus when the second Epistle was written to him For first thither the Apostle sent Tychicus As if he had said whether Paul sent Tychicus there Timothie was not Belike there was some such Antipathy betweene them that one place could-not hold them both Secondly because from the place where he was Paul requireth him to come to him to Rome with him to bring the cloake the books parchments which he left at Troas As though Timothie might not as well come from Ephesus to Rome as from some other place and as though his bidding him to bring the things left at Troas did not argue that he was at Ephesus which is in the same peninsula rather then else where But that he was at Ephesus may be gathered hereby because the Apostle willeth him to salute Aquila and Priscilla whom he left at Ephesus Act. 18.19 the houshold of Onesiphorus which also was there 2 Tim. 4.19 with 1.16 Sedulius vnderstandeth Paul bidding Timothie 2 Tim. 4.9 to come to him quickly as requiring him to come from Ephesus to Rome Now heare his inferences Titus was sent from Candy to Rome and from thence he was dispatched into Dalmatia therfore he was not B. of Candy Timothie was not at Ephesus when the second Epistle was written to him therefore hee was not B. there c. He stayed with Paul some time in Rome therefore he was not B. of Ephesus These are goodly inferences to oppose to the euidence gathered out of the Epistles and to the generall consent of antiquity which testifieth that they were Bishops Whereas therefore he asketh who dare be so bold or vnreasonable as to imagine that Paul had made them Bishops I say it is intollerable boldnesse and arrogancie to auouch the contrarie And such is that presumptuous speech that if Timothie and Titus had beene Bishops it had beene a matter neither of good report for them nor of good example for the ages following that they should be called to other places For so long as ordinarily they were resident their absence at some times vpon vrgent and weighty occasions was neither of ill report nor bad example Besides when the Apostle sent Tychicus to Ephesus and sent for Timothie from Ephesus he sent the one to supply the absence of the other as Caluin also hath obserued Serm. Sect. 9 pag. 78. The other thing which they obiect is that they were Euangelists but that doth not hinder c. to the midst of page 81. The second obiection saith the Refuter lyeth thus Timothie and Titus were Euangelists Therfore they were not Diocesan BB. of Ephesus and Creet This consequence I denied because their being Euangelists did not hinder but that when they were assigned to certaine Churches and furnished with Episcopall power they became Bishops Against which answere the Refuter obiecteth two things First that their being Euangelists did hinder their assigning to certaine Churches without which they could not be Bishops And this hee proueth by two reasons For first if the Apostle had assigned them to certaine Churches then should he haue confounded the offices which as himselfe saith 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 God had distinguished Secondly hee should haue depriued Timothie and Titus of a higher calling and thrust them as it were out of the Hall into the Kitchin These are nice points which none of the Fathers did euer vnderstand neither did they conceiue but that Euangelists might without any disparagement to them be assigned to seuerall Churches and so become Bishops For if they held that the Apostles themselues being assigned to certaine Churches as Iames was to Ierusalem were BB. much more Euangelists But for as much as the whole force of this argument dependeth vpon the Euangelisticall function which Timothie and Titus are supposed to haue had we will briefly consider what that Euangelisticall function was and whether it could hinder them from being Bishops An Euangelist therefore was he which taught the Euangell or Gospell of Christ whether by preaching or also by writing In the latter sence there are foure onely called Euangelists Matthew Marke Luke and Iohn who though they all preached yet for the penning of the Gospell are peculiarly called Euangelists In the former sence the word is taken either generally to signifie any one that doth euangelize or preach the Gospell or specially signifying the extraordinarie function of those in the primitiue Church who went vp and downe preaching the Gospell being not affixed to any certaine place And these seeme to haue beene of two sorts For either they were immediatly called of Christ and by him sent to preach the Gospell as the 72. Disciples or they were assumed by the Apostles to be their companions in their iourneyes and assistants in the Ministery Of the former sort was Philippe who after he had performed that temporarie office at Ierusalem whereunto he and the other sixe were chosen Act. 6. he returned to his Euangelisticall function Act. 8. and is expresly called an Euangelist Act. 21.8 Of the latter sort were Timothie and Titus while they accompanied the Apostle Paul in his trauailes and were not assigned to any certaine place That which the Fathers say of the 7◠Disciples that they had but the degree of the Presbytery may of this latter sort much more be verified who were ordayned Ministers of the Gospell by imposition of hands Neither did they differ from other Presbyters but in this that they accompanied the Apostles as their helpers being not tyed to any one place For neither had they the power of ordination neither as Zanchy saith did they gouerne the Churches now one then another as the other Euangelists and Prophets did Wee see what the office of Euangelists was Now let vs see whether it hindered men from being Bishops For had Timothie and Titus beene such Euangelists as the foure were which preached and wrote the Gospell or as the 72. who were called and sent by Christ yet might they when they ended their trauailes and betooke them to certaine Churches haue beene Bishops thereof For Marke the Euangelist after he had preached in Aegypt and had set vp his rest at Alexandria became B. thereof in which Episcopall function Antanus succeeded him and after him Abilius and Cerdo in the Apostles times much lesse doth their being of the latter sort For though the Apostle di◠distinctly reckon the functions of the Church 1 Cor. 12. Eph. 4 yet in the former place he doth not so much as mention the office of Euangelists and in the latter he speaketh of those who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were called Euangelists as the foure Euangelists and perhaps also the 72 whose functions notwithstanding were not so disioyned but that as Apostles might be also Euangelists
as we see in Matthew and Iohn so Euangelists might be Bishops as we see in Marke But as for Timothie Titus the Greeke Writers expounding that place plainely say they were not Euangelists but Pastors or Bishops For they after they were placed the one in Ephesus the other in Creet did not trauaile vp and downe as in former times when they accompanied the Apostle but ordinarily remained with their flockes The Greeke Scholiast saith thus Euangelists◠that is those which did write the Gospell Pastors◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hee meaneth such as had the Churches committed to them such as Timothie was such as Titus And to the same purpose both Chrysostome and Theophylact doe mention them by name Neither was it a debasing of Timothie and Titus when they were made Bishops but an aduancement Forwhereas before they were but Presbyters though called Euangelists in a large sence they were now made the Apostles of those Churches and by imposition of hands ordayned Bishops In the second place hee taketh exception against those words where I say they were furnished with Episcopall power and denieth that when Timothie Titus were assigned to Ephesus and Creet they receiued any new authority which before they had not or needed any such furnishing But were to exercise their Euangelesticall function in those places For so Paul biddeth Timothie after hee had beene at and gone from Ephesus to doe the worke of an Euangelist If they receiued no new authority why did Timothie receiue a new ordination by imposition of hands whereof the Apostle speaketh in two places and which the Fathers vnderstand of his ordination to be Bishop were men admitted to the extraordinarie function of Euangelists by the ordinarie meanes of imposing hands or may we thinke that any but the Apostles being not assigned as Bishops to seuerall Churches had that authority wheresoeuer they came which Timothie had at Ephesus and Titus in Creet verily Philippe the Euangelist though hee conuerted diuers in Samaria and baptized them yet had not authority to impose hands whereby men might be furnished with graces for the Ministerie but the Apostles Peter and Iohn were sent thither to that purpose And whereas Paul willeth Timothie to doe the worke of an Euangelist what is that but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to preach the Gospell diligently and to fulfill his Ministerie or to make it fully knowne the word Euangelist being there taken in the generall sence Now what his Ministerie was Ierome Sedulius declare Ministerium tuum imple Episcopatus scilicet Fulfill thy Ministerie that is to say as thou art a Bishop Now that their being Euangelists did not hinder them from being Bishops when ceasing from their trauailing about they were assigned to these particular Churches I proued by the testimony of Zuinglius who saith that Philip the Euangelist who had beene one of the Deacons was afterwards Bishop of Caesarea Iames the Apostle was Bishop of Ierusalem and diuers of the Apostles which may much more be verified of the Euangelists when they ceased from their peregrinations became Bishops of certaine Churches as by the ancient histories is manifest Whereto the refuter answereth two things first that Zuinglius speaketh according to the phrase of the histories and writers before him therefore say I according to the truth Or else we must thinke that none of the Fathers or ancient historiographers knew whom to call Bishops and whom not But the refuter and his fellows onely haue this knowledge Yea but a certaine learned man saith that when the Fathers call Peter or Iames or any of the Apostles Bishops they doe not take the name Bishop properly For Peter I graunt but of Iames there is another reason as I haue shewed before And although it were true that Apostles could not properly be called Bishops yet what is that to Timothie and Titus whom I haue proued notwithstanding their supposed Euangelisticall function to haue beene particularly assigned by Paul to the Churches of Ephesus and Creet where also they liued and dyed His other answere is that howsoeuer Zuinglius speake of their being Bishops it is manifest by his writings he neither thought they were and so belike spake otherwise then he thought nor any other might be a Diocesan B. as by a testimony hereafter alledged appeareth where he saith no such thing I will therefore adde another testimony of Zuinglius in the same booke when Paul said to Timothie doe the vvorke of an Euangelist Timothie was a Bishop vvherefore it is certaine according to Pauls opinion the office of an Euangelist and of a Bishop is all one After I had thus answered these two obiections I brought a new supply of arguments to proue Timothie and Titus to haue beene Bishops of Ephesus and Creet And first by occasion of his second obiection I argue thus The function and authoritie which Timothie and Titus did exercise in Ephesus and Creet was either extraordinarie and Euangelisticall as the Disciplinarians teach or else ordinarie and Episcopall as we hold But it was not extraordinary and Euangelisticall Therefore ordinary and Episcopall The assumption I proued thus The supposed Euangelisticall function of Timothie and Titus was to end with their persons and admitted no succession being as themselues teach both extraordinary and temporary But the function and authority which they had as being assigned to certaine Churches viz. of Ephesus and Creet consisting especially in the power of ordination and iurisdiction was not to end with their persons but to be continued in their successors Therefore the function and authority which Timothie and Titus had as being assigned to Ephesus and Creet was not extraordinary and Euangelisticall Here the refuter would make his reder belieue that I hauing before denyed the consequence of the second obiection doe also deny the antecedent and in this place reason against it But I doe not deny they were Euangelists howsoeuer I doe not conceiue their Euangelisticall function to haue beene such and so great as the refuter and other Disciplinarians suppose and therefore I call it their supposed Euangelicall function Now that I did not intend to deny or disproue that antecedent but to bring a new supply of arguments taking occasion by the last obiection appeareth by those words which I premised as it were an introduction to this argument hereof we may conclude thus But let vs heare what he answereth Forsooth he flatly denyeth the assumption wherein though he vntruely say that I begge the question that Timothie and Titus were assigned to Ephesus and Creet as ordinarie Bishop or Pastors of those Churches for that I doe assume but conclude yet hath he nothing to disproue it but a meere begging of the question and denyall of the conclusion rather then the assumption viz. that they had no assignment to those Churches but onely as euangelists which doth not touch the assumption no more then that which followeth Neither by that Euangelisticall office
saith he did they take the power of ordination and iurisdiction from the Churches in which by right it is seated but with the Churches ordayned ministers and redressed such things as were amisse though perhaps that right of laying on hands might sometimes be performed by them alone c. What is all this to the assumption which if he would deny and make this denyall good he should haue said and proued it that the function and authoritie which they exercised in Ephesus and Creet was to end with their persons and admitted no succession or was not to be continued in their successors But he roues and raues as men vse to doe which being at a non-plus would faine seeme to answere somewhat And that which he answereth besides that it is impertinent is partly also vntrue For when he saith that Timotie and Titus did not take the power of ordination and iurisdiction from the Churches c. First he would insinuate that Bishops doe as though herein there were some difference betweene Bishops and them vvhen as indeed neither Bishops nor they doe take that authority from the Church but they and all other first BB. receiued their authority from the Apostles and deriued the same to their lawfull successors Secondly he saith that the power of ordination and iurisdiction by right is seated in the whole Church or congregation which is not true of any particular congregation but in case of necessity wherein both the succession of their owne clergy failing and the help of others vvanting the right is deuolued to the whole body of the Church But let this goe among other his Brownisticall or rather Anabaptistiall nouelties I proceed to the proofe of my assumption which hee hath layd forth thus That function and authority which is ordinarie and perpetually necessary not onely for the well being but also for the very being of the visible Churches was not to end with the persons of Timothie and Titus but to be continued in their successors But the function and authority that they had as being assigned to certaine Churches is ordinary and perpetually necessary not onely for the well being but also for the very being of the visible Churches Therefore the function and authority which they had as being assigned to certaine Churches was not to end with the persons of Timothie and Titus but to be continued in their successors The assumption is thus to be explaned the function which Timothie and Titus had as being assigned to certaine Churches was ordinary and the authority which they did exercise consisting chiefly in the power of ordination and iurisdiction was perpetually necessary This assumption the refuter would seeme to deny and yet granteth that the power of ordination and iurisdiction is perpetually necessary onely he denieth it to be necessary that there should be in euery Church an Euangelist to exercise that authority So that of the two points in the assumption the latter hee granteth that the authority which they exercised was perpetually necessary the other that the function which they had being assigned to those Churches was ordinary hee toucheth not but denieth that which I did not affirme to wit that it was necessary there should be an Euangelist alwayes in euery Church to exercise the power of ordination and iurisdiction Did I affirme this or rather did I not teach the contrary when I said that the function whereby they did exercise that power of ordination and iurisdiction was not an extraordinary function as the Euangelisticall but ordinary as the Episcopall Now that the function which Timothie and Titus had being assigned to Ephesus and Creet was an ordinary function the very same which the Bishops that succeeded them and all other BB. both in and since the Apostles times haue exercised it is most certaine for though in them who cheifly are called Euangelists there were diuers things extraordinary besides their limitation to no certaine place as their immediate calling from Christ their extraordinary gifts of the Spirit as of reuelation and of working miracles as appeareth by Steuen and Philippe yet in Timothie and Titus and others who were called Euangelists because they were the companions of the Apostles in their iourneyes and assistants in their worke of the ministery there was nothing extraordinarie but their not limitation to any certaine Churches For their calling to the ministery was ordinary and their gifts though great yet attayned and increased by ordinary meanes When as therefore they were assigned to certaine Churches as the Pastors and gouernours thereof whereunto they were ordayned by imposition of hands and by that ordination were furnished with power of ordination and Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction their function was the same ordinary function which their successors and all other Bishops did exercise But as the refuter said it was not necessary that there should alwayes be an Euangelist in euery Church to exercise the power of ordination and iurisdiction so perhaps some more iudicious will alledge that though the power of ordination and iurisdiction be perpetually necessary yet it is not necessary that this power should alwayes be wholy in some one in euery Church as it was in Timothie or Titus Neither did I say it was but that the power or authority which they exercised was perpetually necessary and the function whereby they did exercise it was ordinary being the very same function which other Bishops both then and euer since haue administred And therefore the refuter doth greatly wrong me when hee saith that I make this Episcopall power perpetually necessary and chargeth me with contradicting my selfe in another place where I acknowledge that where the Episcopall gouernment may not be had there others may be admitted For the clearing therefore of the whole controuersie and plaine manifestation of that which I hold therein we will make vse of a distinction which the learned vse concerning matters of gouernment In all gouernments therefore there are these things to be considered potâ—stas ordo formae vel modus titulus siue applicatio potestatis ad personam vsus First the power to be exercised in gouernment then the order whereby the inferiours both to be gouerned gouerning are subordinate to the superiours after the forme and the manner of gouernment as whether it be a Monarchy where the power is in one or an Aristocraty wher it is in few or a Democraty where it is in the multitude and how each gouernment is ordered the title as whether the gouernours are put in and intituled to their power and authority by succession or by election or institution and after how they vse and exercise their authority c. Of these the two first that there should be power of gouernment and order therein in the people gouerned are essentiall perpetual as the immutable ordinances of God The other many wayes are accidentall variable But yet if question be made what forme of gouernment in the commonwealth is the best hath the best
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
Ministers and Lay-Elders then it doth necessarily follow that as the Ministers haue the care and ouersight of doctrine and religion so the Lay-Elders haue the ouersight of manners and care of auoiding offences But the Antecedent is true 1. Tim. 5.17 Therefore the consequent To the assumption of the former Syllogisme I answere that Lay-Elders are no where 's said in the Scriptures to be Presbyters or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to gouerne or ouersee but all those places which be alleadged to this purpose are to bee vnderstood of Ministers onely Besides the same Author hath confessed that Lay Elders are not Byshops neither will he say that they be Pastors But the places which he quoteth are to be vnderstood of Bishops Pastors Of Act. 20.28 1. Pet. 5. I haue already spoken as also of 1. Thess. 5.12 Why Heb. 13.17 should be applpyed to Lay-Elders there is no reason vnlesse whatsoeuer is spoken of Spirituall gouernors is to be vnderstood of them The Writers both olde and new expound it of Bishops and Pastors The assumption also of the second syllogisme is vntrue neither hath it any thing to support it but their owne exposition of 1. Tim. 5.17 which I haue proued to be false Neither is that true which is presupposed in both syllogismes that there must be two sorts of Elders answerable to the two parts of ouersight For both the parts of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or ouersight belong to those which be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ouerseers that is Bishops and Pastors whose dutie is both to teach and to gouerne Their third Argument is taken from the practise of the primitiue Church next succeeding the Apostles Which of all their Arguments is most friuolous there being not anie testimonie of any writer or example of any Church to bee alledged that euer there was such an office in the Church But howsoeuer these duties to be performed by the Elders seuerally might be borne with so they were not obtruded as the ordinances of Christ yet the ioynt office of their Lay presbyteryes is intollerable For what reason can they alledge for their intruding into the sacred office of Bishops and Pastors vsurping the keyes of the kingdome of heauen which our Sauiour Christ committed to none but to the Apostles and their successors That Lay-men should haue authoritie and that by the ordinance of Christ to ordaine Ministers by imposition of hands to remit or retaine sinnes to excommunicate the obstinate or to reconcile the penitent is an opinion too absurde to be confuted Thus therefore I reason according to their owne principles No office in the Church is lawfull as themselues say which hath not expresse warrant in the scriptures which is all one as if they had said All lawfull offices in the church haue expresse warrant in Gods word The office of the Lay-Elders seuerally and of their Elderships yearely hath not expresse warrant in Gods word Therfore it is vnlawfull To their office wee will ioyne the consideration of their qualities for surely if the holy Ghost had prescribed in the scriptures an office of such importance it is to bee thought that he would also haue described what manner of men were to be chosen to it and how qualified for the performance of an office of so high a nature And although he omitted their qualities in other places yet mee thinks if it be a function that is in dignitie vnder the Minister but aboue the Deacon the Apostle could not haue forgotten them in 1. Tim. 3 where he describeth the qualities not only of Bishops and Ministers which be aboue them but of the Deacons also which are beneath them directing Timo 〈◊〉 and in him all Bishops what manner of persons to orâ—aâ—â— Ministers or Deacons Forgotten say they why are they not plainly expressed in that place Yes no doubt for that is agreed vpon among vs For some will needs comprise them vnder the Bishop or Minister and feare not to â—ay that they also must be suâ— modo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is able 〈◊〉 preach after their fashion Others acknowledge that they are neuer comprehended vnder the name Bishop and that it is necessarily required of Ministers alone to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 able to preach especially in that sense that the Apostle meaneth as appeareth by comparing that place with Tit 1.9 yet resolued to finde a roome for them in that place and not to suffer them to be excluded are faine to sâ—rowâ—e them vnder the name of Deacons though the name of Deacon neither in scriptures nor Fathers was euer attributed to them How they will compound these contrarieties I know not For if they be comprised vnder the name Bishop then are they not to be shrowded vnder Deacons and if they be contained vnder Deacons then are they not comprised vnder Bishops It shall 〈◊〉 me to alledge that forsomuch as the Eldership is in their conceit a different office both from the Minister and Deacon that it is comprehended in neither For who cannot conceiue this reason None but Bishops Ministers and Deacons are described in that place Bishops and Ministers in the former description and Deacons in the latter But Lay-elders are neither Bishops or Ministers nor Deacons but an imagined office distinct from both Therefore they are not described in that place The refuâ—â—â— hath solemnely proclaimed before and required all men to take notice of it that their Elders ought to be men religious of great grauitie and pietie and of good yeares also if it may be as the name importeth called with due examination chosen with consent of the congregation ouer which they are set with prayer and imposition of hands put a part to that Ecclesiasticall office All which I will not denie to haue beene politickely deuised so it may be acknowledged an humane deuise and not a diuine ordinance But why are not the margents filled with scriptures for the proofe of these things The truth is there is not one testimonie of scripture to be alledged prescribing the office or describing the qualities of Lay-Elders But perhaps there may be mention sufficient of them in the scriptures to warrant their calling though neither their office nor their qualities be described in the word of God Nor that neither as shall appeare when I come to answere the refuters allegations for them In the meane time I will not doubt to renew my former challenge if they can produce any one pregnant testimonie out of the scriptures whereby it may necessarily be concluded that either there were at any time or ought to be at all times in the Church of Christ such Elders and Elderships as they speake of that then I will yeeld to them in the whole controuersie betwixt vs. But vntill such proofe be produced for them which will neuer be they shall giue me leaue to esteeme their doctrine of Lay-Elders to be as it is a meere fiction how vehemently soeuer it be vrged and obtruded
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
to a higher degree aboue the rest of the Apostles because the Apostleship being the highest degree of the Ministerie this was the greatest honour to haue a priority and precedence in that degree Yea but I denie him to haue beene B. when I say that whereas before the Apostles had ioyntly gouerned the Church of Ierusalem that charge which before they had in cōmon they being now to depart cōmitted to him in particular but their charge was of Apostles not of Bishops As though the charge of Apostles is not by the holy Ghost called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Bishopricke and as though Iames who before was an Apostle absolutely did not by this designement become the Apostle of the Iewes Neither was this a clipping of his wings as it pleaseth the Refuter to speake more then of the rest of the Apostles when by mutual consent euery mans Prouince as it were circuit and charge was assigned to him But I spake not without booke deliuering mine owne conceipts as the Refuter euery where doth but what I said I receiued from their owne and almost onely Author Ierome which he receiued also from Hegesippus Hegesippus saith he who was neare the Apostles times in the fift booke of his Commentaries speaking of Iames saith Iames the brother of our Lord sirnamed the iust receiued the Church of Ierusalem post Apostolos after the Apostles As touching the other point though the Refuter would scarsely vouchsafe to touch it as being impertinent notwithstanding it not onely confuteth the conceipt of those who hold Bishops were but for a short time and not for terme of life but also proueth plainly that Iames was B. of Ierusalem I therefore shewed that he continued at Ierusalem as the superintendent of that Church vntil his death ruling the same by the space of thirtie yeares after that manner as his successor after him ruled it eight and thirty yeares Yea but this doth not proue that he was B. Neither was it so much alledged to that end as to shew the preheminence which he had was not as Beza saith of all the ancient Bishops which hee acknowledgeth to be diuine for a short time or by course but for terme of life And yet it proueth the maine point also that he was B. and as the Geneua translators confesse superintendent of that Church For if he were not the Apostle of that Church that is to say the B. why did not he after the example of other Apostles trauaile into other parts but continued there ruling that Church by the space of thirty yeares vntill his death Forsooth hee did not stay so much to rule that Church for that might haue beene otherwise performed as to conuert the multitudes of Iewes which should resort thither Where hee saith the Church might otherwise haue beene gouerned it is nothing to the purpose vnlesse he can shew that it was otherwise gouerned There is no doubt but that Church had a Pastor assigned to them by the Apostles who would not leaue that mother Church as a flocke without a shepheard But what Pastor had it if Iames who continued there and ruled it for thirtie yeares were not the Pastor thereof There is no doubt to be made but the cause and end of his staying there thirtie yeares was the same of his successour Simons staying there thirtie eight yeares and of his successours euery one vntill their death Wherefore was it not great pitie that the Refuter did forget himselfe to spend so much time in things that were so impertinent Serm. Sect. 6. pag. 69. As touching other Churches wee are to obserue that the Apostles did not at the very first planting of them appoint BB. vnto them c. to pag. 72. li. 17. The difference in respect of the time which before I noted betwixt Ierusalem and other Churches I doe in this section explane shewing that the Apostles did not at the first planting of them appoint Bishops to them as presently after the ascension of Christ they appointed a Bishop ouer the Church of Ierusalem yeelding these reasons because as yet there was neither that choise nor yet that vse of them among a people which was to be conuerted before it needed to be gouerned and shewing what course they did take before they appointed Bishops namely that first they ordayned Presbyters to labour the conuersion of the people to feed them being conuerted and to attend them in common gouerning them after a priuate manner and as it were in foro conscientiae And this is that which Ierome saith that the Churches at the first before Bishops were appointed ouer them were gouerned by the common counsell of the Presbyters But the Episcopall power which consisteth specially in the right of ordination and in the sway of Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction committed to one I said the Apostles each of them retayned in their owne hands as was manifest whiles eyther they continued neare them or meant not to be long from them All which while Bishops were not so needfull the Apostles prouiding for the necessitie of those Churches either by their presence or by their letters and messengers And this I noted to be the cause why in the writings of the Apostles Bishops are so seldome though not so seldome as some imagine mentioned and the name with Presbyter confounded But when as they were to leaue the Churches altogether either by departure from them or by death that the Churches should not be left fatherlesse they fulfilled that in Psal. 45. according to Augustines and Ieromes exposition in steed of Fathers that is the Apostles there shall be children borne vnto thee whom thou shall make Princes ouer all the earth that is Bishops succeeding the Apostles in the regiment of the Church At their departure they left substitutes and at their death appointed successours to whom they committed the gouernment of the Churches furnishing them by a singularitie of preheminence both with the right of Ordination and with the power of Iurisdiction as vvell ouer the Presbyters as the people of each Citie with the Countrey adioyning And these I saide at the first vvere called sometimes the Angels of the Churches sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Praepositi Rulers Heb. 13.17 vvhich text in the auncient canons called the Apostles and in the second Epistle of Ignatius as also the name praepositi in Latine Fathers from thence is appropriated to BB. sometimes the Apostles of the Churches c. To all this the Refuter answereth by snatches as he doth to the residue of the Sermon for which cause I thinke it expedient to repeate the points deliuered in the Sermon that his dealing may the better appeare And first hee snatcheth at those wordes where I said that vntill the Apostles were to leaue the Churches altogether Bishops were not so needfull as after their departure and death which is most manifest Belike saith he they were needfull before but
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
beene ordayned the first B. of the Church of the Ephesians and the other the first B. of the Church of the Cretians This is something plaine But he asketh me why I seuered them from the consent of the ancient Fathers was it because I thought them to be of the Canon I answere that I did not seuer them but ioyne them in a copulatiue speech and if I had beene of opinion that they were of the Canon I would not haue said as I did it appeareth not onely by the subscriptions but also by the generall consent of the Fathers but contrariwise not onely by the generall consent of the Fathers but also by the subscriptions annexed by the Apostle himselfe But though it were not likely as he hath alledged out of T. C. that they were subscribed by the Apostle himselfe yet is it certaine that they are of great antiquity and of better credit then the Refuter and some other Disciplinarians would make them Indeed if any other learned man that were not a party in this cause had censured these subscriptions I would haue respected their censures but the cauillations of Disciplinarians against them who being parties in this cause are so plainely confuted by them are to be reiected Let vs therefore heare what the Refuter obiecteth against them How little credit those subscriptions deserue it may appeare by that vnder the Epistle to Titus which is quite contrary to the Epistle it selfe And why so I pray you the subscription saith the Epistle was written from Nicopolis and Paul himselfe willeth Titus to come vnto him to Nicopolis for I haue determined to winter there But if Paul had beene now at Nicopolis when he wrote he would haue said not there but here Therefore hee was but a simple fellow that was the Author of that subscription So saith this great Criticke But if you will consider with me that Paul being as vsually he was in peregrination Titus could not well tell where he was neither had Paul signified in the Epistle where he then was therefore wrote being at Nicopolis as any discreet man would in the like case come to mee to Nicopolis for I meane to winter there whereas if hee had written as the Refuter would haue had him if hee were at Nicopolis come hither for I meane to winter here or come to Nicopolis for I meane to winter here might not Titus haue said where Paul as being vncertaine where Paul was and whether himselfe was to goe This therefore is too seely a censure though receiued from T. B. himselfe to ouerthrow the authority of so ancient a subscription in which besides the ancient Greeke copies it is also testified in the Syriack that this Epistle was written from Nicopolis Athanasius speaking of that Epistle to Titus saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hee wrote this Epistle from Nicopolis for there he wintered Oecumenius testifieth the same in his argument on that Epistle to Titus Sedulius likewise this Epistle hee wrote from Nicopolis and Theophylact. argument in Epist. ad Tit the Authors of the Centuryes cent 1. l. 2. c. 10. in Tito To the subscriptions I added the testimonies of these Fathers First Eusebius reporteth out of the Ecclesiasticall Histories vvhich vvere before his time that Timothie had first the Bishopricke of the Church at Ephesus and Titus of the Churches in Creet Secondly the auncient Author of the booke de diuinis nominibus dedicating the same to Timothie Bishop of Ephesus if it be Dionysius Areopagita himselfe who liued at the same time with Timothie doth beare an vndeniable witnesse to this truth or if it be another vsing his name yet he plainely signifieth that in his time it was a thing generally receiued that Timothie was Bishop of Ephesus Thirdly Dorotheus saith that Timothie was by Paul ordayned the B. of the Ephesians he calleth Titus the B. of the Cretians Fourthly Ambrose testifieth the same Paul instructeth Timothie being already created a B. how he ought to order the Church And againe he entreateth Timothie his fellow Bishop c. Againe Timothie was a B. Hence it is that Paul directeth him how he should ordaine a B. Likewise of Titus he testifieth that the Apostle consecrated him B. Fiftly Ierome noteth that Timothie receiued the grace which Paul exhorteth him not to neglect when he was ordayned B. And wher Paul willeth him to fulfill his Ministery Ierom vnderstandeth it of his Bishopricke And in the Catalogue of Ecclesiasticall Writers which is in his first Tome it is testified that Timothie was ordayned of blessed Paul the B. of the Ephesians and that Titus was B. of Creet Sixtly Chrisostome writing on those words Phil. 1. Bishops and Deacon◠saith what meaneth this were there many Bishops of one City in no wise but so he called the Presbyters For then were the names common and a Bishop was also called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Deacon or minister For which cause writing to Timothie being a Bishop fulfill 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thy ministery For that he was a Bishop he saith doe not hastily impose thy hands vpon any man againe with the imposition of the hands of the Presbytery but Presbyters did not ordaine a Bishop in another place hee giueth this reason why Paul wrote to Timothie and Titus and not to Syluanus or Silas or Clemens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because he had already committed the Churches to them but the others he still carryed about with him And on the fourth to the Ephesians hee giueth instance in Timothie and Titus as being Pastors assigned to certaine places Seauenthly Epiphanius saith that Paul 1 Tim. 4. writeth to a Bishop and that a Presbyter cannot be the same with a Bishop the diuine speech of the Apostle teacheth who is a Bishop and who a Presbyter when he saith to Timothie being a Bishop receiue not hastily an accusation against a Presbyter c. Eightly Primasius saith Timothie was a Bishop and Pauls Disciple That grace was the blessing which Timothie when he was made Bishop receiued by imposition of hands Ninthly Theodoret saith that Titus was the Apostle that is Bishop of the Cretians and Timothie of the Asians And out of him Oecumenius citeth these words Titus was an admirable Disciple of Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he was by Paul ordayned Bishop of Creet And in another place why did Paul hauing other Disciples as Silas and Luke and others write onely to Timothie and Titus We answere Because to these he had committed Churches but the others he had still with him Tenthly Sedulius this Timothie was B. in Ephesus as it is said in the booke of histories And on these words stirre vp the grace which was giuen thee by the imposition of hands that is iuxta ordinationem tuam in Episcopatum by thy ordination into the Bishopricke 11. Gregory the great hence it is
there ordained The refuter replieth that my consequence is naught for euen whiles the Church was gouerned in common by the Apostles it was not gouerned without the counsell of the Presbyters of the same Church much lesse did Iames afterwards take the whole authority into his owne hands from them Which exception of his is of no force because there were no Presbyters ordayned in that Church when it was gouerned by the common counsell of the Apostles and I added which he should haue disproued if he would haue said any thing to the purposâ— that Iames was assigned Bishop to that Church before we read of any Presbyters ordayned in or to that Church For if Iames were Bishop of that Church before it had Presbyters then was not that Church ruled by the common counsell of Presbyters before they had a Bishop Iames indeed after he was Bishop ordayned Presbyters whose counsell and assistance he did vse in the gouernment and instruction of that Church as other Bishops vsed to doe in the like case as wee read Act. 15. and 21. Yea but the whole multitude saith he as appeareth by Act. 6.2.5 had the choise of Church-officers What then therefore the Church was not gouerned by the common counsell of the Apostles or was gouerned by the common counsell of Presbyters Because the Greekish Iewes which had their Liturgy and scriptures in the Greeke tongue were discontented with the Apostles distribution of the Churches stocke the Apostles therefore to auoid contention and scandall and to giue euery one contentment departed from their right and willed the whole multitude to choose seauen whom wee say the Apostles may appoint to this busines Surely if where the Presbyters are erected the people who doe contribute to the releife of the poore are permitted to make choise of ouerseers collectors for the poore it wer but a simple consequence to inferre hereupon that therefore the Churches are not gouerned by the common counsell of Presbyters And to as little purpose or rather lesse is that which followeth If the Apostles altogether or Iames alone afterterwards had by vertue of their extraordinarie calling the power of ordination and iurisdiction in â—heir hands in that as in all other Churches yet the Pastors of the Churches afterwards being no Apostles had no such vnlimited power and so Ierome still speaketh truely of the ordinary gouernment of the Church And so Ierome still spake vntruely in respect of the Church of Ierusalem I doe confesse this was peculiar to the Church of Ierusalem and differing from the order of other Churches that the Church of Ierusalem had a Bishop before it had Presbyters of her owne And therefore though I did not deny his speech to be vntrue in respect of other Churches yet I proued it to be vntrue in respect of Ierusalem by his owne testimony But before I come to the sifting thereof there are two other things to be noted in this speech of the refuter For that which he pratleth of Iames his sole power exercised in the Church of Ierusalem by vertue of his extraordinarie calling is altogether impertinent seeing Ierome of whom the question is confesseth that hee was Bishop and ruled that Church as the Bishop thereof thirtie yeeres Neither is it true that the ordinarie Pastors of that Church had not the like power therein which Iames had For there is no question but what authority Iames had in the gouernment of that particular Church of Ierusalem Simon his successor had the same and all the Bishops of Ierusalem after him Now that Ieromes speech was vntrue in respect of Ierusalem I proued by Ieromes owne testimony affirming that Iames straight wayes after the passion of our Lord was by the Apostles ordayned Bishop of Ierusalem Here the refuter hath found out a quirke which if it were true would not yet serue his turne The quirke is that Ierome is mistaken by false pointing and reading for that straight way belongeth not to Iames his being made Bishop but is brought to shew that Iohn maketh mention of him immediately after he hath spoken of our Lords passion So that Ierome doth not say that Iames straight wayes after the passion of our Lord was ordayned Bishop of Ierusalem but that Iohn mentioned him presently after hee had spoken of the passion of our Lord. Let me lay downe the whole sentence that it may appeare more plainely Iames saith Ierome who is called the brother of our Lord surnamed Iustus the sonne as many thinke of Ioseph by another wife as it seemeth to me of Mary the sister of our Lords mother of whom Iohn in his booke maketh mention after the passion of our Lord straight wayes statim id est continenter immediate vt loquuntur Iohn 19.25 saith Iunius who was ordayned Bishop of Ierusalem by the Apostles And this manner of reading is auouched by Sophronius that translated that booke of Ierome into Greeke who maketh the distinction presently after straight wayes seuering that word from his ordination by the Apostles Among many other proofes of his learning iudgement the refuter giueth this for one For first this subtility hee receiued from Iunius as he doth professe but exceedingly dulled by comming through his fingers For whereas Iunius referrâ—th the word of whom to Mary the sister of our Lords mother of whom Iohn maketh mention straight waies after the passion of our Lord Iohn 19.25 our learned refuter referreth it to Iames that twice for failing But though he might be mistaken in the English of Ieromes cuius yet me thinkes so learned a man should haue known that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Sophronius should haue beene referred to her and not to him But let that passe To iustifie his correction of this place of Ierom he saith this manner of reading is auowed by Sophronius c. which is neither so nor so For between the Greeke and the Latine there is onely this difference in that edition which I haue being as I suppose the best that whereas in the Latine there is a Colon at the word filius which followeth meminit in the Greeke there is but a Comma but at the word statim in Latin and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greeke no distinction at all The Latine words are these vt mihi autem videtur Mariae sororis matris Domini cuius Ioannes in libro suo memunt filius pâ—st passionem Domini statim ab Apostolis Hierosolymorum Episcopus ordinatus The Greeke these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the correction it self I would be loth to contest with Iunius neither is that subtilty which he hath found out preiudiciall to my assertion as you shall heare notwithstanding I must needs say he was greatly transported with preiudice when he would referre the aduerbe statim to the verbe meminit rather then to the participle ordinatus For though both the Comma and Colon that come betweene them were taken away yet the word filius comming also betweene
retayning the gouernment of Diocesan Bishops hee vseth these words Who would haue thought to haue heard such a speech from him that acknowledgeth another gouernment good and lawfull pag. 95. and maketh the calling of Bishops no further of diuine institution then as being ordayned by the Apostles it proceeded from God without implying thereby any necessarie perpetuitie thereof Pag. 92. Thus sincerely their cause of sinceritie as themselues call it is maintained Now that Bishops were ordayned of God I proue by this argument as the refuter hath framed it If God ordayned Timothie Archippus and the Angels of the seauen Churches Bishops then were Bishops ordained by God But God ordained them Bishops Therefore Bishops were ordained by God As touching Timothie I argued thus By whom was he ordained Bishop By Paul I confesse as the instrument but yet by the holy Ghost as the author and directer of his ordination For he was made B. by prophecie 1 Tim. 4. How is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What is by Prophecie saith Chrysostome by the holy Ghost Paul stirring him vp putteth him in minde who elected and ordained him as if hee had said God hath chosen thee hee hath committed his Church vnto thee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou wert made Bishop not by humane suffrage but by Prophecie that is by Diuine reuelation saith Theodoret that is spiritu sancto iubente by the commandement of the holy Ghost saith Theophilact 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Oecumenius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for by the appointment of the holy Ghost Bishops were made and not at randome Whereunto you may adde the testimonie of Caluin Per Prophetiam quomodo quia scilicet spiritus sanctus oraculo Timotheum destinauerat vt in ordinem pastorum cooptaretur Neque enim delectus tantuacute m fuerat hominum iudicio vt fieri solet sed praecesserat spiritus nuncupatio To this argument the refuter answereth nothing but that which I haue plainely and fully confuted before that Timothie was not a Bishop though Caluin as you see confesseth that Timothie by the oracle of the holy Ghost was chosen into the order of Pastors For if hee were a Pastor it is not to be doubted but he was a Bishop That Archippus was ordayned Bishop of God I proue thus Because Col. 4.17 Paul vsing the same exhortation to him vvhich hee gaue to Timothie the Bishop of Ephesus namely that hee should fulfill his ministerie hee addeth which thou hast receiued in the Lord and therefore by Gods ordinance and as it vvere at his hands The refuter hauing framed the argument thus Hee that receiued his Episcopall ministerie in the Lord was ordained a B. by the Lord. Archippus receiued his Episcopall ministerie in the Lord Therefore hee was ordained Bishop by the Lord He denyeth the proposition because neither is all Episcopall ministerie proper to a Diocesan Bishop else the Apostle would not haue made a B and Presbyter all one neither is that office onely in the Lord. Of which reasons the latter is meerely impertinent and friuolous For who euer said or thought that the office of a Bishop onely is in the Lord neither is the former to any purpose seeing he knoweth that by Episcopall ministerie I vnderstand the function of a Diocesan Bishop and therefore should not haue denyed the proposition but haue distinguished of the assumption saying that hee did not receiue the Episcopall ministerie meaning the function of a Diocesan Bishop For proofe whereof it sufficeth to mee that Archippus was as Ambrose noteth Bishop of Collosae which was a Citie seeing I haue manifestly proued before that the Bishops of Cities were Diocesan Bishops As touching the Angels I argue thus Those who are called by the holy Ghost the Angels of the Church and were signified by the seauen starres which were in Christs right hand had Diuine both institution and approbation The Diocesan Bishops of the seauen Churches are called by the holy Ghost the Angels of the seauen churches and were signified by the seauen starres which vvere in Christs right hand Therefore the Diocesan Bishops of the seauen Churches had diuine both institution and approbation The proposition I proued because they who are called Angels are authorized and sent of God and starres vvhose both preheminence of dignitie is noted in this life for the starres are the crowne of the Church and also prerogatiue of glorie which they shall haue in the world to come And finally they who are signified by the seauen starres in the right hand of Christ are such as Christ doth both approue and protect The assumption I went not about to proue now because it was proued at large in the former part of the Sermon And yet all that the refuter answereth to the purpose is that they were not Diocesan Bishops For that which he addeth besides is but the vttering of his spleene and emptying his gall against Bishops to whom he cannot abide such is his malice that the titles of Angels and starres which notwithstanding the holy Ghost giueth to the Bishops of the seauen Churches and which himselfe acknowledgeth to be titles common to all ministers should be applyed to Bishops It is true that these titles of Angels and stars are common to all ministers yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie their preheminence they be attributed to Bishops For as I haue said before when in a Church where are many Ministers who are all tearmed Angels the Bishop onely is called the Angel of the Church this title doth note his singular preheminence And the same is signified when as there being a great number of ministers in Asia who all were starres the seauen Bishops onely of those Churches are signified by the seauen starres vvhich Christ held in his right hand Now if these seauen Bishops were Diocesan Bishops as I haue manifestly proued them and all the Bishops of the auncient Churches to haue beene then must the refuter be content to endure both that Diocesan Bishops were called the Angels of the Churches and the starres which Christ held in his right hand and consequently also that the function of Diocesan Bishops is of Diuine institution And thus passing by his rayling as not worth the mentioning I proceede to the conclusion of my Sermon The VII CHAPTER Defending the conclusion of the Sermon and shewing that the chiefe Protestant writers did not disallow the Episcopall gouernment The third part of the Serm. Sect. 1. page 94. Thus hauing proued this doctrine arising out of the Text that the Episcopall function is of Apostolicall and diuine institution it remaineth that we should from thence gather some vses to our selues both for the informing of our iudgement and reforming of our liues c. to now let vs pag. 97. THe vse which serueth for rectifying the iudgement is contained in this section and it is first propounded and afterwards maintained against two obiections The vse is this that
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.
needeth some exposition The second reason is propounded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 preuenting a secret obiection against the former reason which might be this though the interpretation be allegoricall yet the exposition of the allegorie is agreed vpon to wit that by the Angels are meant the Bishops of those Churches and therefore further explication needeth not to this I answere in a discretiue sentence granting the antecedent but denying the consequence that although it be agreed vpon that the Angels are the Bishops of the Churches yet in these times it is become a great controuersie and needfull to bee decided what manner of Bishops they were which in former ages was not wont to be called into question Against the former reason the resuter first obiecteth 2. things the one that it maketh against my selfe the other that it is 〈…〉 and 〈◊〉 he telleth me how I might haue bestowed 〈…〉 maketh against me he proueth thus 〈…〉 faith he is allegoricall thâ—refore it was 〈…〉 c. Whereunto I haue answered that the meaning of the allegory is on both sides agreed vpon and that our aduersaries themselues confesse that the Angels were the Bishops of the Churches and therefore by their owne confession the text was as fitly chosen as if it had beene said the 7. starres are the Bishops of the 7. Churches Yea but saith he though it be granted that the Angels be the Bishops yet not such Bishops as you speake of Then the vnfitnes of the text be like is not because it is allegoricall but because in his conceit it is impertinent Which his conceit proueth the exposition of this text to be needfull as I shewed in the second reason Yea but hereby saith hee the first reason appeareth to be superfluous It followeth not Of the same thing there are many times giuen two expositions a shorter called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a larger called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of both there was need in this place The necessitie of the former ariseth from the allegory which I breefly expound according to the receiued interpretation viz. that the Angels signifie the Bishops of the Churches The necessitie of the latter ariseth from the controuersie which some haue raised in these times c. After hee hath shewed that my first reason might well haue beene spared he telleth me that I might haue spent my paines better in opening a doubt which either I did not or would not see And what is that I pray you For it is great pittie I had not your helpe If I would needs haue these Angels to be Diocesan Bishops I should haue giuen some reason why the number of theÌ„ is not limited as well as of the Churches to seuen no more And from hence reasoneth thus If the holy Ghost by Angels had meant Diocesan Bishops whereof there is but one in a Church then would heehaue limited them as well as the Churches to the number of seuen But he hath not limited them to seuen Therefore by Angels he meaneth not Diocesan BB. The assumption he proueth because if the holy Ghost had intended to signifie no more but 7. Angels he would haue said the 7. starres are the 7. Angels of the 7. Churches And hauing so doughtily proued that the number of the Angels is not limited from thence as if he had made all Cocke-sure he inferreth 2. things 1. that the holy Ghost in not limiting the number would haue vs to vnderstand there were more Angels or Bishops then 7. in these Churches 2. that where euery Epistle is directed to the Angell of each Church as to one we are not literally to vnderstaÌ„d one but by a synecdoche more then one Which light as he calleth it standing at the entry dore if I had had his eyes to haue discerned I should no doubt haue seene an high point in a lowe house But were not I pray you the Angels or BB. to whom S. Iohn writeth iust seuen helpe me I beseech you to remoue this veile which hideth the light you speake of from me The starres which Christ hâ—ld in his hand were iust seuen or limitted to the number of 7. Apoc. 1.16 20. 2.1 The Angels of the 7. Churches were the starres which Christ held in his hand Apoc. 1.20 Therefore the Angels of the 7. Churches were iust 7. or limited to the number of 7 Againe of 7. monades or vnities such as be 7. singular persons the number is iust 7. The Angells were 7. Monades or Vnities as beeing 7. singular persons therfore of the Angells the number is iust 7. That the Angels were 7. singular persons it appeareth by the inscriptions of the 7. Epistles written vnto them viz 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Angell of the Church at Ephesus to the Angell of the Church at Smyrna c where whosoeuer is able to count 20. may easily finde iust 7. I will recite them and let the refuter keepe the tale The Angell of the Church at Ephesus 1. the Angell of the Church of Smyrâ—a 2 the Angell of the Church at Pergamus 3 the Angell of the Church at Thyatira 4. the Angell of the Church at Sardes 5 the Angell of the Church at Phyladelphia 6. the Angell of the church of Laodicea 7 seuen Angels neither more nor lesse Moreouer to whom the 7. Epistles were written they were iust 7 for they were written singulae singulis the first to the first the second to the second c. To the Angels of the 7. Churches the 7. Epistles were written Therefore the Angels of the 7. Churches were iust 7. The same is testified by Arethas vnto these 7. Churches blessed Iohn saith hee reckneth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ouerseâ—ing or superintendent Angels iust of the same number and by Ambrose wee must vnderstand the 7. Angels to bee the gouernours of the 7. Churches and afterwards he calleth them the 7. rulers of the 7. Churcâ—â—s Yea but the holy Ghost if hee had limited their number to 7. would haue said that the 7. Starres are the 7. Angels of the 7. Churches Whereto I answere that he hath more plainely limited the number then if hee had said so For if hee had said they are the 7. Angels of the 7. Churches such a captious Sophister as my aduersarie would haue expounded septem 7. by septeni seuen a peece and so haue multiplied them by 7. as if there had bene according to the number of the supposed Deacons at Ierusalem 7. in euery Church But when hee saith the 7. starres are the Angels of the 7. Churches he plainly signifieth that there were iust so many of them as of the Churches that is to say seuen Seeing therfore the number of the Angels is limited to seuen it is not materiall what the refuter inferreth from the not limitation of them And whereas he saith that by the Angel in each inscription we are to vnderstand more then one I would know of him first what reason he hath to forsake the grammaticall
c to pag. 5. own case That these 2. things are offered to our consideration saith the refuter wee denie not but if he had walked with a right foote in the path hee entred into hee should by his Text haue taught vs the meaning of these 2. points and not quite contrarie as hee goes about by these two points to teach vs the meaning of his Text. To whom I will not giue that answere which Festus did to Paul that too much learning hath made him madde for hee seemeth not to be greatly sicke of that disease but I may truely say that too much anger and wrath which is furor breuis which he vnmeasurably sheweth in this Section hath made him so to forget himselfe that hee wrangleth without witte and against sense Vnlesse any man that is in his wittes will say that it is not lawfull for a Preacher to explane his Text. For what was it that in this Section I had in hand was it not to indeuour the explication of my Text and to shew what manner of BB are here meant by the Angels of the Churches for the explicatioÌ„ wherof what could more fitly be propounded then the consideration of these 2. things viz what manner of Churches they were whereof they were the Angels or BB and what manner of preheminence they had in those Churches in regard wherof they are termed the Angels of the Churches that from my Text rightly expounded of Diocesan BB. I might deduce the doctrine of the lawfulnes of their calling and from it inferre the vse Indeed if I had bene now propounding the doctrine gathered out of the Text or vrging the vse therevpon inferred there had bene reason I should prooue them as afterwards I doe by the Text already explicated But when I am about to explicate the Text propound the points that are therein questionable to be discussed for the clearing of the Text who seeth not that the handling of these points is the very explication of the Text and the Text that which is explicated And if the Text be that which is explicated who could bee so senselesse as either to require that the points should be explaned by the Text or to finde fault that by the handling of them the Text is explaned But now hee is pleased of his grace to consider them And wheras I yeeld as a reason of my propounding the former point to bee discussed diuers new-fangled Assertions of the new-found parish discipline whereof I spake but too mildely as you may see hee chargeth mee with bitter inueighing scornefull vpbraiding ouerflowing of the gall with spitting out vnsauoury reproaches making a calumnious out-crie in the ende of the Section and much adoe he had not to apply to mee that saying of Salomon with whome it better fitteth let the Reader iudge Proud haughtie and scornefull is his name that worketh in his arrogancie wrath and in the ende out of the super-aboundance of his charitie hee is afraide for mee that I care not to loose much of my peace within that all I here speake is Night worke proceeding from great distemper of the braine c. Was my aduersaries backe or conscience rather galled was hee guiltie to himselfe of being one of the coyners of those newe opinions that hee thus flingeth and kicketh when they are so gentlie touched Who knowing that those Assertions were some of those 16. positions for the tryall whereof the vnchristian and vnmodest offer of disputation was made which are there magnified as beeing such chiefe points in controuersie betweene vs and the Papists that if in them the BB. ioyning as they pretend with the Papists haue the truth then extreme wrong is offered to the Church of Rome by our separating therefrom and all Protestant Churches are for that cause Schismaticall that if the Priests and Iesuites can satisfie them in these points they would bee reconciled to the Church of Rome Who I say knowing this could with more mildnesse haue spoken of such Schismaticall nouelties For where hee saith that almost all of them haue bene alwayes generallie maintained and practised by all soundly reformed Churches hee seemeth either not to care what hee speaketh or by soundly reformed Churches to meane none but Brownists or such like Betweene whom and these vnchristian and immodest challengers there went as wee say but a paire of sheeres These remaining after a sort in the peece the other beeing by open Schisme cut off Which againe they haue manifested in their late petition to the Kings Maiestie This being the summe of their suite that they may be tollerated Schismatickes But to let passe their new-coyned positions excepting those that concerne this cause with the Libellers bitter wranglings and vaine ianglings There are two things in answere to this Section which I may not let passe the one is his defence of the challengers the other a great aduantage taken against a word which as hee saith I dropt by the way His defence is against that calumnious outcrie as hee calleth it in the ende of the Section where I brieflie note that by what reason they denie the Bishops to bee members of the true Church because forsooth they bee not of some certaine parish by the same they may as well denie the King who hauing a more generall reference to all the Churches within his dominions as being the Gouernour of them all in Great Brittaine and Irelâ—nd is further from being a member of one onely parish then anie Bishop in this Kingdome Hee answereth that the challengers hold the King and his Houshold to bee an entire Church of it selfe But tell mee doe they hold it to bee a true Church that so the King may be thought to be a member of a true Church Or if they doe Why may they not with the like reason acknowledge a Bishop and his familie to bee an entire familie by themselues But it is no matter what they holde vnlesse they were more learned and iudicious The aduantage which is taken at my words had need to bee verie great or else the refuter and his copartners doe shewe themselues to be very weake men seeing it is fiue times repeated in print once in their late petition with great amplifications once in the Abortiue booke with this note in the margent sic tu beas amicos Thrice in this Booke with great triumphes and insultations not onely in the treatise it selfe but also euery where in the margent demanding with scorne in this place Is this your kindnesse to your friends in the second sic tu beas amicos in the third quid facias odio sic vbi amore noces The Reader must needes expect some great matter seeing these hilles thus to swell The words whereat they take aduantage were these Least they might seeme to set vp an absolute Popeling in euerie parish who should haue not onely supreame but also sole authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall they adioyne to him that
points which I purposed to handle for the proofe of either And first for the former which is the explication of my Text viz that the Angells or Pastors of the primitiue Church were Diocesan Bishops and such for the substance of their function as ours bee I endeuoured to prooue it both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by disproouing the presbyterian discipline wherein I intended a disiunctiue argumentation that the question beeing whether the Churches were gouerned by presbyteries as they say consisting for the greater part of Lay-men or by BB as wee holde the disproofe of their presbyteries might bee a proofe for our Bishops and also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by shewing what the authoritie of the Angels or ancient Bishops was as well extensiuè against our newe disciplinarians viz that the Churches whereof they were Byshops were Dioceses and themselues Diocesan Bishops as intensiuè against the Elder and more learned disciplinarians that BB. were superiour to other Ministers not onely in order but in degree also c. And for the proofe of the 2 Assertion which is a doctrine arising out of the Text before explaned concerning the lawfulnesse of the Bishops calling this is proposed to bee proued that the fanction of Byshops is of Apostolicall and diuine institution and this as in the ende of the Section is signified was the thing chiefely intended by mee These points I did not thus propound in Dichotomies which the greatest part doth not so well conceiue and remember but for more easinesse was content to make a bare enumeration of them And this is the frame of that which hee calleth the bodie of my Sermon the which our refuter endeuoreth heere to put out of frame For hauing first of the fiue points which I propound referred the first foure to the former part of my maine distribution as he calleth it where I enquire what manner of Bishops the Angels were and the last to the latter which respecteth the qualitie of their function in the next words as if presently he had forgotten himselfe after hee hath shewed his scornefull and disdainefull spirit hee setteth vp a frame of his owne to worke vpon The mansion saith hee that hee buildeth is a Princely and pleasant Palace for our Bishops Lordships vnder the roofe whereof their Honours may dwell safely as in a Sanctuary without danger of the aduersarie and much delight Looke we vpon the bare frame as it standeth without glasing painting c it is of this forme The function of the Bishops of the 7. Churches is lawfull and good The function of the Bishops of the Church of England is the function of the Bishops of the seuen Churches Therefore the function of the Byshops of the Church of England is lawfull and good The proposition of this syllogisme is laid downe pag 2. and 55. where hee saith that the office and function of Bishops heere meant by Angels is in this Text approoued as lawfull and commended as excellent That is is lawfull and good hauing diuine both Institution being Angels and approbation being starres The assumption is in the same second page propounded thus The Bishops of the 7. Churches for the substance of their calling were such as the reuerend fathers of our Church are The which hee saith by the grace of God hee will plainely prooue and that in the foure first points of the fiue for to them he there referreth vs for that purpose pag. 61. Wee are therefore in the next place to see out of which of those foure points it is concluded and how Which to my vnderstanding must be out of the second third and 4. points after this manner The function of those Bishops whose Churches are Dioceses and themselues Diocesan Bishops superiour to other Ministers in degree hauing sole power of Ordination and Iurisdiction is the function of the Bishops of the 7. Churches The function of the Bishops of the Church of England is the function of those Bishops whose Churches are Dioceses and themselues Diocesan Bishops superiour to other Ministers in degree hauing sole power of Ordination and Iurisdiction Therefore the function of the Bishops of the Church of England is the function of the Bishops of the seuen Churches In lieue of the proposition of this Syllogisme wee haue the prosyllogisme or proofe of it in the 2.3 and 4. points before named c. Beholde to how great trouble too much Learning will put a man Nimia est miseria doctum esse hominem nimis If his skill in the Analysis of a Treatise had not bene extraordinarie all this stirre had bene needlesse But if you marke the ende of his ouerbusying himselfe in resoluing my Sermon and then putting the endes together to make vp his owne frame perphaps he will not seeme so skilfull in resoluing as wilfull in dissoluing the same The end of his double dealing appeareth in the sequele to haue bene double For first whereas there are of the fiue points which I propounded two of principall vse seruing directly the one to disproue their Presbyterian discipline the other to approue the gouernement by Bishops both which hee could wish that I had spared hee would faine make his Reader belieue that of these two the former is impertinent and the latter superfluous or as else-where hee speaketh the former bootlesse the other needlesse 2. When hee could not tell how to wrangle with the other 3. points hee bringeth them to his frame as it were to the racke first finding fault that they doe not directly prooue that which hee would haue them and then by torture making them to say what hee pleaseth that he may the more easily contradict them To countenance these sophisticall shifts he hath brought my Sermon to the Smiths forge and hauing hammered it well hee hath reduced the whole body of it into one syllogisme with the proofs thereof Vsing this syllogisme for the parts of my Sermō as the tyrant vsed his bed for his ghests cutting off those parts which seeme to reach ouer and retching out those which seeme to come short But let vs examine his Syllogisme which with the prosyllogisme of the assumption hee propoundeth as the Analysis of the whole body of my Sermon The function of the Bishops of the seauen Churches is lawfull and good c. I doe not deny but that out of diuerse places of my Sermon patched together some such Syllogisme as this may be framed But in Analysing we must respect not what we can deuise or collect but what the writer did intend and our Analysis must be answerable to his Genesis It is apparant that I propounded two things to be distinctly proued the one as the explication of the text shewing what manner of Bishops the Angels were the other as a doctrine collected out of the text concerning the qualitie of their function viz. that the calling of Diocesan Bishops is lawfull and good This which I propounded as a doctrine to be collected out of the text pag. 2. and
as a conclusion to be proued in the last part pag. 55. and is indeed not the proposition but the conclusion of the Syllogisme which himselfe frameth he would against sense make the Reader belieue was by me propounded as the proposition of his Syllogisme As for the proposition which he assigneth to me I did not expresse but tooke it for granted in the collection of the doctrine out of the text which may be collected after this manner Bishops are such as are here meant by the Angels of the Churches therefore their function is lawfull and good Of which collection if any man should make doubt the consequence would be proued by the addition of the proposition The calling of such as are here meant by the Angels of the Churches is lawfull and good c. Wherefore as there were two distinct parts propounded by me so if he had drawne the same into two distinct Syllogismes concluding the same question and not confounded the parts of the Sermon to make the principall branches thereof to seeme heterogeneall or superfluous he had not much missed of my proiect The former Syllogisme as I haue said might be this The calling of such as are here meant by the Angels is lawfull and good Diocesan BB. are such as are here meant by the Angels therefore the calling of Diocesan BB. is lawfull and good The proposition I tooke for granted and therefore did not expresse it The assumption is the same with the former assertion and is proued by the foure first points The conclusion I did not expresse being implyed in the collection of the doctrine out of the text The latter Syllogisme is this That calling which is of appostolicall and diuine institution is lawfull and good The calling of Diocesan BB. is of apostolical diuine institution Therefore it is lawfull and good of this Syllogisme the assumption is the same with the fift point here propounded So that of the fiue points which I propounded not any one is either impertinent or superfluous the foure former seruing to proue the former assertion which is the assumption of the former Syllogisme the fift and last being the assumption of the second Syllogisme As for the second Syllogisme which he assigneth to me I vtterly disclaime it because as no one part thereof is propounded by me so both the premisses are false and contrarie to my meaning For neither to the Angels of the Churches nor to the Bishops doe I ascribe that sole power of ordination and iurisdiction which he speaketh of as after shall appeare But that his Analysis of my Sermon was meerely forced against the light of his owne conscience appeareth first by the quarrels which thereout he hath raised seeing by his Analysis of the fiue parts the first seemeth impertinent the last superfluous the three in the middes not prouing that for which as he saith they are brought For could he perswade himselfe that his Analysis or resolution was answerable to my Genesis or composition of the Sermon when he saw two parts of the fiue could not be brought to his frame and the other three not to be sutable vnto it Secondly by the distribution of my Sermon and the transitions which I vse wholy disagreeing from his Analysis Thirdly by the Analysis propounded here by my selfe and by the defence of the seuerall parts here ensuing wherein I shall by the helpe of God manifestly proue that neither the first of the fiue was impertinent nor the last superfluous nor the other three concluding besides the purpose But now we are to intreate of them seuerally hauing first giuen you to vnderstand that he diuideth the body of my Sermon as he calleth it into fiue parts euery part into diuerse sections as namely the first which concerneth the Eldership into eight sections in all which the summe of that which I maintaine is this that there were no other Presbyters in the primitiue Church but Ministers CHAP. III. Defending the two first Sections concerning Elders Serm. Sect. 1. pag. 8. And first I am to shew that there were no other Presbyters in the primitiue Church but Ministers A sufficient proofe whereof may be this c to obtrude vpon vs in the end of the 8. pag. AS touching this first point the refuter endeuoureth two things First as hee saith he wardeth and repelleth my blowes and then that we may see what a man he is of his hands he sheweth that he also can strike if need be His former act is a reproofe of my treatise the latter a proofe of his owne assertion And first in grosse he reiecteth the whole discourse of Elders as impertinent and after descendeth to the particulars For the first Reason would saith he that M. D. had shewed vs how this first point pertaineth to the proofe of the matter in question Whatsoeuer he conceiue of it I discerne not what affinitie it can haue with any member of his former assumption c. I might answere that common sense would that what he seem done he should conceiue and acknowledge to be done And charitie would which selfe loue would not that if he discerned not the affinitie of this point with his pretended assumption he should rather haue suspected his owne Analysis to be forced then haue blamed me for his owne want of iudgement But that he may discerne this passage concerning Elders to be pertinent to the matter in question I would but intreat him to take notice what is in question betweene vs. The question discussed in the Sermon is twofold The first de facto whether the primitiue Church were gouerned by Diocesan Bishops as we say or by Presbyteries of such Elders as they spake of The second de iure whether the Church may lawfully be gouerned by Bishops as we hold or must needs be gouerned by their Presbyteries as they affirme The first questiō is handled in the former part of the Sermon the second in the latter The question debated in the former part of the Sermon I say againe is this whether the primitiue Churches were gouerned by Diocesan Bishops such as for the substance of their calling ours be or by such Presbyteries as the Presbyterians stand for And those either parishionall consisting of the Parish-Bishop and a company of lay or onely gouerning Elders as the new and shallow sort of disciplinarians doe boldly though ignorantly affirme or Presbyteries in the cities consisting of the president and other Presbyters whereof some are Ministers but the greater some lay or onely gouerning Elders as the Elder and more learned sort of disciplinarians doe teach In this question as the refuter will confesse vnlesse he will confesse himselfe to be ignorant in logicke this disiunction is implyed either the Church was gouerned by Diocesan Bishops as we say or by such Presbyteries as they speake of And this disiunction though it be not absolutely necessarie yet is it necessarie ex hypothesi and so presupposed on both sides For this being the
question whether the Church were gouerned by Bishops or such Presbyteries it is granted on both sides and agreed vpon betwixt vs that it was gouerned either by the one or by the other and that one and but one of these assertions is true For if both parts of the question or disiunction were true it were but a foolish question as the Phylosopher saith And that this is the question betweene vs the refuter hath truely witnessed in respect of the parts of the disiunction though in the latter he falsifieth my assertion where he saith the question betweene vs is whether the Churches should be gouerned by Pastors and Elders or by Diocesan Bishops The question indeed de facto for the time past is whether the primitiue Church were gouerned by Diocesan BB. or such Presbyteries as they speake of The question de iure respecting also the time present and to come is whether the Church may or should be gouerned by Bishops as we say or must be gouerned by their Presbyteries as they affirme This therefore being the question whether by our Bishops or their Presbyteries and this question implying a necessarie disiunction who seeth not that the disproofe of their Presbyteries is a direct proofe for our Bishops The disiunctiue argumentation standeth thus Either the primitiue Church was gouerned by Diocesan Bishops or by such Presbyteries as they stand for But not by such Presbyteries as they stand for Therefore by Diocesan Bishops The proposition is implyed in the very question betweene vs and the disiunction is therein by both parties presupposed as necessarie The assumption is that first point of the fiue which now we haue in hand The conclusion determineth the assertion which in the former part of the Sermon was propounded to be proued viz. that the primitiue Church was gouerned by Diocesan Bishops This passage therefore concerning Lay-Elders will I hope be acknowledged not to be impertinent Now that the Church was not gouerned by such Presbyteries as they speake of I proued in this passage Because howsoeuer with great vehemencie the Presbyterian discipline by lay or only gouerning Elders hath beene by them vrged and obtruded vpon vs yet they are not able to proue that euer there were any Presbyters which were not Ministers For the question which now we haue in hand being whether there were any such Presbyters in the primitiue Church as were not Ministers forasmuch as the Presbyterians are the opponents and plaintiffes not onely holding the affirmatiue that there were such but vehemently vrging that still there ought to be such we contrariwise the respondents and defendants holding the negatiue to wit that neither there were such nor now need to be the Reader therefore is to vnderstand that this burden of prouing lieth vpon them which hold and vrge the affirmatiue that there were and still ought to be Lay-Elders and that in vs it is a sufficient proofe of the negatiue if we can maintaine that they are not able to proue the affirmatiue And whereas all their proofes may be reduced to two heads for either they be such testimonies where the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presbyter is named or where at the least the function it selfe is as they suppose meant to these two heads therefore I oppose two contrarie assertions The one that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presbyter doth alwayes signifie a Minister the other that there is no one pregnant testimonie mentioning or meaning the lay or onely gouerning Elder The former of them being affirmatiue I doe briefly confirme by three reasons the latter being such a negatiue as cannot otherwise be proued for the induction of the particulars were infinite I doe therefore maintaine it against the principall instances of the aduersaries And this is the summe of this passage Now I come to his cauils with the particulars The two assertions which I did euen now mention opposed to the two heads of their proofes the refuter casteth into one Syllogisme and hauing so done wrangleth both with the substance of each proposition and also with the manner of setting them downe The Syllogisme is this If in the writings of the Apostles the ancient fathers and councils the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presbyter noting an Ecclesiasticall person doth euermore signifie a Minister or Priest and there cannot any one pregnant testimonie be alledged out of the scriptures councils or fathers mentioning or meaning any Lay-annuall-onely-gouerning-Presbyters then were there no other Presbyters in the primitiue Church but Ministers but the antecedent is true therefore the consequent In the antecedent of the proposition he noteth two parts the former whereof he reiecteth as superfluous because the latter is as firme and full without it And yet hauing reiected the former he saith the consequence is infirme and weake But if the former be therefore superfluous because the latter is firme and full without it by this reason it shall not be lawfull for a man to bring two arguments for one thing the one concluding the question without the other Yea but these two are ioyned in one proposition and therefore either must afford necessarie helpe to the other or the one is superfluous Blame him then that ioyned them and disdaine thâ—t sophisticall shifts of the refuter deuised to make himselfe worke Yea but if they be not ioyned the former wil be weake and of no strength for it will not suffice that I say the word Presbyter doth euermore signifie a Minister vnlesse I added onely For though it alway signifie a Minister yet it may also signifie him that is no Minister But in mine vnderstanding if it alwaies signifie a Minister it neuer signifieth him that is not a Minister Neither will it serue their turne that they make Presbyter the genus of teaching and gouerning-Elders vnlesse they can shew that as alwaies it signifieth a Minister so in some place an onely-gouerning Elder also and they must remember that in this cause of Elders they are the opponents and therefore they must proue that the places which they alledge for their Lay-presbyters not onely may but of necessitie must be vnderstood of them or else in vaine doe they vrge and obtrude them vpon vs. And surely we must needs esteeme it a very partiall genus and such as yet was neuer heard of that is alwaies predicated of the one species and neuer of the other If animal did alwaies signifie a man and were neuer predicated of any other thing but man we should hardly thinke it were the genus but the selfe same species and conuertible with it as indeed Presbyter is with Minister and therefore not the genus of it and that I proued when I said it alwaies signifieth a Minister because in english it is priest and in the scriptures is confounded with Episcopus and noteth such a person as must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 able to preach But let him adde onely if that would please him
quique seniores the approued Seniors be praesident Thirdly of Clement in his epistle to Iames translated by Rufinus cited by Gratian if any of the brethren haue Saints let them not be judged by secular Iudges sed apud Presbyteros Ecclesiae quicquid illud est dirimatur but before the Presbyters of the church let the cause be decided to their determination let the parties stand Fourthly of Ierome Presbyters saith hee meaning ministers whom he also calleth Preists and attributeth to them the ministery of the worde and Sacraments from the beginning were appointed Iudges of causes c. And to the same purpose the Authors of the centuries testifie that the Presbyters besides that they taught the people did also compound suites and controuersies Now that their aduise was much neglected and themselues but too much dejected by the Byshops in Ambrose his time appeareth not onely by his but also by Ieromes complaint Likewise by diuers Canons in the fourth councell of Carthage held about the yeare 401 wherein it was decreed that the Bishop without the assemblie of his clergie should not ordaine clerkes that in the ordination of a presbyter the Presbyters also which be present should with the Bishop impose their hands that the B should not determine any mans cause but in the presence of his Clergy that he might not alienate or sell the goods or possessions of the Church without the consent of his clergie that the Bishop though in the Church and in the assembly of the presbyters ought to sit in an higher place yet priuatly he should vse the presbyters as his Colleagues and sitting himselfe should not suffer a presbyter to stand that the Deacons should acknowledge themselues to be Ministers to the presbyters as well as to the Bishops that if the presbyters badde them they might sit in their presence which otherwise they might not doe All these things considered together with that which before hath bene alledged to proue that there were neuer any Lay-Elders doe necessarily euince that there is no reason to imagine if Doctorum signifie Doctors or Teachers Lay-Elders to be meant by Seniors in this place And so much of the exposition of this place according to the former sense of the word Doctorum signifying Doctors which with my aduersaries consent I doe much preferre before the other and therefore can be very well content to giue in the latter Notwithstanding because some perhaps will vnderstand the word Doctorum as being a common title both to Bishops and Presbyters signifying learned and will therefore imagine that the Elders whose counsell was neglected by them were Idiotae or Lay-men for their sakes therefore I will briefly shew that though this interpretation be admitted yet there is no necessitie that Seniors should signifie Lay-Elders for Doctorum being according to this interpretation a common title both to Bishops and Presbyters Ambrose his meaning may be conceiued to be this that the assistance and councell of ancient Ministers meant by Seniors who were wont to assist the Bishop was growne out of vse either by their owne negligeÌ„ce or the Bishops pride Whereunto after much froath of idle words he replyeth First that the Councell of Ministers was not growne out of vse in Ambrose his time and this he indeuoureth to proue by fiue testimonies First of Ierome saying that the Churches at the first were gouerned communi presbyterorum consilio by the common Councell of Presbyters Which testimonie maketh against him for Ierome speaketh of such Presbyters as Paul speaketh of who were Ministers and are there called Bishops If therefore the Church was at the first gouerned by common councell of Ministers and if Ambrose complaine that their councell in his time was neglected which at the first had beene vsed and whereby the Church had beene gouerned who seeth not that it was the neglect of the Ministers aduise wherof Ambrose complaineth 2. yea but Ierome saith we also in the Church haue senatum nostrum â—â—tum Presbyterorum our senate a company of Presbyters which testimonie is wont to be alleaged to proue that in Ieromes time there was a Presbyterie of Lay-Elders But here my aduersarie presupposing that Lay-Elders were growne out of vse in Ambrose his time whom T C supposeth to haue continued diuers hundred yeares after Ambrose bringeth it to proue that in Ieromes time who was almost as ancient as Ambrose there was a Senate of Ministers which no man doubteth of For else-where he saith the Church hath a Senate a companie of Presbyters without whose Counsell the Monkes may doe nothing And not only in Ieromes time the Church had but in all Ages since euen to this day it hath such a Senate which in latter times hath called Capitulum the chapter Howbeit both in Ambrose his time and since the aduise and assistance thereof notwithstanding the Decree of the fourth counsell of Carthage hath beene though in some things eueÌ„ to this day vsed yet in the most things and for the most part neglected His third testimony which hee saith is plaine enough of the saide Ierome cited in the canon Law is also plaine against him For hauing saide as euen now I alledged him that the presbyters from the beginning had bene appointed to heare and iudge causes as the Bishops assistants hee prooueth it because they also in the scriptures are called Bishops howsoeuer now the Bishops enuied them that dignitie c. His 4. testimonie is the 23. canon of the councell of Carthage which euen now I cited which maketh against him rather then for him For seeing good lawes arise from bad manners it is to bee imagined that according to the complaint of Ambrose and Ierome who were somewhat before this councell the presence of the Clergie and assistance of the presbyters was neglected and that this neglect gaue occasion to the making of that canon His. 5. testimonie is of D. Bilson though hee name also another learned maÌ„ only to abuse him Howbeit D. Bilson vnderstandeth Ambrose as coÌ„plaining of the Bishops of his time who whiles they would seeme to rule alone had excluded or neglected the aid couÌ„sell of their bretheren of the Clergie who were wont to aduise and assist them as well in Doctrine as in Discipline And whereas in the second place he replieth that slothfulnesse and pride must needs be referred to the same persons and not slothfulnes to presbyters and pride to BB I answeare that if Doctorum be a common title to both as it is if it signifie learned and if the slothfulnes of the presbyters rather then of the BB. be as like almost to be the cause why their assistance grew out of vse as the pride of the BB then is there no necessitie that slothfulnesse and pride should both be attributed to the Bishops but rather it is very likely that slouthfulnes is imputed to
that there were no other but parish Bishops In the meane time let the Reader hold this for a certaine and vndeniable truth that there were no Presbyteries of Ministers but onely in cities and Cathedrall Churches but hereof I shall haue occasion to speake in the second booke As touching the second conclusion it followeth thus the parish pastor had either a Presbyterie to assist him or he was subiect to superiors as namely the Diocesan and prouinciall Bishops to ouerrule him or else he ruled like a Pope for a fourth thing cannot be named before there were Christian Magistrates But it is absurd to imagine that in the primitiue Church they had an absolute popeling who neither had assistants nor superiors for that were to ascribe not onely supreme but also sole power to them and it is as false that in seuerall parishes there was a Presbyterie to assist him therefore it remaineth that the parish Bishops were subiect to the authoritie of the Diocesan and prouinciall Bishops To the proposition he answereth two wâ—ies first by retortion that what I say of the parish Bishop his ruling as a Pope may with more probabilitie be spoken of a Diocesan Bishop which I haue answered before For this is the second place where he laboureth out of my wordâ— to proue our Diocesan Bishops to be popes vsing this insultation in the margent Sic tu beas amiâ—os But though their parish Bishops whom they make the supreme Ecclesiasticall officers would be absolute popelings if presbyteries were not adioyned to them because they should haue not onely Supreame but also sole authoritie yet it followeth not that our Bishops to whom neither supreme nor sole authoritie belongeth should he esteemed such Secondly he denieth the disfunction alleaging that a fourth thing might be added concerning the chiefe authoritie of the people Which if it be added in the proposition is with the rest to be denied in the assumption For this brownisticall or rather Anabaptisticall conceit for some of the Brownists disclaime it that the Bishops in the primitiue Church were subiected to the people as if the state of the Church had beene Democraticall or popular is a dotage that was neuer dreamed of till of late and therefore as it is most confidently to be denied so it needed not to be inserted in the proposition CHAP. IX Answering the testimonies which by the refuter are alleaged to proue Lay-Elders BVt now had I need to call for armour of defence For hitherto saith the refuter we haue warded the blowes that M. D. gaue to beat downe the Lay-presbyterie now let vs shew that we also can strike if need be The Reader that hath found the refuter so strict in exacting Syllogismes of me euen when I performe the part of an answerer cannot but expect most formall and accurate Syllogismes at his hands But he shall finde that to be true which I foretold him not long since that this great Champion not daring to vrge his testimonies or to reduce his proofes into Syllogismes according to the poore pollicie of them all holdeth out certaine testimonies as it were Pallas shield thinking with the bare quotation of them though he cite them not to put vs to silence And to this purpose like a notorious Mountebanke setting himselfe to delude the simple he commendeth his witnesses euen Christ himselfe his Apostles and Euangelists with swelling titles when their testimonies themselues are not so much as cited as though he thought it more needfull to winne credit to his witnesses then to proue â—hat they testifie that for which he would seeme to alleage them But you shall heare Pyrgopolinices himselfe For the scriptures we haue among others these mightie ones to wage battell for vs. First the great Emperour of the Christian armie our Sauiour Christ himselfe Mat. 18.17 Next a great worthy Luke the Euangelist Act. 14.23 Adde to these Iames the Apostle one of the Pillars of the Church Iam. 5.14 and that famous Generall of the gentiles the Apostle Paul Rom. 12 8.1 Cor. 12.28 These are most worthy witnesses indeed and without exception If any one of these giue testimonie to your Lay-Elders we will most willingly yeeld But I pray you let vs heare their words It shall not need if you will not belieue vs that they giue testi-monie to Lay-Elders yet belieue other diuines who say they doe Are they witnesses what they said only or what by the holy Ghost is committed to writing If the latter why be not their owne testimonies produced but other witnesses must be deposed that they said so when it appeareth vpon most authenticall record whether they said so or not Let vs therefore heare the words themselues The first is Matt. 18.17 Where our Sauiour Christ saith dic Ecclesiae tell the Church or assembly What then therefore there ought to be Lay-Elders in euery congregation See you not by this time what a striker this is first there may be question whether Ecclesia signifie the whole congregation of the people or an assembly of iudges or gouernours if the former sense be followed there is no shew for Lay-Elders If the latter which is the more likely question againe may be made whether Christ speake of the Synedrion of the Iewes as Caluin and some others suppose or of Christian gouernours if of the Synedrion which was a ciuill senate and indeed the high counsell of estate in the policie of the Iewes what doth that make for Ecclesiasticall Elders in the Church of Christ and that in euery parish If of christian gouernours as the Fathers expound it what sense is there to vnderstand the words of Lay-Elders vnlesse it can otherwise be proued either that Christ had alreadie ordained them or that afterwards they were in vse in the Church of Christ. But the former is absurd and for the latter they haue not so much as a faire shew being disarmed of the two places which I haue vindicated out of their hands viz 1. Tim. 5.17 and Ambrose in 1. Tim. 5.1 Nay further I adde that if it could be proued as it neuer will that euer there were Lay-Elders in the Church before this our age yet they should but argue from the Genus to the Species affirmatiuely tell the gouernours ergo Lay-Elders wherefore this is a very seely argument Yea but other diuines say that Christ spake of Lay-Elders What others say it is not greatly materiall in this kind so long as we plainely see there is no necessitie nor probabilitie so to vnderstand him But who are they that say so Chrysostome Theophylact Erasmus Caluin Beza Piscator vpon the place it selfe c. For the three first because they are no parties I can be content to examine their testimonies All that Chrysostome saith of those words is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tell the Church that is Prelates and gouernours and on those words whatsoeuer you shall bind on earth c nec dicit saith he Ecclesiae presuli neither did he
question which wee haue in hand concerning parish Bishops For surely if there were any parishionall Bishops in the Countrey then the Countrey Bishops were such but they were not such for they were set ouer diuers parishes Againe if the Chorepiscopi were subiect to the Bishop of the Citie and the Countrey whereof they were Bishops was part of the diocesse belonging to the Bishop of the Citie then much more the Presbyters of parishes who were inferiour and in some things subiect to the Chorepiscopi as the Bishops substitutes were subiect to the Bishop and their parishes being but a part of the Country whereof the Chorepiscopi were called Bishops were but a part of the diocesse So farre were either the parish Presbyters from being Bishops or their parishes from being entire Churches endued with the power of ecclesiasticall gouernement But the former is true as hath beene proued therefore the latter That the Chorepiscopi were superiour to them it is apparant because not onely they had some iurisdiction ouer diuers parishes but for a time had episcopall ordination and had authoritie to ordaine Subdeacons and to place Readers in parishes as also they might send Formatas or Canonicall Epistles which the Presbyters might not doe Likewise when Bishops were at any time conuerted from heresie though they were not permitted to be Bishops of the City yet they were gratified with the name and authoritie of Chorepiscopi In the time of Theodosius and Valentinian a certaine Bishop had beene ordained by two Bishops only but this ordination the Councell of Rhegium pronounced void and censured the ordainers As for the partie ordained because hee had of himselfe renounced the Bishopricke they thought good to follow the example of the Councell of Nice and to gratifie him with the name and title of a Chorepiscopus but so as that hee should not ordaine nor exercise any other episcopall function but only confirme Nouices and consecrate Virgins and in all things behaue himselfe as inferiour to a Bishop and as superiour to a Presbyter And this was my second argument whereby I haue prooued that Countrey parishes had no Bishops Neither had each of them a Presbyterie but seuerall Presbyters assigned to them as sufficient for such a charge as was determined by the Councell of Sardica and by the iudgement of Leo Yea not Presbyters only did seuerallie gouerne parishes as with vs but sometimes Deacons also were by themselues set ouer charges You heard before diuers testimonies of the Presbyters of parishes as namely that of the Councel of Carthage Presbyter qui Paroeciae praest c. the Presbyter which gouerneth the parish The like is presupposed of Deacons in the Councell of Eliberis which is supposed to be as ancient as the Councell of Nice If any Deacon ruling a people shall without a Bishop or Presbyter baptize any c. Againe if parishes besides their Presbyter or Pastor had a presbytery then was it either of the Ministery or of the Laitie But Presbyteries of Ministers were only in Cities and Cathedrall Churches and not any examples can bee alleged of Presbyteries in the Country no not to assist the Chorepiscopi much lesse to assist the Presbyters of parishes and Presbyteries of Lay men were neuer heard of till this last age Therefore the seuerall parishes had not Presbyteries Moreouer Churches endued with power ecclesiasticall sufficient for the gouernment of themselues hauing also a Bishop and Presbyterie had the power of ordination as themselues also teach But Countrey parishes had not the power of ordination Therefore Countrey parishes were not indued with power ecclesiasticall neither had they a Bishop or Presbyterie of their owne For the Assumption let the Refuter consider with mee what course was taken in Countrey parishes when their Minister was departed Among themselues they had ordinarily none or if by chance they had they could not ordaine him but were as sometimes it happened in Cities to offer him to the Bishop to be ordained Vniuersities they had none from whence to fetch a learned Minister out of other dioceses they were not to bee supplied vnlesse first it did appeare that their owne Bishop was not able out of his Clergie to furnish them To the Bishop of the Citie therefore they did resort who out of the Clergie belonging to the Cathedrall Church wherein as the Nurserie of the diocesse diuers were brought vp in the studie of diuinitie did supply their want assigning some one of his Clergie vnto them But if there were none fit as sometimes their store was drawne drie by supplying the wants of many they might not ordaine a Minister of another diocesse whom they called another Bishops Clerke without his leaue and dimissorie letters for that in the Canons was condemned as a great wrong and such ordinations were to be disanulled If therefore the Bishop neither had of his owne nor knew not readily where to be supplied out of a neighbour diocesse with the consent of his neighbour Bishop he sent to the Metropolitan who either out of his owne Clergie or some other in the Prouince was to supplie them And this as it is euident to them who haue read any thing concerning the state of the ancient Churches so is it confessed by Caluin Each City saith he had a College of Presbyters who were Pastors and Teachers for both did they all discharge the office of teaching c. to the people and also that they might leaue seede behinde them they were diligently imploied in instructing the younger sort of the Clergie To euery Citie a certaine region was attributed which should receiue their Ministers from thence and be accounted of the body of that Church It is therefore euident that Countrey parishes had not each of them a Bishop and Presbyterie nor that power of ecclesiasticall gouernment which they talke of And much lesse had the parishes in the Cities For it was neuer almost heard of that there were at any time more Bishops so properly called then one in a City where notwithstanding were many Presbyters when schisme or heresie was not the cause of setting vp a second or third against the one only lawfull Bishop excepting that in the same Church sometimes a second either hath beene permitted the title of a Bishop without episcopall authoritie or else ordained as a coadiutor to the first And when there haue beene more then one by schisme or heresie yet neither the orthodoxall and Catholike Bishop nor yet the schismaticall or hereticall Bishop was a parishionall Bishop but each of them was Bishop of all that were of the same faith with them in the Citie and Countrey adioining there hauing beene diuers times in the Cities onely more parishes then one not onely of the true Christians but also of the heretikes and schismatickes as before was noted concerning Antioch I shall haue occasion to speake more of this point when I shall intreat of the singularitie of preheminence which
Such as are the French and Duch Churches here in England such were the Churches in the Apostles times But the French and Duch Churches here in England are not diocesan but distinct parishionall assemblies Therefore the Churches in the Apostles times were not diocesan but distinct parishionall assemblies First I denie the proposition not onely because the circuit of the Churches in the Apostles intention was not included within a Citie as of the French and Duch Churches with vs but chiefly because the French Church for example in London is but one Church among many professing the same religion being a certaine and set number hauing a Presbytery consisting for the most part of lay men placed among vs not with purpose to conuert either the City or Country to them but to attend them of their owne Church whereas contrariwise the Churches in the Apostles times before the diuision of parishes were not each of them one among many but were planted among heathen people hauing a Bishop and a Presbyterie of learned men placed among them as leauen is put into the lumpe with purpose to conuert the rest both in Citie and Country The Church which had the Bishop and Presbytery first placed in it was Matrix Ecclesia as after it was called begetting other Churches and spirituall Fathers for them which being begotten in Citie and Countrey were all euen when the whole Citie and Country were filled with her off-spring to bee subordinate and subiect to her as their mother But no such thing can be imagined of the Duch and French Churches among vs. As touching the assumption I say that the French and Duch Churches with vs are not properly parishes nor such as the ancient parishes were after the first diuision of them seeing the members thereof dwell in many distinct parishes either of them being endued with power of ecclesiasticall gouernement and not subordinate to another Church as members thereof but being entire bodies by themselues are models as it were of diocesan Churches hauing a Presbytery as the Church of Geneua hath to supply the want of a Bishop which once they had and still might haue in imitation of the ancient Christians who when the Citie where they dwelt was replenished and the Mother Church occupied with men of another faith as with Arians sometimes in Antioch and Alexandria as ours be with men of another Language had a Bishop of their owne in all respects like other Bishops sauing that they held not the Mother Church and therefore had neither the like Clergie nor the like reuenewes to maintaine them The second thing which hee opposeth is as I said a shew of regestion which he propoundeth with great confidence as if hee had mee at no small aduantage saying that I pull downe with one hand that I set vp with another If there were at that time no parishes how could there bee dioceses seeing euery diocesse consisteth of diuers distinct parishes Thus saith he the light will breake out though men shut their eies against it You see how bragge hee would seeme to bee But good sir what is this to my consequence If there were no parishes in the Apostles times then the Presbyteries were not appointed to parishes You answer If there were no parishes then there were no dioceses To what end is this spoken To denie my consequence or the maine conclusion Assume But you say there were no parishes therefore there were no dioceses which is the contradictorie to the maine conclusion But where doe I say there were no parishes Not in the proposition where it is only supposed but in the assumption for that which is supposed in the antecedent of the proposition is positiuely set downe in the assumption Therefore when he would seeme to deny the consequence of the proposition he doth not so much as touch it But by taking a supposed aduantage against the Assumption hee denieth the principall conclusion But let vs examine his argument If there were no parishes in the Apostles times there were no Dioceses This consequence I deny For the Diocesse was the same before the Parishes were diuided and after And the circuit of the spirituall iurisdiction intended the same before parishes were diuided with that it was after they were diuided that is answerable to the ciuill The same circuit belonging to the Church both in the intention before all were conuerted and in execution after all were conuerted which belonged to the ciuill state Yea but saith he euery Diocesse consisteth of distinct Parishes It is true after the distinction of Parishes but not before as a bach of bread consisteth of many distinct loaues after the distinction which before it contained vndistinguished in the lumpe A man consisteth of many distinct members after they are distinguished which at his first conception were not distinct The Proposition being thus recouered out of his hands J am now to rescue the Assumption Which saith that the Churches in the Apostles times were not diuided into parishes c. Which is to be vnderstood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as true of the most Churches Here I expect a direct answere were they diuided into parishes or were they not If they were as at Alexandria it seemeth to haue beene euen in the Apostles times then was not euery Church but one parish if they were not then the Presbyters were not assigned to seuerall parishes and so the assumption is true Nay rather then the assumption shall goe for currant we will deny each Church to haue beene but a parish Is it credible that any man should bee so transported with the spirit of contradiction as that hee should not care so hee may gainesay his aduersaries present assertion how shamefully hee contradicteth himselfe yet thus it fareth with our refuter In oppugning the proposition hee said and laboured to proue it that each church was but one parish the same he saith and saith againe in defending their obiections propounding his own only argumēt And yet here this assumptiō must be censured as hauing no truth in it for that it denieth Parishes to haue beene distinguished in the Apostles times and the Presbyters to haue beene assigned to their seuerall titles or cures They be his wordes in the conclusion of his answere to the assumptiō And the same he repeateth pag. 71. But let vs see what he obiecteth against the assumption First he findeth an errour in it before noted concerning the end of the Presbyters ordination which he saith is here repeated and therefore not of ignorance by him omitted in the proposition the which though hee call an errour yet I proued to be an euident truth and discouered the shallownes of their iudgement which do denie it Besides that errour he chargeth the maine points in the assumption as altogether void of truth The points are these 1. that parishes were not distinguished in the apostles times 2. that Presbyters were not then assigned to their seuerall titles or cures 3. that they were in
late been most vrged or of outfacing the truth with vaunts of diuers testimonies and reasons which are scarce worth the answering blaming also me for bringing but one reason for them when himselfe after all his brags bringeth but one and that not so strong though you adde thereto the testimonies which he vaunteth of In the obiection which J bring for them he putteth such confidence that if he can make it good against me whereof he doubteth not such is his tried valor all my labour about my Sermon will proue nothing worth No doubt he would appeare to be some tall man if he durst shew his head But let vs heare his dispute for he hath taken the obiection out of my hands because I did not vrge it strongly for them obiecting no more then J knew my selfe able to answere and yet all that he addeth is but losse of time in multiplying of words First he premiseth a syllogisme concluding the maine question that the Churches in the Apostles times hee should haue added as I did and the age following for themselues in their question include two hundred yeeres were not dioceses properly but parishes If the Presbyteries and presidents therof in the great Cities â—ere assigned but to one particular ordinary congregation assembled together in one place then the Churches in the Apostles times and in the age following were not dioceses properly but parishes But the Presbyteries and presidents thereof in the great Cities were assigned but to one particular ordinary congregation assembled together in one place Therefore the Churches in the Apostles times and in the age following were not dioceses properly but parishes The consequence of the proposition is cleare by that I answered a little before where I said that adâ—cesse must needs consist of distinct congregations But if this proposition haue no better hypothesis to support it I may deny it seeing I haue proued before that there were dioceses in the first conception of the Churches before distinction of parishes So that the addition of this syllogisme hath made his cause somewhat worse then it was before The assumption is thâ—â—â—râ—â—â—d If all the Christians in any one great Citie did make but one such congregation then both the Presbyteries and presidents thereof were assigned but to one congregation hee should say to one particular ordinarie congregation assembled together in one place But al the Christianâ— in any great Citie vnderstand in the first 200 yeeres did make but one such congregation Therefore both the Presbyteries and presidents therof of were assigned but to one congregation The former syllogisme for breuity I omitted desiring in few words to bring their argument to the issue presuming that any man might from my conclusion deduce the maine question after this manner They were prouided but for one particular ordinary congregation assembâ—ing together in one place Therefore not for a diocesse The second which containeth the issue I propounded as forcibly as he hath done But my aduersary is one of those disputers who when the consequence of an Enthymeme is denied make it good by a connexiue syllogisme When as an Enthymeme for disputation is by somuch better then a connexiue syllogisme by how much it is shorter the consequence being thesame with the connexion of the proposition the antecedent all one with the assumption and the consequent the very same with the conclusion of the connexiue syllogisme Such disputers are good to waste paper and spend time But to the point I deny as before both the consequence and the antecedent of the Enthymeme so now both the proposition and the assumption of his syllogisme The proofe of the consequence hee slubbereth ouer for his faculty is better in denying consequences then in prouing of them For saith hee seeing the deniall is vpon this ground that the Prestbyters were appointed not onely to take charge of them that were conuerted but also to labour the conuersion of the rest which we haue shewed to bee false it wil remaine good notwithstanding But I haue proued that it is an vndigested fancy rare conceit of shallow if not giddy heads which see no further then their nose end to imagine that the Apostles intending as they cannot deny the conuersion of the citie and country did place in the citie a Bishop and Presbytery to take charge only of that small number which at the first was conuerted but chiefly from hence to infer that euery particular parish should haue the like Bâ—shop and Presbytery The antient Church of God in all places vnderstood the Apostles intent as I expound the same And therefore when all both in citie and country were conuerted to the profession of the faith they acknowledged the generall care and inspection ouer them all to belong to that one Bâ—shop of the citie and themselues as I said in the Sermon to be part of that Church and neuer did vnlesse it were in time of schisme or heresie set vp another B. and Presbytery within the diocesse but euery congregation contented it selfe with a learned Presbyter if it could bee so well prouided for And this is so manifest a truth that I doubt not to pronounce him void either of a sound iudgement or good conscience that shall deny it This consequence therefore will neuer bee made good And therefore the Refuter might haue saued his labour if it were ought worth which he spendeth vpon the assumption vntill he had proued the proposition Yea but this consequence belike might haue been made stronger For he did wisely saith he to digge the pit no deeper but that he might be able to fill it againe so could hee not haue done had â—e gone as low as we doe who thus frame our reason All the Christians in any one great Citie and the townes about it vnlesse there were distinct Churches in those townes did make but one particular ordinary congregation assembled in one place Therefore both the Presbyters and Presidents thereof were assigned but to one congregation I mislike not his addition of the townes about so he will bee pleased as hee addeth them to strengthen his consequence so not to forget as I doubt he will to take them into the defence of his antecedent But where he speaketh of his digging deeper others as good Pioners as hee to vndermine the state of our Church went no deepeer and I durst not adde more to their antecedent as he hath done lest I should make it too absurd But what meaneth that parenthesis vnlesse there were distinct Churches in those townes I feare to be circumuented with this inclosure Belike there were more congregations then one in the cities and townes as he said before Cenchrea was a distinct Church from Corinth and then how shall all both in citie and country be said to bee but one congregation Tush wee haue a bush for that gap We will except all other congregations but that one and so they being excepted all will bee but one Ridiculum caput As if
Presbyter assigned to it this will prooâ—e that the mother Church of Corinth was diocesan as all Cathedrall Churches bee and that parishes distinguished from the Cathedrall as children from the mother were such as that of Cenchreae That which is testified for Ephesus Act. 20.28 is such as vpon like occasion might by all in his visitation be applied to aâ—â— the ministers of a diocesse that they should attend the stocke c. For must the word stocke which may be extended either to the vniuersall or nationall or prouinciall or diocesan Church must it needes signifie onely the congregation of a Parish yet he that breathes nothing but nouelties saith it is a new conceit to suppose a Diocesan flocke But this calumny of nouelty I haue by plentifull testimonies of antiquity before cited wiped cleane away As touching Act. 14.27 cited for Antioch where it is said that Paul and Barnabas gathered together the Church to relate vnto them what God had done by them since they had laid their hands vpon them and had commended them to the grace of God it is apparant that not all the Church consisting of husbands and wiues their children and seruants but some of the chiefe and principall perhappes not many perhappes not any besides those of the Clergy were called to that meeting These were his proofes out of the Scripture His other testimonies are out of Eusebius Ignatius and some of our owne Writers all which testimonies are scarse worth the mentioning Eusebius calleth the Churches of Corinth Ephesus and Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the ancient vse of this word sometimes signifying the whole Diocesse sometimes the whole City and Suburbes I haue spoken sufficiently heretofore as also of that which hee obiecteth concerning the Parish in Ephesus Wherto I adde that Eusebius as he vsed the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the same purpose Ignatius writing to the Church of Ephesus the multitude whereof hee calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if he had of purpose noted it to be a Church consisting of many multitudes or congregations exhorteth them as one might in like manner the faithfull in London though diuided into many congregations to come oft together to giue thanks and glory to God for when you come oft together into one place the power of Satan is weakened c. His other testimony out of Ignatius is out of his Epistle to Hero where he calleth the Church of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Synagogue that is the church or congregation of the Lord. The word being vsed in the same signification with Ecclesia whereof I spake before But whether Ignatius were Bishop onely of one Congregation or parish let his own words testifie Remember me saith he in his Epistle to the Magnesians in your praiers and the Church which is in Syria whereof I am not worthy to be called the Bishop And in the Epistle to the Romanes towardes the latter end Remember in your praier the Church in Syria the which in stead of me hath the Lord to bee her pastor who saith I am the good shepheard Or if these words bee not plaine inough hee calleth himselfe in the same Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bishop of Syria Now let my aduersarie tell mee what maner of Parish Syria was And let me heare also what he can obiect against these two Epistles of Ignatius to the Magnesians and Romanes For euen they which suspect his Epistle to Herâ— which the refuter citeth and foure others acknowledge these two to bee no bastards Eusebius mentioneth both And that to the Romans he not onely mentioneth but also citeth a good part thereof Thus leauing that most pregnant and authentique euidence of Ignatius to my aduersary to muse vpon J come to his testimonies of our new writers all which excepting two testimonies of Tindall he most childishly alleadgeth to proue that the Churches of Ephesus and of other the like Cities were each of them but a Parish because they call a Church a Congregation vsing the word Congregation in as ample sense as before I proued the word Ecclesia whereof that is the English to bee vsed The auncient English Bibles neuer almost vse the word church but in stead thereof doe vse the word congregation not onely where is mention of particular Churches but of the vniuersall or catholicke Church As Mat. 16. Vpon this rocke I will build my congregation Eph. 1. Hee hath made him head of the Congregation which is his body Eph. 5. Yee husbands loue your wiues as Christ loued the congregation And so in the Communion Booke both in the Praiers translation there vsed As in the Praier for the King before the Epistle haue mercy on the whole congregation In the solemnization of Matrimony out of Ephes. 5. I speake of Christ and the Congregation But you shall heare his particulars First Tindall translateth the word Ecclesia by congregation thus to the angell of the congregation of Ephesus c. 2. Iohn Bale translateth and expoundeth the word Candlesticke and Church by Congregation The reasons why the first Translaters of the Bible into English in these latter times did auoid the name Church and insteed thereof vsed Congregation doe seeme to haue been these two The first because Church or Kyrk being deriued from the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth more properly signifie the place of meeting then the congregation it selfe which is meant by ecclesia and therefore the word Congregation thought to be the fitter translation The second because the Papists had abused the word Church whether it were generally vsed to signifie the Romish Church or particularly to import the Romish clergy So saieth Tindal Because the clergy had appropriated to themselues the name Church therefore I translated the word Ecclesia by this word Congregation For when the people vnderstood that by Church was meant the company of men professing the faith of Christ the name Church is euery where vsed as the translation of ecclesia Thirdly Yea but D. Fulke iustifying the translation of Ecclesia Eph. 5.23 by congregation argueth plainely that he held the Church of Ephesus to consist but of one particular congregation onely Which allegation sheweth extreame want either of iudgement or honesty for what church or congregation is there mentioned the Church of Ephesus or the vniuersall Church of Christ when it is said as Christ is the head of the Church Vpon which words when the Rhemists had noted it as a corruption of the first English Bibles which did not vse the word Church but congregation in stead thereof D. Fulke answereth that the Translator rather vsed the word Congregation then Church to auoide ambiguity because this word Church is commonly taken for the house of the assembly of Christians and that the people might know that the Church is a gathering together of al the
shall bee lawfull to take another The vntruths therefore which the Refuter hath bestowed vpon me here he must be intreated to take to himselfe To proue their dissent from vs in this fourth point I alleaged Beza his distinction of Bishops into three sorts and because it is an odious distinction I conceaâ—â—d his name and to salue his credit J shewed that although hee came farre short of Caluins moderation yet he is more moderately affected towards our Bishops then the Disciplinarians among vs vsually bee who as they speake despitefully of them calling them Antichristian pettite Popes c. so doe they wish and labour for the extirpation of them whereas Beza speaking reuerently of them praieth for their continuance But both his distinction and his wish by the Refuter are peruerted expounding him as though he had accounted for humane those which had onely a priority of order whereas indeed he acknowledgeth such a presidentship as you haue heard to be a diuine ordinance and vnderstandeth his praier where he wisheth the continuance of the Bishops as if he had wished that so long as England hath Bishops they may bee such as may giue their liues for the truth as they did Where whiles hee vnderstandeth Beza as wishing our Bishoppes to be Martyrs he indiscreetly maketh him to wish that our Princes may bee persecutors which God forbid That which he addeth concerning my saying Amâ—â— to the like wish for the Churches of France and Scotland and yet be no maintainer of their presbyteries is meerely idle for I did not bring in Beza as a maintainer of Bishops bvt rather did note him as one of their chiefe opposites citing his differences from vs and mentioning that distinction of Bishops howbeit I acknowledge his proposition to be with more moderation then is commonly to be found in the Disciplinarians among vs. Now I am to descend with him into the particulars which I propounded to be handled first to shew that the Bishops or Angels of the primitiâ—e Church were as well as ours superior to other Ministers in degree and secondly to declare more particularly wherein their superiority did consist But before he entreth the combate distrusting himselfe and his cause he seeketh as such champions vse to doe which way if need be he may make an escape and hauing to this purpose looked well about him he hath found out two starting holes whereby he hopeth to finde some euasion The former hath these windings and turnings in it 1. That the primitiâ—e church is to be confined to the Apostles times and not extended to the whole 200 yeares 2. That the question is â—â— be â—nderstood of the Angels of the 7. Churches 3. That I must pâ—â—â—â—e these Angels to haue had sole power of ordination and iurisdiction The first of these argueth extreame diffidence for Caluin and others in this question within the limits of the primitiue Church include the times of Constantiâ—e at the least yea Caluin includeth all the time aâ—tepapaâ—â—m before the Papacy in which time he acknowledgeth the forme of Church gouernment to haue had nothing in it almost dissoâ—ant from the word of God And whereas saith he euery prouince had among their Bishops an Archbishop and whereas also in the Councill of Nice there were established Patriarchs who in order and dignity were superior to the Archbishops that appertained to the preseruation of discipline And although he misliketh that the gouernment so established was called Hiera â—hy notwithstanding if omitting the name saith he we looke into the thing we shall finde that the ancient Bishops would not frame a forme of Church gouernment differing from that which God prescribed in his word And Beza confesseth that those things which were ordained of the antient Fathers concerning the seats of Bishops Metropolitanes and Patriarches assigning their limits and attributing vnto them certaine authority were appointed optimo zelo out of a very good zeale And therefore no doubt out of such zeale as was according to knowledge otherwise it would haue been far from being optimus the best Zanchius intreating of the diuers orders of Ministers in the primitiue Church as Presbyters Bishops Archbishops c. faith they may be defended Against which some learned man I will not say Beza hauing taken exception Zanchius maketh this apology When I wrote this confessioÌ„ of the faith I did write all things out of a good conscience and as I beleeued so I freely spake Now my faith is grounded chiefly and simply on the word of God Something also in the next place on the common consent of the whole antient Catholike Church if that bee not repugnant to the Scriptures I doe also beleeue that what things were defined and receiued by the godly Fathers being gathered together in the name of the Lord by the common consent of all without any gainsaying of the holy scriptures that those things also though they be not of the same authority with the holy Scriptures proceeded from the holy Ghost Hence it is that those things that be of this kind I neither will nor dare with good conscience mislike But what is more certaine out of histories Councels and writings of all the Fathers then that those orders of Ministers whereof I spake were established and receiued by the common consent of all Christendome Quis aâ—tem ego sim qui quod tota Ecclesia approbauiâ— improbem And who am I that I should disallow that which the whole Church allowed c. Neither doe I see any reason why the Church in Constantines time should not rather bee propounded as a pateâ—â—e for imitation to Churches that liue vnder Christian princes and flourish through Gods blessing in peace and prosperitie then the Churches of former times which were not in all things established and setled according to their desires but were hindred by persecutioÌ„ For in time of persecution their gouernment was not alwaies such as they would but such as they could attaine vnto And vnlesse we would haue the Churches to liue alwaies vnder persecution it is madnesse to require them to be imitated in all things But what was by generall consent receiued and practised in the time of peace and prosperity was that which in their iudgements ought to be done and is of vs being in the like case to be imitated Now that in Constantines time the Bishops had superiority ouer other Ministers in degree and a singular preheminence of power and authority it is most euident Neither was their superiority and authority increased by the accession of the Christian Magistrate as their wealth was but rather diminished seeing while there was not a Christian Magistrate they were faine to supply that defect and by their owne authority did many things which afterward were done or assisted by the Magistrate But though there can no colour of a good reason be giuen why the superiority and authority of Bishoppes as they were diocesan should haue been greater
shew they had then can it not be doubted but that diocesan Bishops much more were in the Apostles times for euery Metropolitā was originally B. of his peculiar diocesse being not actually a Metropolitan vntill diuers Churches in the same prouince being constituted there was a consociation among themselues and subordination of them to him as their primate There was therefore no such difference betweene the first two ages of the Churches and those which followed as that either H. I. or the Refuter should restraine the times of the primitiue Church either to the end of the second century or of the first with hope to escape that way Wherefore what proofes I bring from the third or fourth yea or fifth century for the superiority of Bishops they are to be esteemed such as doe directly and sufficiently proue the question vnlesse they shall be able to shew not onely that no such thing was in vse but also that it was not intended in the Apostles time and the age following for what was receiued and practised by generall consent in all Christendome so soone as God gaue peace vnto his Church was vndoubtedly desired and intended from the beginning The second corner of his first starting hole wherewith the second also meeteth is that the question is of the seuen Angels And what of no other Is it not lawfull to ascend from the hypothesis to the thesis especially when it is confessed by the Refuter that the primitiue Churches were all of the like constitution And therefore what may be said either of the seuen Angels in respect of the substance of their calling may be concluded of other Bishops and what may be said of the office of other Bishoppes in the primitiue Church may be verified of these Angels The third that I must proue these Angels to haue had sole power of ordination and iurisdiction which also is repeated in his second euasion But where doe I say in all the sermon that the Bishops had the sole power of ordination and iurisdiction Where doe I deny either that the BB. did or might vse the assistance of their Presbyters for either of both or that in the defect of Bishops both the one and the other might be performed by Presbyters In a word where doe I deny all power either of ordination or iurisdiction to Presbyters But let the Reader vnderstand that there are two maine calumniations whereby this Resuter and his consorts doe vse to disgrace my Sermon with their followers The one that I hold the tenure of our episcopal function so to be iure diuino as though no other manner of gouernment were any way or any where lawfull The other that J ascribe so the sole power of of ordination and iurisdiction to BB. as though the Presbyters had no iurisdiction or as though those Churches had no lawful Ministers which haue not such BB. to ordaine them His other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or starting hole is that which hee hath already foure times runne into and making vse of it now the fifth time in the beginning of the next section desireth the Reader that it may not be tedious to him that now the fifth time he doth finde fault with me for not concluding what hee according to his forced analysis would haue concluded though all men see I doe directly prooue what before was propounded for the proof of my first assertion viz. that the Angels or BB. of the primitiue Church were diocesan Bishops and for the substance of their calling such as ours be Hauing therefore prooued that their Churches were dioceses and themselues diocesan it remained that J should proue that they were as well as ours superior to other Ministers in degree c which if I did not endeuor to proue directly he might haue had some quarrell against me CHAP. II. That Bishops were superior to other Ministers in degree Serm. sect 2. pag. 29. That Bishoppes were superiour to other Ministers in degree all antiquitie with one consent if you except Aërius c. to the end of pag. 31. MY reason hee frameth thus If all antiquitie except Aërius who for dissenting in this point was counted an heretike by Epiphanius and Augustine with one consent doe acknowledge that Bishops were superior to other Ministers in degree then Bishops were superior to other Ministers in degree But the former is true therefore the latter First hee cauilleth with the consequence which no man bearing the face of a Diuine I had almost said of a Christian would doe calling it sore poore feeble and insufficient vnlesse the consent of the Apostles and Euangelists be added Where let the Reader consider what is the question which is here concluded viz. That the Bishops of the primitiue Church were superiour to other Ministers in degree This question plainly is de facto of what was for de iure that is of the quality lawfulnes I intreat in the second assertion Now for a man to deny credit to all antiquitie in a matter of fact not gainsaid by scripture it is a plain euidence that he is addicted to nouelty and singularity rather then the truth Doth all antiquity testifie with one consent that the Bishops in the primitiue Church were superior to other Ministers in degree and hath any of vs the forehead to deny it Neither is the consent of the Apostles wanting as ◠proue in the sermon both in the particulars of the superiority in respect of the fact as also in respect of the right in the demonstration of the second assertion Where I doe with such euidence demonstrate that the Bishops described in the first assertion are of Apostolicall institution as I am well assured that this Refuter with all his partakers will neuer be able soundly and substantially to confute For there is nothing written with such euidence of truth but that captious persons may easily cauill with it And although it had been sufficient for the demonstration of the first assertion to haue produced such euidence as doth testifie onely de facto yet many of the allegations which I bring doe also giue testimony to the right Thus much of the authoritie of antiquitie whereon the consequence is grounded Now to the thing testified which is the assumption which I proue by fiue arguments The first If Epiphanius and Augustine doe reckon Aërius among the heretikes condemned by the antient Catholike Church for denying the superiority of Bishops then the antient Church doth giue testimony to the superiority of Bishops not onely de facto but also de iure But the first is true therefore the second Against the argument it selfe he hath nothing to say but where I said all antiquity besides Aërius did acknowledge the superiority of Bishops against this he obiecteth that either Ierome is against Bishops as well as Aërius or Aërius is brought in by me to no purpose For de facto Aërius denied the superiority of Bishops no more then Ierome did And de iure
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
c. wherefore it is the duty of euery Catholicke Christian to beleeue none of these But it will be said doe you then hold euery one to be an heretique who is of Aërius iudgement in this point Whereunto I answeare first that although I hold them to be in an error yet I doe not judge them to be heretiques who do not with pertinacy defend their error And secondly I make great difference betweene errors in the articles of faith and fundamentall points of Religion such as was the error of Aërius as he was an Arrian and such as is the error of those who deny our iustification by Christs righteousnes and in matters of Discipline for these though they be dangerous yet they are not damnable errors and it is no great disparagement to men otherwise learned and orthodoxall to haue been ouerseene in matters of Church gouernment so that they doe not for the same leaue the Church and make separation for such also be counted heretikes by the Councels 1. Constant. ca. 6. As for the refuter it is at his choice whether he will be accounted an heretike or not In my iudgement he were best to say Errare possum I may erre as in this controuersie hitherto to hath done sed hâ—reticus esse nolo but I will â—e no heretike by obstinate defending of that wherein his conscience is conuicted Now to helpe the Refuter because I desire to giue the Reader satisfaction I will not conceale that somewheres I finde besides Ierome the testimonies of Chrysostome Augustine and Ambrose obiected as fauouring the opinion of Aërius but vnworthily Chrysostome is alleadged as if he should say There is in a manner no difference betweene a Bishop and a Presbyter Indeed Chrysostome vnderstanding by Episcapus 1. Tim. 3. him that is properly called a Bishop asketh why Paul speaking of Bishops and Deacons maketh no mention there of Presbyters Whereunto he maketh answeare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because there is no great difference for they also haue receiued doctrine and gouernment of the Church and those things which Paul said concerning Bishops agree to them But doth it hence follow that in Chrysostomes judgement there was no difference betwixt a Bishop and a Presbyter doth not Chrysostome in the next words acknowledge that the Bishops are superiour to Presbyters in respect of ordination And as touching singularitie of preheminence doth not he teach that in one Citie or Church where are many Preâ—byters there ought to be one Bishop and so he â—old Sisiâ—â—ius the Nouatian Bishop at Constantinople 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And though he ascribe gouernment of the Church to the Presbyters vnder the Bishop doth he not acknowledge the Bishop to be the gouernor of the Presbyters and when he was Bishop himselfe did he not exercise great authority ouer them But what saith Augustine Quid est Episcopus nisi primus Presbyter what is a Bishop but the first Presbyter doth he not expound himselfe primus Presbyter h. e. 〈◊〉 Sacerdos the first Presbyter that is the high Priest such a one therefore in Augustines judgement is the Bishop to Presbyters as the high priest was to the other priests for in the same place also he compareth the Deacons to the Leuits and the Presbyters to the Priests Yea but Ambrose saith Of a Bishop and a Presbyter there is one order for either of 〈◊〉 a Priest but the Bishop is the first The words are not in his booke de dignitate Sacerdotali as it is quoted for there I find the contrarie for Ambrose saith There is one thing which God requireth of a Bishop another of a Presbyter another of a Deacon And againe he signifieth that as Bishops do ordaine Presbyters and consecrate Deacons so the Archbishop ordaineth the Bishop But they are found in his commentarie on the first to Timothe cap. 3. Where asking the same question with Chrysostome why after the mention of the Bishop he presently addeth the ordination or order of Deacon because saith he of a Bishop and Presbyter there is one ordination or order for either of them is a Priest but the Bishop is the first so that euery Bishop is a Presbyter but not euery Presbyter a Bishop for among the Presbyters the Bishop is the first Now what he meaneth by the first Presbyter may else where be shewed in his writings In the Bishop saith he are all orders because he is primus Sacerâ—â—â—s hoc est Princeps est Sacerdâ—tum the first Priest that is the Prince of the Priests and in the place alleaged he signifieth that Timothe the Bishop was the first Presbyter at Ephesus And such presbyters I doe confesse our BB. to be So much of Aërâ—us concerning whom I haue often maruelled what some learned men doe mean to go about to salue the credit of such a frantique fellow as Epiphanius describeth him being also an absolute Arian and schismaticke or Separatist from the true Churches Now saith the refuter let vs take a view of his great army of antiquity the whole number of them is but fiue and 4. of them almost 200. yeares vnder age Marke here either the skill or conscience of this great Analyser The first argument which indeed is vnanswerable that he swalloweth And in stead of analysing and answearing the rest he cauils at the number and at their age I will therefore propound my arguments and withall answere his cauils And first for their number besides the fiue he speaketh of I produced the testimonies of Epiphanius and Augustine deliuering not only their own opinions but the iudgement of the Church Epiphanius reporting that all Churches did reject and condemne Aërius and Augustine testifying that the Catholike Church did hold the contrary to Aërius his assertion that as I said was my first argument My second argument is this Antiquity did distinguish the ministers of the Church into 3. degrees viz Bishops Presbyters Deacons answerable to the high Priest the Priests and Lâ—â—ites vnder the Law Therefore it giueth testimony to the superiority of BB. ouer other ministers in degree The antecedent I proue by the the testimony of the Councill of Sardica of Optatus of Ignatius and generally by the testimony of Fathers in Councils in which as I said nothing is more vsuall then the distinction of Ministers into these 3. degrees That clause if it had pleased the refuter to haue taken notice of it might haue preuented his cauill concerning either the number or the age of my witnesses But he such is his conscience passing by it bâ—aggeth wiâ—h what face I know not that I haue no antiquitie which distinguisheth the ministrie into 3. degrees Here therefore 3. things are to be shewen which are so many arguments 1. That antiquity distinguisheth the Clergy into 3. degrees 2. That it termeth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 degrees 3. That they compare them to the high Priest Priests and Leuits As touching the first
Alexandria that order was changed Then at the soonest saith the refuter began M. D. superiority of Bishops to creep in c. Which answere if his meaning be as our refuter conceiteth is vnsound For first where he saith the order was changed in Heraclas and Dionysius that is spoken but by ghesse because Ierome nameth them Vpon which coniecture T. C. and H. I. as you haue heard did build their two diuers fancies For Ieromes meaning was not to signifie that the superioritie of Bishops was altered but as I haue shewed that vntill Heraclas and Dionysius who were not Presbyters but Teachers of the schoole in Alexandria the Presbyters euer since S. Marks time did chuse one out of their owne number That which the Refuter addeth is absurd and against Ieromes plaine words Then at the soonest began M. D. superiority of Bishops to creepe in for the superiority I spake of is superiority in degree And Ierome saith that euer from Saint Marke and therefore euen in the Apostles times the BB. had been placed in a higher degree My fift argument is also from the authority of Ierome which yeeldeth a double proofe the former that the superiority of Bishops ouer Presbyters and Presbyters aboue Deacons is an ordinance or tradition apostolicall Secondly that as the high Preist was in degree superiour to the other Preists and they to the Leuits so by an apostolicall ordinance the Bishop is superiour to the Presbyters and the Presbyters to the Deacons That wee may know saith he the apostolicall traditions are taken out of the old testament looke what Aaron and his sonnes and the Leuits were in the Temple the same let the Bishops Preists and Deacons challenge in the Church To this testimony containing two impregnable proofs for the superiority of BB. not onely de facto but also de iure the refuter thought it his wisest course to say nothing To these arguments this may be added That as the new ordination of a Deacon when he was made a Presbyter doth proue that he was aduanced to a higher degree of the ministery euen so when a Presbyter was chosen to be Bishop he was by a new ordination promoâ—ed to the Bishopricke as to a higher degree The two first canons among those which are called the Apostles appoint that a Bishop should be ordained of two or three Bishops but let a Presbyter say they be ordayned of one Bishop and likewise a Deacon and the rest of the clergy Valeriuâ— the Bishop dealth with the Primate the Bishop of Carthage by letters intreating him that Augustine who then was Presbyter might be ordained Bishop of Hippo which being obtained Augustine tooke vpon him the care of the Bishopricke maioris loci 〈…〉 and ordination of a greater place The councell of Sardica taketh order that before a man may be a Bishop he must first performe the ministery of a Reader then of a Deacon then of a Presbyter that so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by euery degree if hee be worthy he may arise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnto the height of the Bishopricke Theadoret testifieth that Iohn Chrysostome hauing been the chiefe of the Presbyters at Antioch a long time oft times might haue been chosen to the Bishopricke which he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apostolicall presidency but alwaies did flie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that principality So that though he were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the chiefe of the Presbyters yet he was no Bishop neither durst he for a long time take vpon him that degree of principality So much of the superiority of Bishops in generall CHAP. III. Shewing wherin the superiority of Bishops did and doth consist and first of the singularity of preeminence Serm. sect 3. page 32. But let vs consider more particularly wherein the superioritie of Bishops did and doth consist c. ad lin a fine 6 THe superiority of Bishops ouer other Ministers I place in three things singularity of preeminence during life the power of ordination and the power of iurisdiction all which I ground on Tit. 1.5 But where I say during life hee saith This addition needed not seeing it is grounded vpon an erroneous conceit of mine owne whereby I charge them as holding the contrary Secondly that it is not proued out of the place alleaged In the former hee sheweth how audacious he is seeing Beza the chiefe patron of the pretended discipline holdeth that the Presidents of the Presbyteries which afterwards as he saith were called Bishoppes ought to be but for a short time and that by course and esteemeth them which had a perpetuall presidenship to be Bishops humane as I haue shewed before The practise also of those Churches where the discipline is vsed doth prooue what their Founders thought was agreeable to Gods word This their conceit is euidently confuted by the Epistles to Titus and to Timothy For seeing they doe confesse that they were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Churches of Creet and Ephesus it is euident that they continued in this Presidentshippe whiles they liued there For it is absurd to imagine that Titus was sent to Creet and Timothy to Ephesus to be presidents there in their turnes and when their turnes were ended to be subiected to other of the Presbyters there in their course But these things the refuter doth but cauill at by the way For he granteth that Titus had this superioritie which we speake of his maine answer is that Titus was not a Bishop Which afterwards J proue in the Sermon by the common consent of the antient and most approoued Writers of the Church with whose affirmation in a matter of fact if this Refuters deniall shall be weighed in the ballance of an vnpartiall iudgement it will be found as light as vanitie it selfe But of this question more hereafter In the meane time J will but desire the Reader to take this for granted because it cannot be denied that if Titus was Bishop of Creet then Bishops had this threefold superioritie which I speake of Where I commend this order of Church gouernement consisting in the superiority of Bishoppes and inferioritie of other Ministers this graue and learned Refuter maketh a scorne at it saying It is a toy to please children and a gay Epiphonema wanting a note of exclamation he would haue said acclamation to grace it The which argueth his spite against the gouernment of Bishoppes rather then his might being neither able to endure the iust commendation of episcopall gouernment nor yet to confute it For what hath he but trifles and toies to obiect against it For where hee saith I begge the question supposing ech Church to be a diocesse the conscience of the Reader I hope also of the Refuter will testifie that what I suppose in this behalfe hath beene before sufficiently prooued Besides those with whom I principally contend in this point doe confesse the Churches indued with power of
ecclesiasticall gouernement to haue beene dioceses as hath beene shewed I say then which also I prooued afterwards by the testimonies of Cyprian and Ierome whereto the authoritie of Basil may bee added that the vnitie of each Church meaning a diocesse dependeth of the vnitie of the Bishoppe and the setting vp of a second vnlesse it were by way of coadiutorshippe hath euer been esteemed the making of a schisme in the Church But of this more anon § 2. But let vs heare if it bee worth the hearing what more particularly hee obiecteth against these three points And first he trifleth to no purpose when he asketh If there bee not as much vnity in a parish vnder one Pastor as in a diocesse vnder a Bishoppe For though ech parish if it were according to the new conceit an entire body within it selfe vnsubordinate to any other may perhappes haue vnitie within it selfe yet in the Church of the diocesse or prouince that may happen which Ierome affirmeth is like to happen where is no Bishoppe that there shall bee as many schismes as parishes And surely what man of iudgement and moderation can without horrour thinke of those manifold schismes and diuisions which would ensue if euery parish should haue according to the newe conceit sufficient authoritie within it selfe vnsubordinate and independent for the gouernment of it selfe in all causes ecclesiasticall Yea but saith he If there bee not as great vnitie of the Church in a parish vnder one Pastor as in a diocesse vnder one Bishoppe then the more Churches are vnder one gouernement the greater is the vnitie But the consequent is false therefore the antecedent The consequence of the proposition is true being not extended without the limits of the question The more particular Churches in any one visible Church are subordinate to one Bishoppe the greater is the vnitie But by one visible Church I meane the Christian people of one diocesse or of one prouince or at the most of one Nation For the Christian people liuing vnder diuers lawes as they be diuers Nations so are they diuers visible Churches though the faithfull in them all are members of one and the same Catholike Church Let vs heare how he prooueth the assumption If the more Churches are vnder one gouernment the greater vnitie then welfare the Pope who if this be true maketh vnitie of all Churches in the world As who should say all the Churches in the world are vnder the Popes gouernment so that whiles hee denieth the superiority of Bishoppes hee seemeth else there is no sense in his speech to hold the Popes supremacie If any man shall say that as the vnity of ech Church dependeth on the singular preeminence of the Bishoppe so the vnity of the whole Catholicke Church by the same reason shall depend of the Popes supremacy which seemeth to haue beene the Refuters meaning who desireth as much as may bee that the superioritie of Bishoppes and supremacy of the Pope may seeme to bee of one tenure I answere that the vnitie of the whole Church standeth in this that it is one body vnder one head Christ. And as in a diocesse to set vp a second head is to set vp an Antibishoppe and to make a schisme from the true Bishoppe so in the whole Church to acknowledge a second head is to set vp Antichrist and to make an apostasie from Christ. Neither was it euer the meaning of our Sauiour that as euery particular Church should be vnder one Pastor so the whole Church should be vnder one visible head or earthly Monarch For then would not he haue furnished his twelue Apostles with equall power and authority as I haue said before As touching the second he confesseth all that I said namely that from the power of ordination the perpetuity of the Church dependeth and yet cauilleth with mee as if either I had said there could bee no ordination at all without a Bishoppe or that the Bishop had the sole power thereof Thus being resolued to wrangle if he finde not matter to cauill at he will faine it I did not say there could be no ordination without a Bishoppe but that euer since the Apostles times to our age it hath been the receiued opinion in the Church of God that the right of ordination of Presbyters and Deacons is such a peculiar prerogatiue of BB. as that ordinarily and regularly there could be no lawfull ordination but by a Bishop otherwise I doe confesse in the sermon that extraordinarily and in case of necessity Presbyters may ordaine in the want of a Bishop Concerning the third he saith it is enough to preserue good order in Churches if iurisdiction be in the ministers and Presbyters Hee meaneth in the seuerall parishes which may after a fashion be gouerned where the supreame ecclesiasticall officer◠I meane the parish minister assisted with such a senate as ech parish is like to afford hath the reines of gouernment in all causes ecclesiasticall committed to them But I pray you how shall there be any good order in the gouernment of the Churches of a diocesse or prouince when euery parish is so according to the new conceipt an entire body of it selfe indeed a member by Schisme rent from the the rest as it hath neither consociation with nor subordination to others For they are not gouerned by consociation who deny the definitiue power of synods as our new Disciplinarians do neither do they acknowledge any subordination for their Pastor forsooth is the supreme ecclesiasticall officer and the power of ech parish is independent immediatly deriued from Christ. Now how is it possible there should be good order in the gouernment of so many parishes in a Kingdome where is no subordination no superiours nor inferiours but all equall But this is enough for our Disciplinarians if they might be subiect to no superiors but that each of them might be the supreme ecclesiasticall officer in euery Church Serm. sect 4. pag. 32. As touching the first whereas there were many Presbyters in one Citie c. to pag. 36. l. a fine 8. Jn this section I proue that the Bishops of the primitiue Church were superior to other Ministers in singularity of preeminence for terme of life Which is a point very materiall prouing both against the new Disciplinarians that the BB. were diocesan there being but one for ech diocesse as hath been touched before and against the elder that the BB. were not such as their Presidents of the Presbytery or Moderators of assemblies among them whose preeminence is but a priority of order and but for a short time and against both disprouing the parity of Ministers which is the other maine piller of the pretended discipline Here therefore it behoued the Refuter if his cause were such as indeed he could maintaine with soundnes of learning and euidence of truth both to haue disproued this superiority of BB. and to haue proued his parity of Ministers But he passeth by in
haste touching only vpon the points as a dogge by the riuer Nilus not daring to stay by it yet so brag he is that he would seem to haste away not for feare but rather in disdain as not vouchsafing to waste time in a matter either so impertineÌ„t as the former part of this section or so needlesse as the latter For this is his vsual guise to cast off those points of the Sermon which indeed are most materiall as impertinent or needlesse The former is impertinent because it is not prooued to belong to those seuen Angels nor within the first two hundred yeeres Which is a meere euasion vnlearned and J greatly doubt also vnconscionable Doe I not plainely note that these seuen Angels had this singularity of preeminence when as I say the holy Ghost teacheth that whereas there were many Presbyters who also were Angels in euery Church yet there was but one who was the Angell of ech Church For to his obiection of their not being diocesan Bishops I haue answered before And for the time doe I not affirme that Timothy had this singularity of preeminence at Ephesus Titus in Creet Epaphroditus in Philippi Archippus at Colosse in the Apostles times As for the rest of my witnesses they doe either testifie de iure which in their iudgement is perpetuall or if they speak de facto it is of that which was in the Apostles times Cornelius the worthy martyr who was Bishop of Rome about the yeere two hundred fifty auoucheth that there ought to be but one Bishop in a Catholike Church though the number of Presbyters and other clergy men were very great and imputeth it as a matter of great ignorance to Nouatian that he did not know 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there ought to be but one Bishop in a Catholike Church wherein he knew there were forty six Presbyters c. This testimony is reiected because it was giuen fifty yeeres after the date which were but an euasion if it did testifie de facto onely But seeing Cornelius speaketh de iure of what ought to be I hope that which ought not to haue been in Cornelius his time was not lawfull before vnlesse the Refuter can shew that before Cornelius his time plurality of Bishops in one Church was counted lawfull § 5. The Councell of Nice whose testimonie I also alleaged was of this iudgement that there ought not to bee two Bishoppes in one Citie For hauing decreed that when the Catharists that is Puritans or Nouatians returned to the Catholike Church those who were of the clergy should retaine their degree as hee that was a Deacon or a Presbyter should so continue and likewise a Bishoppe for euen the Puritanes or Catharists themselues had their Bishoppes if there were not another alreadie in the Catholike Church But if there were a Bishoppe of the Catholike Church alreadie then it is manifest before hand that the Bishoppe of the Church shall haue the honour of the Bishoppe but hee that was called Bishoppe among the Catharists shall haue the honour of a Presbyter vnlesse it please the Bishop to communicate vnto him the honour of the name But if that like him not he shall finde him out either a Chorepiscopus that is a country Bishops or a Presbyters place that still he may be retained in the clergy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that there may not be two Bishop in one Citie Which words in Ruffinus are the tenth Canon Ne in vna Ciuitate duo sint Episcopi Augustine also vnderstood though somewhat too late that it was forbidden by the Councell of Nice that there should be any more Bishops in a Church then one For how soeuer whiles he was ignorant thereof he was drawne to take vpon him the Bâ—shopricke of Hippo whiles Valerius was aliue yet when himselfe was old and desired that Eradius might bee his Coaâ—â—utor whom also he nominated for his successor yet he thought it vnlawfull that whiles himself liued he should be ordanied Bishop Whiles Valerius liued saith he I was ordained Bishop and I sate with him both of vs being ignorant that it was forbidden by the Councell of Nice But what was reprehended in me shall not be blamed in him Or as Possidonius speaketh Quod sibi factum esse doluit alijs fieri noluit In the next place I bring the testimonies of Ierome Chrysostome Ambrose Theodoret and Oecumenius on Phil. 1. All which I confesse liued after the two hundred yeeres but they testifie that in the Apostles times there could be no more Bishops then one And the like hath Primasius on the same place To all this hee answers that he will not greatly striue about mens deuices which noâ—withstanding he can neuer proue to bee humane and I trust the singularity of preeminence in each of these Angels in Timothy in Titus c. was no humane deuice But though he will not striue yet he alleageth that little which hee was able and that also more then himselfe doth beleeue to be true For he obiecteth that Epiphanius and Eusebius also in his ecclesiasticall story reckon both Peter and Paul for Bishops of Rome at one time Founders they both were of the Church of Rome as Irenaeus testifieth and hauing founded the Church ordained Linus Bishop but that either of them both and much lesse that both at once were Bishops of Rome the Refuter himselfe doth not beleeue To what purpose then doth he alleage that which himselfe is perswaded to be false Would he haue his Reader beleeue that to be true which himselfe beleeueth to be vntrue That which he quoteth out of Athanasius that there were diuers Bishops in some one Church though I cannot finde it may be true in time of schisme and diuision as at Antioch sometimes there were three Bishops c. His allegation out of D. Sutcliffe is very childish as though when he saith that Paul ordained in euery Towne or Citie Presbyters and Bishops his meaning were that in euery Citie he placed more Bishops then one If I should say there are Bishops placed in euery Citie or diocesse throughout England J should speake truly and yet my meaning would be that in euery diocesse there is but one Where I say that as this singularity of preeminence was ordained for the preseruation of the Church in vnitie and for the auoiding of schisme so is it for the same cause to be retained he would seem half amazed that I who do not deny other formes of gouernment to be lawfull pag. 95. and no further hold the episcopall function to be of diuine institution then as being ordained by the Apostles it proceeded from God without implying any necessary perpetuity thereof pag. 92. should now plainly auouch a necessity of retaining the gouernment of diocesan BB. for the preseruation of the Church in vnity c. But the Readâ—r that fauoreth the Refuters person and cause hath more cause to be amazed at his dealing
lawfully ordained whosoeuer now will be made Bishop it is necessarie that he should be put forth of the Church and that he haue not the Churches ordination who doth not hold the vnity of the Church Whosoeuer he be though he boast much of himselfe and challenge verie much to himselfe he is prophane he is an aliant he is out of the Church And for as much as after the first Bishop there cannot be a second whosoeuer after that one who ought to be alone is made he is not the second but none at all Thirdly the singularitie of preeminence in Bishops during their life is proued by their singularitie of succession both in and since the Apostles times noted by Irenaeus Tertullian Eusebius and other approued authors most plainly prouing that there was but one Bishop at once in the ancient and Apostolicall Churches Fourthly what the preeminence and superioritie of Bishops was ouer the Presbyters and others of the Clergie appeareth by this that in good writers they are said the Bishop his Presbyters the Bishops Deacons the Bishops clergy Thus Arius is said to haue been Alexanders presbyter Petrus and Irenaus Timotheâ—â— and Macarius to haue been Athanasius his Presbyters the vicegerents of Siluester in the councill of Nice were his Presbyters Thus Crispio is said to haue been Epiphaniuâ— his archdeacon Heraclides to haue been Chrysostomes deacon In a word all of the Clergie were said to be the Bishops clerks as in the councill of Africke Let no Bishop take anothers clerke without the consent of him whose clerk he is The which is a plain argument of the great preeminence which the Bishops of the primitiue Church had ouer the Presbyters and others of the clergie To these we will adde the testimonie of Bucer against whom the Refuter cannot except as being partiall for Bishops By the perpetuall obseruation of the Church saith he euen from the Apostles themselues we see it seemed good to the holie Ghost that among the Presbyters to whom the charge of the Church is specially committed one shold haue the singular charge of the Churches and in that charge and care gouerned al others for which cause the name of Bishop was attributed to these chiefe Gouernors of Churches Howbeit without the counsell of the other Presbyters they ought not to determine any thing c. Thus much of the Preeminence of Bishops CHAP. IIII. That Bishops were superior in power and first in the power of ordination Serm. sect 5. pag. 36. Let vs see if Bishops were not also superiour in power Hearken to Ierome The safety of the Church dependeth on the dignitie of the chiefe Priest or Bishop to whom if there be not yeelded exors ab omnibus eminens potestas a peerelesse power and eminent aboue all there will be so many Schismes in the Churches as there be Priests THis testimony is handled by him as Sir Christopher Blunts head was vsed after his apprehension first healed and then cut off For first he explanes the testimonie and then reiects it He restraineth Ieromes speech to the Church in his owne time viz. in the end of the fourth age saying That no man can without open violence stretch it further Which is as vnlearned a shift as euer was heard of As though Ierome had spoken onely of that which was in his time and not of that which in his judgement ought to be Was it Ieromes judgement that the superioritie of Bishops was needfull for the auoiding of Schismes in his time onely doth he not plainly teach that the superioritie of Bishops began in the Apostles times and that at the first they were ordained for auoiding of Shismes For the former doth he not say that Iames was Bishop of Ierusalem Timothe of Ephesus and Titus of Creet Doth he not say that euer since Saint Marks time there haue been Bishops placed in a superiour degree aboue the Presbytes Doth he not call the superioritie of BB. a tradition Apostolicall and doth he not say that it began in the whole world when diuisions began in the Church saying I am of Paul c. which was in the Apostles time c. As touching the latter he saith indeed that at the first the Churches vnder the Apostles before BB. were ordained were gouerned by the common Counsell of Presbyters But whereas afterwards one was elected who should be set ouer the rest In Schismatis remedium factum est It was prouided as a remedie against Schisme lest euery man drawing after him should rend in peeces the Church of Christ. And least we should think that afterwards to be referred to the times after the Apostles he addeth in the next words Nam Alexandriae For euen at Alexandria euer since Mark the Euangelist who died 5. or 6. yeares before Peter and Paul and almost 40. yeares before Saint Iohn the Presbyters haue alwaies chosen one and placed him in a higher degree and called him Bishop The like he hath in Titum 1. that when diuisions began in the Church it was decreed in the whole world that one should be set ouer the rest to whom omnis Ecclesiae cura pertineret Schismatum semina tollerentur the care of the whole Church or all the care of the Church should appertaine and that the seeds of Schismes might be taken away or as he speakth afterwards vt dissensionum plantaria euellerentur ad vnum omnem solicitudinem esse delaâ—â—â— that the first plants or sets of dissensions might be plucked out the whole care was committed to one It is most plaine therefore that in Ieromes judgement the superioritie of BB. was needfull for the auoiding of Schisme not onely in his own time but euen in the Apostles times when Bishops were first ordained And as he teacheth that BB. were instituted for auoiding of Schisme so his judgement in the place alleaged was that for the same cause they are necessarily to be reteined Yea he saith Salus Ecclesia The safetie of the Church dependeth on this dignitie of Bishops and that vnlesse a peerelesse and supereminent power be giuen vnto them there would be as many Schismes in the Churches as there be Priests But the refuter wants no reasons J warrant you to restraine Ieromes words to Ieromes time For To stretch it to the Apostles times saith he were to make Ierome a wilde headed 〈◊〉 indeed Thus Ierome if he agree not with the conceipts of some giddie heads shall be judged wild-headed And why so I pray you For three reasons First because Ierome in diuers places disputeth and concludeth that BB. and Presbyters are equall by the word of God Whereunto I answeare that this is all which Ierome in this cause saith that Bishops and Presbyters are the 〈◊〉 in the Scriptures His meaning is that before Bishops were ordained the names Episcopus Presbyter were confounded and the same men were called Presbyters and Bishops which I do not denie
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
in the iudgement of the Refuter that is when thou wast ordained Presbyter So saith Ierome Cum ordinations episcopatus when thou wert ordained Bishoppe Anselme This imposition was presbyterij of the priesthood because by this imposition of hands meaning ordination hee receiued the Presbytery that is the office of a Bishop I vnderstand saith Caluin the ordination it selfe as if he should say the grace which by imposition of hands thou dâ—st receiue when I made thee Presbyter Calum therefore vnderstandeth it to be gouerned as if it were said Cum ordinatione Presbyteratus For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth either the Senate or company of Presbyters which in Latine we call Presbyterium or the office degree and order of a Presbyter which we call Presbyteratus Yea but the Refuter will shew the absurdity of this interpretation by laying downe the order of the words in the Greeke and yet varieth not at all from the order which I myselfe set downe But this is but to please the simple For he might as well require the words in Greeke and Latine to be set downe in the order of construction as to make the order of words in Greeke and Latine sentences to be answerable to the English Howbeit this exception is against his owne conceit of the traiection of the words it toucheth not the exposition of Ierome Caluin and the rest which is without traiection In his conclusion where he bids me forbeare to bleare the eyes of the Readers with an exposition against reason and mine owne conscience he wrongeth me egregiously and not me alone but all the Authors whom I alleaged For first I did not deliuer this as my exposition but faithfully recited the interpretation giuen by these Authors Secondly if I had rested in this interpretation as I did not though I see no reason why I may not why should it be counted against reason and against coÌ„science in me which I receiued from so approued Authors But what a contumely is this to Ierome Caluin and the rest whose exposition it is warranted by the testimony of Paul to say they bleare the eies of their Readers with an exposition against reason and their owne conscience I wish the Refuter vnlesse his iudgement were better to forbeare to condemne other mens expositions as void of reason and vnlesse his knowledge were greater not to measure other mens conscience by his owne For that which is against his conscience as not being within the compasse of his science may bee agreeable to the science and consceince of them who haue more knowledge and better iudgements But if he would needs censure Caluins exposition as void of reason why did he not answere Caluins reason grounded on the authority of Saint Paul For if Timothy were ordained by a Presbytery then vndoubtedly by more then one But Paul saith Caluin in another place saith that he and not any more imposed hands on Timothy 2. Tim 1 6. And so much might suffice for the former exposition sauing that by way of aduantage something is to bee added out of Erasmus who also vnderstanding the word Presbytery of the office giueth notwithstanding another sense This Paul saith Thou hast not onely the gift of prophecie but also the efficacie by imposition of hands to giue the spirit also to others and that by the office of thy priesthood namely as thou art Bishop And to this interpretation hee was led by force of the Greeke preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth with not as an instrument but as a companion And this may seeme to haue been Ambrose his iudgement also that Paul gratiam dari ordinatoris significat signifieth the grace of an ordainer to be giueÌ„ Which sense if we follow this place maketh wholly for the Bishops authority in ordaining this being the sense of the Apostle that Timothy had receiued the gift of the ministery together with power to impose hands on others by vertue of his office as he was Bishop The latter exposition is of them who vnderstand the word Presbytery collectiuè for a Senate or company of men In which sense though the word receiueth from diuers learned men a threefold interpretation yet in none doth it either fauour the Disciplinarians Presbytery or preiudge the superiority of Bishoppes in the power of ordination For some by Presbytery vnderstand the Apostle as speaking of himselfe by a synecdoche led thereunto by the Apostles testimony in the place before cited where he exhorteth Timothy to stirre vp the grace which was in him by imposition saith he of my hands And this is one of Anselmus his expositions with whom Dionysius Carthus agreeth ioining both his expositions in one Manuum Presbyterij saith he i. manuum meaerum that is of my hands who did ordaine theâ— Bishop By which imposition the Presbytery or priesthood was conferred vpon thee So that in their iudgement wherewith Caluin also agreeth none but Paul did impose hands in the ordination of Timothy The second interpretation is of the Greeke Fathers Chrysostome Theodoret Theophylact and Oecumenous who expounding the word collectiuè doe vnderstand a senate or company of Apostles and Apostolicall men who were either Bishops or more then Bishops Chrysostomes words be these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Presbytery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hee doth not speake here of Presbyters but of Bishops for surely Presbyters did not ordaine a Bishop Oecumenium hath the like words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophylact Of the Presbytery that is of Bishoppes Theodoret He calleth them here the Presbytery who had receiued Apostolicall grace Neither doth any Writer that I know of before our age vnderstanding the word collectiuè for a company expound it otherwise but conceiuing Timothy to haue been ordained Bishoppe by the company of Apostolicall men who either were Bishoppes or more then Bishoppes Now we doe not deny but that diuers Bishops are to concurre in the ordination of a Bishop But that hindereth not but that Presbyters and Deacons may be ordained by one So are wee taught in the two first canons called Apostolicall Let a Bishop be ordained of two or three Bishoppes Let a Presbyter be ordained by one Bishoppe likewise a Deacon and the rest of the clergy This exposition therefore defeating their pretended Presbytery is so farre from derogating from the superiority of BB. in ordaining as that it plainly prooueth it because the ordination of BB. wherewith Presbyters haue nothing to doe belongeth to BB. The third exposition is of Beza and some other new Writers who by Presbytery vnderstand the order of Presbyters By which name saith Beza that whole company is signified which did labour in the word in that Church where this was done Neither will I reiect this exposition though it be new being vnderstood of Timothy his ordination to be a Presbyter so that they will not deny that which Paul affirmeth that himselfe was so principall a man in this company as
question Perhaps his conscience told him that he knew of no testimony nor example of the Presbyters concurrence with the B. in ordination before that time and that in the foresaid Councell their assistance to the B. in ordaining was first ordained which if it did as worthily it might then had he no reason to vrge that canon to proue the practise of the Church in the first two hundred yeeres in a particular which by that canon was first appointed Hauing thus remoued their two maine obiections which stood in my way I proceeded in the proofe of my former assertion that the right of ordination was in the iudgement of the antient Church appropriated to BB. As first that the Councels and Fathers speake of the ordainer as of one and consequently presuppose the right of ordaining to bee in one which I proued by foure testimonies This reason because the Refuter did not well see how to answere he passeth by it as if hee had not seene it To make it therefore more conspicuous I will inlarge it affirming that both Scriptures Councels and Fathers speake of the ordainer as of one Timothy was ordained by the imposition of Pauls hands Paul left Titus in Creet that he should ordaine Presbyters and chargeth Timothy that he should not lay hands hastily on any man c. The Canon called the Apostles appointeth that a Presbyter and so a Deacon be ordained of one The Councell of Antioch acknowledgeth euery Bishop within his owne diocesse to haue authority to ordaine Presbyters and Deacons The Councell of Africke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one Bishop may ordaine many Presbyters The Councell of Hispalis or Ciuill A Bishop alone may giue to Priests and Deacons their honour Chrysostome describeth the Bishop by this property 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that is to ordaine vs. The people of Hippo wanting a Presbyter lay hold on Augustine and as it was wont to be done bring him to Valerius the Bishop desiring him to ordaine him To these adde the penaltie inflicted vpon the B. alone when any ordination was irregular Sozomen reporteth that Elpidius Eustathius Basilius of Ancyra Eleusius among other faults obiected against them were deposed because euery of them had ordained contrary to law The aforeâ—aid Councell of Carthage decreeth that if a B. wittingly ordain a penitent he shall be depriued of the power of his Bishoprick at least from the power of ordaining And to the like penalty doth it subiect a Bishop who shall ordaine such a one as hath married her that is diuorced c. But you shall neuer reade that the Presbyters were fouÌ„d fault with for vnlawfull ordinations vnlesse that any of them did encroach vpon the Bishops right in ordaining which is a plaine euidence that the power of ordaining was in the B. and not in the Presbyters When Epiphanius being at Constantinople ordained a Deacon he was blamed as offending against the Canons not because hee wanted the presence of his Presbytery but because hee did it in Chrysostomes diocesse Secondly that the power of ordination was peculiar to the Bishop in the iudgement of the Fathers J proue first by the authority of Councels then by the testimonies of Epiphanius and Ierome To the former he answereth It is to no purpose to meddle with these allegations out of the Councels which were well nigh three hundred yeeres after the Apostles times and some of them such as deserue neither imitation nor approbation Here let the Christian Reader iudge what credit he deserueth that so contemptuously shaketh off the authority of antient Councels euen the second among the foure antient generall Councels which are and haue been from time to time receiued in the Church as it were foure Gospels But let vs examine the particulars consider whether they deserued to be so lightly reiected The first testimony was taken out of an Epistle written by the Presbyters and Deacons of Mareot in the behalfe of Athanasius the Great their Bishop who was accused for that by his appointment Macarius had disturbed one Ischyras a pretended Presbyter in the administration of the Communion and had broken the sacred cup. They testifie these things to be false and among the rest they deny that Ischyras was a Presbyter because hee was ordained of Colluthus the Presbyter who was but an imaginary or phantasticall Bishop and afterwards by a generall Councell to wit by Osius and the BB. who were with him commanded to remaine a Presbyter as he had been before For which cause all that were ordained of Colluthus among whom was Ischyras returned to their former place and order The like is testified by the Synod of Alexandria which denieth that Ischyras could be ordained Presbyter by Colluthus seeing Colluthus himselfe died a Presbyter and all his ordinations were reuersed and all that were ordained by him were held as lay men Hereunto we may adde another most pregnant testimony expressed in the acts of the same generall Councell of Sardica wherein it was decreed that forsomuch as Musaeus and Eutychianus were not ordained Bishops that therfore such Clerks as they had ordained should be held as lay men My second testimony is out of the second generall Councell concerning Maximus who being by birth an Alexandrian by profession a Cynick Philosopher before hee was conuerted to Christianity and receiued into the Clergy by Gregory the Diuine against whom he ambitiously sought the Bishopricke of Constantinople bribing the BB. of Egypt Who being come to Constantinople and excluded out of the Church went into a certaine minstrels house and there vnlawfully chose Maximus the Cynick to be Bishop of Constantinople The generall Councell therefore assembled at Constantinople determineth thus concerning Maximus that he neither was nor is a Bishop neither they Clerks who had been ordained by him in what degree so euer of the Clergy And to this I will adioyne another testimony out of the fourth generall Councell where Bassianus who had been Bishop of Ephesus and now sought to recouer it alleaged for himselfe that if he were not Bishop then were not they clerks which had been ordained by him Neither were ordinary Presbyters alone forbidden to ordaine but Chorepiscopi also that is country BB. sometimes were restrained and sometimes forbidden altogether to ordaine Presbyters and Deacons Restrained whiles there were such as had receiued episcopall ordination that they might not ordaine without the leaue of the Bishop of the Citie whereunto both the Chorepiscopus himselfe and his Country is subiect Forbidden altogether when they ceased to haue episcopall ordination and were ordained as other Presbyters by the B. of the Citie alone It seeemeth to me that Chorepiscopi vntill the Councel of Antioch had sometimes episcopall ordination being ordained by two or three Bishops And therefore to the Councell of Neocaesaria and Nice they subscribed among other BB But forasmuch
as they being but for matters of lesse importance vicegerents in the Country to the Bishop of the diocesse whose seat was in the Citie being after the maner of the seuenty disciples Presbyters rather then BB. did incroach vpon the Bishoppes rights and prerogatiues not knowing their owne measure therefore they were restrained as in other matters of importance so in ordinations to doe nothing without the leaue of the Bishop Thus the ancient Councill of Ancyra determined That it was not lawfull that Countrie Bishops should ordaine Presbyters or Deacons vnlesse they had leaue granted vnto them by the Bishop with his letters for so Theod. Balsam expoundeth that Canon the Fathers of this Synode determine that the Countrie Bishop may not ordaine Presbyters or Deacons without the letters of the Bishop The Councill of Antioch thus It seemeth good to the holy Synode that those which are placed in villages and countrey Townes called Countrey-Bishops although they haue receiued the ordination of BB. should know their owne measures and administer the Churches subiect to them and content themselues with the charge and care of them and to ordaine Readers Subdeacons and Exorcists and to content themselues with preferring of them But that they should not presume to ordaine a Presbyter or a Deacon without the Bishop in the citie whereunto both himselfe and his countrey is subiect If any shall dare to transgresse this definition he shall be deposed from that honour which he hath and that the countrie Bishop should be made of the B. in the citie wherto he is subiect Which last clause as I suppose was added to take from them that colourable pretence whereupon they had presumed before to ordaine Presbyters and Deacons viz. because they had Episcopall ordination by the Metropolitane and two or three other BB. To preuent this the Councill decreeth that from that time forward they should be ordained not as other BB. by the Metropolitane and two or three other Bishops but as other Presbyters by the Bishop of the citie and so hauing not so much as an Episcopall ordination to make them as they were before titular Bishops they might acknowledge themselues to haue no right of ordination of Presbyters and Deacons Harmenopulus in his abridgement of the Canons setteth this downe as the summe of both these Canons 13. Ancyr and 10. Antioch Let not a Countrey Bishop ordaine a Presbyter or Deacon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the licence of the Bishop To the like purpose the Councill of Laodicea determined that Bishops may not be ordained in villages and Countrey townes but visiters and that those which were before ordained may do nothing without the consent of the Bishop in the citie By these two Councils therefore as Episcopall ordination for the time to come was denied to the Countrey Bishops so also power of ordaining Presbyters and Deacons To the same purpose I quoted Damasus and Leo who proue that Chorepiscopi were not indeed Bishops but Presbyters and therefore had no right to ordaine Presbyters and Deacons Chorepiscopi saith Leo according to the Canons of Neocaesaria and decrees of other Fathers are the same with Presbyters bearing the figure of the sonnes of Aaron and being after the maner of the 70. Disciples And although in respect of the ministerie they haue a common dispensation with Bishops notwithstanding some things are forbidden them by the authoritie of the old law some of the new and by Ecclesiasticall Canons as the consecration of Presbyters and Deacons c. And to his sentence the Councill of Hispalis subscribed Basil likewise plainely signified to the Chorepiscopi that if any without his appointment were receiued into the ministerie he should bee held for a lay man These testimonies plainely euince that in the primitiue Church the power of ordination was so in Bishops as that either themselues did ordaine or if this power were communicated to others it was by leaue and permission from them And little reason had the refuter so lightly to esteeme these testimonies as being vnder age For vnlesse he be able to shew that in the first 200. yeares the Presbyters either had de iure the power to ordaine or that de facto they did vse to ordaine which he will neuer be able to shew the worst of these testimonies for the Bishops is of more worth then all that he shall be able to say against them Let him produce if he can any one testimony of Scripture any one sentence out of Councils Histories or Fathers prouing that Presbyters without a Bishop had right to ordaine and I will yeeld to him But he doth not goe about by sound learning and euidence of truth to refell my assertions which indeed he cannot doe but by vnlearned shifts and sophistiall cauillations to elude them as he can either not doubting but such refutations would serue his turne to reteine the people in their preconceiued alienation from Bishops or else hoping that J would not vouchsafe him an answere But to returne to my proofes For one there remaineth yet out of the Councils shewing that in ancient times they were so far from permitting Presbyters without a Bishop to ordaine that when as a certaine Bishop in the ordination of one Presbyter and two Deacons vsed only the help of a Presbyter to reade the words of consecration and to blesse them himself laying on his hands but being not able for the paine of his eies to reade the Councill of Hispalis reuersed the ordination as vnlawfull This is the Councill which the refuter judged to deserue neither imitation nor approbation by which censure of this one though he durst not giue it of any of the forenamed Councils yet it being indefinitely propounded he discrediteth the rest with the vnlearned who are not able to distinguish But let vs heare more particularly his graue censure of this Councill What a toy was it for the Councill of Ciuill in Spaine to reuerse the ordination c. What a boy is this might these Fathers say that presumeth thus to censure vs was not Isidor the Archbishop of Ciuill the president of this Councill and author of these Canons one of the most learned writers which haue beene in the Church within this 1000. yeares with whom this Refuter for learning is not to be named the same day was not this Council held against the Heretickes called Acephali did it not learnedly and judiciously confute them did these graue fathers toy when by graue censures they sought to preserue the discipline and canons of the Church to maintaine the lawfull authoritie of BB. and to preuent the presumptuous vsurpation of Presbyters contrarie to the Canons of the Church had not the ancient councill of Orenge decreed That if any Bishop should by any infirmitie or weaknesse either fall into the dulnesse of his senses as this Bishop did or loose the facultie of speech he should not suffer
Presbyters as this Bishop also did vnder his presence to do those things which are not done but by Bishops but that he should call for a Bishop to whom he may commit that which is to be done in the Church But if we must talke of toyes what a toy was this that all these things which I haue alleaged being duely considered diuers of our disciplinarian Ministers haue renounced their ordination which they had receiued from a Bishop that they might be ordained by such as themselues And thus you haue heard how easilie he hath answered the Councils by vouchsafing them no answere Now let vs weigh his answeres to the testimonies of Ephiphanius and Ierome His common answere to both is such as vnlearned yet obstinate Papists vse to giue that though they cannot tell how to answere our arguments yet there be learned men which can There be Lectures of the parâ—â—ie of Ministers one day to be published which will shew the weaknesse of Epiphanius his reasons and there is another learned man that hath answered the allegation out of Ierome Why but hath the Refuter no answeres of his owne that he referreth vs thus to other men yes no doubt such answeres as his are neuer to seeke First he wrangleth with Ephiphanius and then with me for alledging him He telleth Epiphanius that he beggeth the question Alas good man he wanted the Refuters acumen in disputing And what was the question I pray you was it not the same which is now betweene you and vs whether Bishops and other Ministers be equall as Aërius held This assertion of Aërius Ephiphanius disproueth by two maine arguments as I do yours prouing that BB. are superiour to other Presbyters both in the power of ordination and iurisdiction His former argument may thus be concluded That order which hath power by ordination to beget Fathers to the Church is superiour to that which hath not that power The order of Bishops hath power by ordination to beget Fathers to the Church which the order of Presbyters is not able to doe Therefore the order of Bishops is superiour to the order of Presbyters Call you this begging of the question Yea but Aërius denied that Bishops had power more then Presbyters to beget Fathers How is this proued he said they were equall It followeth not Aerius being a giddie-headed fellow because he perceiued the Presbyters to doe the same things that the Bishops did in some particulars by an insufficient enumeration or induction concludeth that therfore there was no difference betweene them The parts of Aërius his induction concerne the superioritie and preeminence of the Ministerie in generall aboue the people noting those things whch be common to Bishops with other ministers as their imposing hands on the penitent their giuing of Baptisme their executing of Diuine seruice their sitting in the chaire or pulpit to instruct the people but considered not the respect which was between the Bishop and the Presbyters themselues Epiphanius therefore sheweth that although it were true that Bishops and Presbyters did the same things which argue their Preeminence in common aboue the Laity yet this hindreth not but that Bishops were superiour to the Presbyters and this Epiphanius proueth by two instances which Aërius himselfe could not denie because the Bishops were ordainers of the Presbyters hauing the power of ordination of Presbyters and Deacons which Presbyters had not the second because the Bishops were also gouernours and judges ouer Presbyters The Refuter therefore should rather haue suspected the shallownesse of his own judgement then haue laid such an imputation vpon Epiphanius What then doth he answere to Epiphanius his syllogisme He denieth in effect though perhaps he intend not so much both the proposition and the assumption and first the assumption For where Epiphanius saith that Presbyters were not able to beget Fathers he asketh What hindreth them but the vsurpation of Bishops In which words two things are implied The first that the power of ordination which the BB. haue is vsurped by them The second that Presbyters haue as good right to ordaine as they But you will say how are those things proued you must be intreated to take them vpon his word for prooâ—e he hath none and yet can he by no meanes abide begging of the question But such is the boldnesse of our new Disciplinarians that they doubt not to prefer their new-fangled opinions self-set assertions which haue no ground nor warrant in the word of God or true reason before the judgement and practize of all the ancient Fathers of all the approued Councils of all true Christian Churches of former times We proue that the Apostles had the right of ordaining that this right was from them deriued to their substitutes and to their successors to their substitutes as to Timothe in Ephesus and Titus in Creet to Mark at Alexandria to Polycarpus at Smyrna to Euodius at Antioch to Linus at Rome c. to their successors as to Simon the sonne of Cleophas the successor of Saint Iames at Ierusalem c. that from these substitutes and first successors of the Apostles the same was deriued to their successors which without all doubt were the BB. of the seuerall Churches And hereunto we adde the generall consent of the Fathers and Councils many of them affirming and confirming not one I say not one denying the superioritie of BB. in ordaining the perpetuall practize of all true Christian Churches not one approued instance to be giuen to the contrarie and yet he shameth not to auouch the Bishops right in ordaining to be but vsurpation As touching Presbyters that they haue right to ordaine we see no warrant in the word but rather the contrarie no testimonie of Fathers no decree of Councils for it but many testimonies and decrees against it no approued example to warrant it how then could he say the Presbyters haue as good right to ordain as BB But because he shal not cary the matter without proofes this I will offer him that if he can bring any one pregnant testimonie or example out of the Scriptures any approued authoritie or example out of the ancient Fathers Councils or Histories of the Church prouing that the Presbyters had by and of themselues an ordinarie power or right to ordaine ministers J meane Presbyters and Deacons I will promise to subscribe to his assertion But if he cannot do this as I know he cannot then let him for shame giue place vnto the truth Againe whereas Epiphanius in the assumption saith that BB. beget Fathers meaning that they haue power to ordaine ministers of the word and sacraments or as he expoundeth himselfe teachers he fondly cauilleth at Epiphanius words saying that ministers are no spirituall Fathers vntill they beget children vnto God Why but their calling is to be spirituall Fathers ordained of God to this end that they may by the lauer of regeneration ministery of the Gospell beget children vnto God when Stephen
said that Iacob begat the twelue Patriarches meaning those whom God appointed to bee the first Fathers of the twelue Tribes will the refuter wrangle with him because when they were begotten they were not Fathers euen so BB. are said to beget Fathers because by ordination they beget such as by the institution of their calling and ordinance of God are to be spirituall Fathers And thus much of the assumption The proposition also he denieth finding great fault with me saying that it is a strange and fearefull thing that I hauing so worth he set out in my former Sermon the excellencie of the ministers calling in regard of his labouring in the word doe now turne all topsey turâ—â—y and preferre making of ministers before begetting soules And to this purpose he alledgeth that to beget one childe vnto God is more pretious then to beget a thousand Fathers to the Church and of more comfort at the day of iudgement c. But be of good comfort this fault which he layeth to my charge is but as he saith in his poore vnderstanding For there be three things which shew the pouertie of his conceipt The first that he thinketh I do therefore preferre the ordaining of Ministers before preaching because I say that Bishops are superiour to other ministers in the power of ordination It seemeth he hath not learned the distinction of those three things wherein superioritie consisteth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is excellencie imperie and power The magistrate is superior to the minister in imperie and ciuill authoritie but the minister notwithstanding is superior to the magistrate in excellencie But the second thing doth much more shew the shallownesse of his conceipt he conceiueth of ministers as hauing alone the power of preaching and of Bishops as hauing onely the power of ordination whereas if he had but considered that the authoritie of preaching is common to the Bishop with other ministers and the Bishop in respect of his office superior in the exercise because he may licence and he may vpon just occasion suspend this power in others though perhaps in personall gifts the Presbyter may excell the Bishop he could not but haue discerned the superioritie of Bishops without any disparagement to the ministerie of the word for that they being at least equall in respect of their function to other ministers in the power of preaching are superior in the power of ordaining The third that he conceiueth Epiphanius to haue made a comparison betweene preaching and ordaining which he doth not but betweene baptizing and ordaining How is it possible saith Epiphanius that a Bishop and a Presbyter should be equall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the calling of Bishops is an order generatiue of Fathers begetting Fathers to the Church but the order of Presbyters being not able to beget Fathers doth by the lauer of regeneration that is baptisme beget children to the Church and not Fathers verily or teachers And you are to marke how he speaketh of begetting Fathers and children to the Church And who can denie but that it is a matter of greater consequence the begetting of a Father to the Church then of a child But Epiphanius his meaning was that the Bishop hauing power of baptizing common to them with Presbyters as Paul had though he did not greatly vse it whereby they might beget children to the Church hath also the power of ordaining which Presbyters haue not whereby he begetteth spirituall Fathers to the Church And so much of Epiphanius Now I come to Ierome For the Refuter thinketh it verie strange that I should bring him as a patron of the Bishops sole power in ordination It seemeth that the Refuter conceiueth nothing aright I bring in Ierome in this place not as a patron of BB. but as one who pleading for the superioritie of Presbyters aboue Deacons desiring to raise them as neare as he can to BB. doth notwithstanding confesse that Bishops are superiour in ordination What doth a Bishop saith he excepting ordination which a Presbyter may not do To which the Refuter hauing no answere of his owne intreateth another to answere for him which done he craketh as if he had layed me on my backe The answere is that Ierome speaketh of his owne time No doubt for speaking in the present tense whereby he signifieth actum continuum he doth not exclude his owne time But doth he speake therefore of his owne time onely or doth he signifie that there was a time since there were first Bishops which he confesseth was in the time of the Apostles when the Bishops had not this power if this could be shewed then Ierome might be thought not to speake of the Apostles times Nay doth not Ierome speake as well de iure as de facto when he saith What doth a Bishop c. that is what hath a Bishop right to doe by the power of his order which a Presbyter hath not right to doe by the power of his order onely except ordination that I confesse to be aboue the Presbyters power Well and to what end doth Ierome speak this of his owne time That hauing shewed before out of the Scriptures and the practise of the Church at Antioch that of old a Bishop and a Presbyter were all one he might see that in his time also there remained a proofe thereof because a Bishop then did nothing except ordination which a Presbyter could not doe Out of the Scriptures Ierome prooueth that in those times when the Scriptures were written the name Episcopus and Presbyter were confounded because as the name Episcopus was giuen to Presbyters Phil. 1. Act. 20. Tit. 1. So the name Presbyter to Apostles and Bishops as 1. Tim. 4.14 Where Ierome vnderstandeth as before by Presbyterium Episcopatus 1. Pet. 5.1 Ioan. Epist. 2. 3. And this is Ieromes first argument that Presbyters are superiour to Deacons But hence it doth not follow that therefore the offices of a Bishop and Presbyter are confounded especially after the institution of a Bishop Doth Ierome thinke that euerie Presbyter is equall in degree with Timothe because the office of Timothe in Ieromes vnderstanding is called Presbyterium or that they are equall with Peter and Iohn because they called themselues Presbyters His second argument to prooue the superioritie of Presbyters aboue Deacons is because Bishops were chosen out of Presbyters and by Presbyters whereas contrariwise he that is chosen from among Deacons by Deacons is but an Archdeacon The former part he first illustrateth by the end which was to auoid Schisme and then prooueth it by the Practise of the Church of Alexandria In his setting downe the end he lets fall one word which if it be not fauourablie expounded will make him contradict himselfe and the truth For vpon the allegation of Saint Iohns second and third epistle he saith Quòd autem posteâ— vnus electus that one afterwards was chosen who should be set ouer the rest it
was prouided as a remedie against Schisme lest euerie one drawing after him should rend the Church of Christ. What say you Ierome were Bishops first ordained after Saint Iohns time doe not your selfe testifie that Saint Iames a little after the ascension of Christ was by the Apostles made Bishop of Ierusalem that Marke was Bishop of Alexandria that euer since his time and he dyed almost 40. yeares before Saint Iohn there hath beene a Bishop in a degree superiour to other Presdyters that Timothe was Bishop of Ephesus c. That word afterwards therefore is not to be referred to Saint Iohns time but to those testimonies where he prooued the name Episcopus to be giuen to Presbyters which custome as he supposeth continued vntill one of the Presbyters beeing chosen from among the rest was called Bishop for indeed whiles Apostles or Apostolicke men were made BB. BB. were called the Apostles of the Churches But when out of the Presbyters one was chosen he began for difference sake to be called the Bishop the Angell of the Church Now that BB. were chosen out of Presbyters and by Presbyters he prooueth by the example of the Church at Alexandria For euen at Alexandria from Marke the Euangelist vnto Heraclas and Dionysius BB. who were not chosen from among the Presbyters the Presbyters haue alwaies called one chosen from among themselues and placed in a higher degree the Bishop euen as if an army doe choose their generall or Deacons choose from among themselues one whom they know to be industrious and call him the Archdeacon His fourth argument is this There be many things which a Bishop by the power of his order may doe which a Deacon cannot but there is nothing which a Bishop may doe by the power of order excepting ordination which a Presbyter may not doe A Presbyter is therefore by so much superior to a Deacon by how much he is nearer to the Bishop this is the verie scope of this place and to the same are all the arguments following referred c. the summe whereof is that the Presbyterie is a degree betweene the Bishops and Deacons You see then what Ierome prooueth out of the Scriptures not that the office but the name of Bishop and Presbyter were for a time confounded Now let vs see what he prooueth by the practise of the Church at Antioch he would say at Alexandria that of old a Bishop and a Presbyter were all one See you not how he prooueth it when he saith that euer since Marks time the Bishop hath beene placed in a higher degree aboue the Presbyters Was this to prooue that a Bishop and Presbyter are equall or all one or did Ierome intend any thing else but to prooue the Presbyters superiour to Deacons and that by such arguments as before I analysed We haue heard what Ierome prooueth out of the Scriptures and practise of the Church at Alexandria now at the last let vs heare the end of his speech That he I know not who might see that in his time also there remained a proofe thereof because a Bishop euen then did nothing except ordination which a Presbyter could not doe Toto coelo errat it was not Ieromes end to prooue the Presbyter equall with the Bishop but superiour to the Deacon For if the former had beene his intent this and the other from the practise of Alexandria had beene very vntoward arguments to prooue his purpose At Alexandria the Bishop euer since Marks time was superiour to Presbyters in degree therefore they were equall The Bishop is superiour in the power of ordination therefore Presbyters be his equals Hath not the Refuter now great cause thinke you to crake of this answere was this among all the testimonies which I alledged chosen as most misalledged by occasion whereof he might pay me mine owne and tell me that it was wherried in with â—areâ— by him that looked an other â—ay Blessed bee God that so guided me in the way of truth that among all my allegations the refuter hath not beene able to charge mee with misalledging any one As for this nothing could bee more pregnant and pertinent to proue that BB were superiour to Presbyters in ordination then as I said in the sermon that Ierome himselfe euen when and where he seeketh to aduance the Presbyters as high as hee can aboue the Deacons doth confesse ordinatioÌ„ to be peculiar to Bishops Now whereas Ierome saith a Presbyter may doe any thing which a Bishop doth excepting ordination I did easilie forsee it would bee obiected that if BB. bee superiour onely in the power of ordination then are they not superiour in iurisdiction This obiection I preuented in these words Where you are not to vnderstand him or other of the Fathers speaking somâ—time to the like purpose as though the B. were not superiour in any thing else but that potestate ordâ—nis as touching power of order â—e is superior only in ordination For that he is superior potestate iurisdictionis they euery where acknowledge I know some answere that in Ieromes iudgement BB. are iure diuinâ— superiour to other Ministers onely in the power of ordination but in the power of iurisdiction iure apostolico in that hee acknowledgeth that superiority of BB. was brought in by the Apostles necessarily for auoiding of schismes Which answere I refusing because Ierome saith the like of the superiority of the BB. in generall and of the power of ordination in particular that it was reserued to the B. ne a multis disciplina ecclesia vendicata concordiam sacerdotum solueret et scandala generaret made choice of this other as the more like to bee true Not that J absolutely was of this iudgement that the right of ordination doth belong to the power of Episcopall order as appeareth by that supposall which J made in the sermon page 44. l. 3. but that I supposed it to be the iudgment of Ierome and some other fathers who acknowledging the Bishop to bee superiour in iurisdiction and yet affirming that hee is superiour onely in the right of ordination or imposing hands must thus bee vnderstood as iudging the Bishop to bee superiour onely therein quoad ordinis potestatem as touching the power of order they holding other things belonging to the power of order as the ministry of the word and Sacraments of Baptisme and the Lords Supper to bee common to BB. with other ministers but the power of ordination to bee peculiar to the BB. and in their iudgements not communicable to Presbyters because as Thomas saith ea quae sunt ordinis non possunt committi nisi habenti ordinem Hereunto the Refuter after his malepert and saucy manner answereth that I vnderstand not this distinction For saith he potestas ordinis power of order is not potestas ordinationis power of ordination but power to doe all that which belongeth to the order of that ministery which hee hath receiued as Tolet sheweth But
to impose hands to belong to the power of order First because imposition of hands is a sacred action of spirituall efficacy indeed a sacrament not onely by the doctrine of the scholemen and Papists but also by the confession of Calum though not such a sacrament as Baptisme and the Lords supper which are seales and pledges of our vnion and communion with Christ yet in a more generall sense as a sacrament is defined a visible signe of inuisible grace I say it is a sacred action of spirituall efficacie consecrating a man to the seruice of God in the Ministery conueiing vnto him the power of that order whereunto hee is ordained whereby he is qualified to performe sacred actions of spirituall and supernaturall efficacie Wherefore I doe not see why the power of begetting spirituall Fathers to the Church by ordination as Epiphanius speaketh should not be thought to belong to the power of order in BB. euen as the begetting of sonnes to the Church by baptisme to the power of order in all Ministers Secondly because this power is conferred vpon each Bishop in their consecration and belongeth to him as being a Bishop simply and cannot be taken from him whiles he remaines a Bishop though his Bishopricke be taken from him and may be exercised by him where he hath no iurisdiction Whereof examples might be produced of Athanasius Eusebius Vercellensis and other godly Fathers who when they were turned out of their Bishoprickes and others placed in their roomes not onely retained their power but also exercised the same as occasion was offered in other Churches Thirdly because all ecclesiasticall power being referred either to the power of order or of iurisdiction this must therefore be referred to the power of order because it cannot be referred truly to the power of iurisdiction and that for these two reasons both because the Bishop cannot communicate this power to others as he may iurisdiction and also because he doth not lose it with his iurisdiction but retaineth it when his Bishopricke is taken from him and may as well exercise it without his diocesse where he hath no iurisdiction as another Minister may preach or baptize out of his owne parish Whenas therefore I expounded Ierome and some others who say the B. is superior to the Presbyters onely in ordination as not meaning that he is not superiour also in the power of iurisdiction but that in respect of the power of order he was superior onely in the right of ordaining because whereas other parts of the power of order be common to him with Presbyters that of ordaining is his peculiar right and prerogatiue I did not speake without vnderstanding Contrariwise the Refuter as in laying to my charge that I confound the power of order with ordination he spake he knew not what so in the inference which he bringeth vpon his former words hee pratleth without vnderstanding Now if the power of ordination did belong properly to the office of BB. then were the BB. superior to the other Ministers potestate ordinis but the former I haue manifestly proued therefore the latter must be granted but that is the question saith he as who should say he were resolued to deny the conclusion But heare him I pray you Notwithstanding to let him inioy his owne distinction of BB. differ onely in ordination from Presbyters quoad ordinis potestatem then in the power of iurisdiction Presbyters are equall with them potestate ordinis by the power of their order Wherefore where afterwards he draweth vnto BB. the whole power of censuring vnder the name of potestas iurisdictionis he maketh that to be adiuine which is but an humane preeminence by his owne distinction All which is meere babling without sense or vnderstanding what he saith as the Reader who vnderstandeth what I haue deliuered concerning this distinction will easily iudge There remaineth the third part of this section wherein out of a Christian and charitable desire to preserue the credit of such reformed Churches as haue no BB. I endeuoured to preuent the obiections of Papists who reason thus against them The right of ordination being peculiar to BB. it followeth that where is no B. there is no ordination where is no ordination there are no Ministers where are no Ministers there is no Church I answered that although the ordinary right of ordination belongeth to BB. in the iudgement of the antient Church that yet it was not to be vnderstood as so appropriating it to them as that extraordinarily and in the case of necessitie it might not be lawfull for Presbyters to ordaine and much lesse teaching absolutely a nullity of the ordination which is performed without a B. Which answer I confirmed by diuers reasons Whereunto I now adde that there seemeth to be the like reason for imposition of hands in confirmation of the baptized in the reconciliation of publike penitents as in the ordination of Ministers But although the two former were reserued as well as the third to the B. yet extraordinarily in the case of necessity and in the want or absence of the B. the antient Church held it lawfull for Ministers to impose hands either for the confirming of parties baptized or for reconciliation of the penitents The former is testified by Ambrose and Augustine the latter by Cyprian and diuers Councels And moreouer the Popish Writers themselues doe teach that the Pope may giue licence to him that is not a Bishop to ordaine so that hee to whom such licence is giuen haue those orders himselfe which he would giue to another If therefore by the Popes licence a Presbyter may ordaine Presbyters much better may a company of Presbyters to whom in the want of a Bishop the charge of the Church is deuolued be authorised thereto by necessity which as they say hath no law To this passage inserted by me onely in fauour of the Churches where the presbyterian discipline is established which I would not lay open to popish cauils the Refuter if he had been led with a good spirit would rather haue answered with thanks then haue set himselfe to wrangle and cauill therewith as if he cared not so he may haue something to speake against what becommeth of those Churches which notwithstanding he would seeme to fauor more then my selfe The which vngracious course he taketh againe in answering the 95. page of my Sermon where I forced my selfe as in this place to speake as much as the truth would permit in fauour of the aforesaid Churches But if my answers for them either here or there do not please the Refuter and his consorts I will hereafter giue them leaue to answer what they please Neither will I any more disaduentage the truth which I defend in a desire to gratifie them seeing my indeuor is so vngratefully taken Which I speake not as though I thought his exceptions against my defence any thing worth For where he obiecteth that if
the Fathers had thought the power of ordination to haue bin peculiar to BB. by any ordinance of God they would not haue allowed any such ordination as I speake of without a B it followes not For though they held the right of Baptizing to beloÌ„g to the Ministers of the Church by Gods ordinance though they held the right of imposing hands to be peculiar to the Apostles and their successors yet in a case of necessity they held baptisme without a Minister and confirmation without a B. to be lawfull In like maner though they held that the right of ordination was peculiar to Bishops by Apostolical institution therefore taught that none but Bishops could regularly and ordinarily ordaine notwithstanding in a case of necessity we may well thinke they would haue allowed of such an ordination as J spake of though as I said not as regular according to the rules of ordinary Church gouernment yet as effectuall and iustifiable in the want of a B. If he still say they wouâ—d not then must he confesse that the practise of the Disciplinarians is such as the Fathers of the Primitiue Church would in no case haue allowed and that is all the inconuenience that can come to our cause if my defence of them be not sufficient As for his cauill at my supposall of the right of ordination to belong to the power of order in BB. I haue answered before To such obiections one answer is enough two is too many And thus much of the Bishops right in ordaining CHAP. V. That Bishops were superior to other Ministers in the power of iurisdiction Serm. sect 9. pag. 45. Now I am to shew that the B. is superiour also in the power of iurisdiction The Presbyters indeede c. to the end of the page HEre the Reader is to obserue what is by me propounded to be proued not that the BB. had or haue the sole power of iurisdiction the defence whereof the Refuter euery where would faine force vpon me but that they are and were superiour in the power of iurisdiction or gouernment I deny not the Presbyters which haue charge of soules to haue iurisdiction both seuerally in their parishes and iointly in prouinciall synods And I haue confessed before that Presbyters haue with and vnder the Bishops exercised some iurisdiction I grant that godly BB. before they had the countenance and assistance of Christian Magistrates and direction of Christian lawes vsed in all matters of moment to consult with their clergy imitating therein as Ierome speaketh the example of Moses Quâ— cùm haberet in potestate solus praesse populo who when it was in his power to gouerne the people alone hee chose seuenty with whom to iudge the people This was practised by Cyprian who resolued from the beginning of his Bishopricke to doe nothing of importance alone because he would preuent dissension and scandals Ambrose also teacheth that there was a time when nothing was done without the aduice of the Presbyters who therefore by Ignatius are called the counsellours and coassessours of the B. Which course if it were vsed still as it would ease the Bishops burden very much so would it nothing detract from their superiority in gouerning the sway of their authority being no lesse when they vsed the aduice of their Presbyters then when they vsed it not For the assistance of the Presbyters was to helpe and aduice but neuer to ouerrule the Bishop Neither will any man say that the authority of a Prince who vseth the aduice of his counsell is the lesse for it but the moâ—e aduised But what the authority of BB. was in the primitiue Church in respect of gouernment I will first shew absolutely and then by way of comparison with Presbyters What the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Councell of Carthage calleth the authority of BB. was may first appeare by this that they were accounted the gouernours and rulers of the Churches meaning thereby dioceses For though there were many ministers who were Angels Pastors Bishops yâ—t there was but one in euery Church who was the Angel the Pastor the Bishop the gouernour of the Church bearing as Ignatius saith the sway of authority aboue and ouer them all But I delight to heare Ierome the onely pretended patron of the Disiplinarians who confesseth as wee haue heard that of necessity a peerelesse power and eminent aboue all is to bee attributed to Bishoppes and that the safety of the Church dependeth thereon Hee therefore in his Commentary vpon Esay chap. 60. verse 17. reading according to the Septuag I will giue thy Princes in peace and thy Bishops in righteousnesse saith Herein the Maiestie of the holy Scriptures is to bee admired which calleth principes futuros ecclesiae episcopos the Princes or Rulers which should bee of the Church Bishoppes whose visitation is all in peace and the name of their dignitie meaning their superintendencie in righteousnesse And on those words of the 45. Psalme In stead of fathers children shall be borne vnto thee O Church saith he the Apostles were thy fathers for they begate thee Now forasmuch as they are gone out of the world thou hast BB. who were borne of thee For these also are thy fathers because thou art gouerned of them And on the words following whom thou shalt make Princes in all the earth for saith he in the name of God the gospell is spread in all ends of the world in which Principes ecclesiae i. episcopi the princes of the Church that is to say the Bishops are placed On which words Augustine also doth comment to the like purpose In stead of the Apostles sonnes are borne to thee BB. are ordained thinke not thy selfe forsaken because thou seest not Peter and Paul who beg at thee of thine owne issue is sprung a fatherhood Agnoscant qui prâ—cisi sunt veniant ad vnitatem c. Let them which are precise or cut off by schisme acknowledge it and come vnto vnity The Church hath borne sonnes and in steed of her fathers hath made them princes ouer all the earth Optatus likewise calleth the BB apices principes omnium The Councell of Carthage decreed that when the Donatists returned to the Church they should be receiued each one in their degrees according to the will and pleasure of the B. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who gouerneth the Church in the same place if he shall thinke it expedient for the peace of the Church Cyprian though he had approued Cornelius his courage in that Felicissimus a wicked schismaticke attended with a troope of desperate fellowes was by him vigore pleno quo episcopum agere oportet pulsus de ecclesia with full vigour of auâ—hority and courage wherewith it behoueth a B to deale driuen out of the Church yet perceiuing him to be somwhat daunted with the threatnings of those lewd companions if this be so saith he that the
May not a man say as much of the Duke of Venice or of the King of Polonia yet are neither of these soueraignes no more had the B. for all these words any supreme and sole authority Do I any where say that the BB. haue or ought to haue supreme and sole authority which here againe he obiecteth to make the BB. according to my iudgement forsooth absolute Popelings will these odious slanders wilfully deuised to disgrace the truth which I taught neuer bee left and yet that is vntrue which he saith of the Duke of Venice and that is more then we desire that the B. in his diocese should be like the King of Polonia in his kingdome For though the Duke of Venice bee aboue any other in Venice yet hee hath not the whole power and authority aboue al neither doe we make the B. to haue supreme power in his diocese as the King of Poland hath in his realme though in respect of the election of him to his kingdome and of BB. to their sees there be somelikenes In the third place I alleage another testimony of Ignatius where hee exhorteth the Presbyters of Antioch where himselfe was Bishop to feed the flocke which was among them vsing the words which Peter doth 1. Epist. 5. Vntill God should declare who should bee their Gouernour meaning the Bishop Where the B. in plaine termes is called the gouernor of the Presbyters There can be no question but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a maiority of rule And yet he saith this testimony doth not proue any such maiority of rule and that for foure worthy reasons First because this is one of those places which the disciplinarians absurdly alledge for the proofe of onely-gouerning elders which neuer were the duty inioined them being pastorall Secondly because the Church whereof he was B. was but one congregation at that time And yet he expressely calleth himselfe the Bishop of Syria which plainely proueth that he was not onely a diocesan but a Metropolitan B. Yea but in his epistle to Ierome he calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I wil not vrge the error in the name Ierome for Heron perhaps it was not our Ieremies but his Barucks fault The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which hee absurdly translateth Synagogue and parish signifieth congregation and is the same with ecclesia or Church For Ignatius hauing signified to him that he should be his successour in the Bishopricke he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the congregation of the Lord shall not be as sheepe without a pastor But hereof I haue spoken heretofore Howbeit both this and the former answere here are meere euasions For suppose that which I haue proued to be most false that there were onely-gouerning elders in Antioch and that the Church had been but one parish can he be so absurde asto say that none of the Presbyters in Antioch were ministers If any were as indeed they were all as I haue abundantly proued before is not the B. here plainely noted to be their gouernour and if he were their gouernour was he not aboue them in the power of iurisdiction or gouernment Or what is this to the present question whether the Church of Antioch contained one congregation or more if it cannot be denied that the B. was superiour in the power of iurisdiction to the Presbyters of that Church how great or how little soeuer it was His third reason of all others is most impertinent For what is this to the purpose if it were true that the duty which Ignatius inioineth them of feeding that is of instructing and guiding the people was not perpetually belonging to their office but onely in the time of the vacancie till they had another gouernour seeing he noteth that himselfe had been and his successour should bee their gouernour But it is vntrue which he saith concerning the perpetuity of the duty For Ignatius his meaning was that as they were at all times to feed the people so especially in the absence or want of the Bishop the care and attendance of the flocke in the defect of a B. being deuolued to them Fourthly If M. D. doe vrge saith he that Ignatius was and so also his successor their gouernour which was indeed the onely thing for which the place was alleaged and to which point alone hee ought to haue directed his speech the answere is easie that he might be so and yet the Church but a parish and those Presbyters gouerning Elders An easie answere indeed as who should say though the allegation doe proue that for which you bring it yet it doth not disprooue some other of our absurdities for the disproofe whereof you do not bring it as that the Church was a parish and the Presbyters onely gouerning elders Was the disproofe of those points to be expected from this place and at this time do you not say it is one of the places which is ordinarily brought out of Ignatius for proofe of onely-gouerning Elders And must this be your shift to auoid my argument proouing out of this place the superiority of Bishops in the power of iurisdiction that for any thing can hence be alleaged the Presbyters might be onely gouerning Elders Js not the Refuter neere driuen thinke you when he would beare his Reader in hand that his lay Presbyters be sufficiently proued if the place which themselues bring for them doth not disproue them but especially when he is driuen to alleage this as a poore shift to auoid another thing in question Yea but if the Church were a parish and they onely gouerning Elders then was Ignatius but as a Parson of a parish and Parsons though they be called rectores ecclesiarum gouernours of the parish Churches are farre enough from the maiority of rule in question Whereto J answere that if he would need◠make Ignatius but the Parson of a parish assisted with a Presbytery of lay Elders hee should haue conceiued him to be such a one as themselues fancie and not as ours are For he should not haue been subordinate and subiect as ours are and as all Presbyters of parishes euer were to the Bishops but as they fancy indued with a power vnsubordinate and independent and therefore had a supremacy rather then superiority as being the supreme ecclesiasticall officer in all that Church But how I beseech you is it proued that Ignatius was but a parish Bishop Because forsooth the Church of Antioch might be a parish and the Presbyters thereof onely-gouerning Elders for any thing that I haue here said to the contrary which indeed I intended not in this place But now I discerne a worthy stratageme of this Refuter in chusing rather to answere the places out of Ignatius being brought for superiority of Bishops then himselfe to vrge them for the lay-elders hoping to perswade some kind of Readers both that their Elders are sufficiently proued if they be not disprooued out of the places
authoritie ouer them or reprooued for suffering them And if they were not Presbyters because they called themselues Apostles be like they were better men Js it not then against sense to deny that Presbyters were subiect to the ceÌ„sure of the Bishop because he imagineth these who were subiect to their censure were better men Whatsoeuer they were whether Presbyters or in a higher degree whether of the Bishops presbytery or not whether of his diocese originally or come from other places it is plaine that they were Teachers and that being in their diocese the Bishops had authoritie either to suffer them to preach or to inhibit them to retaine them in the Communion of their Church or to expell them My other reason that BB. had correctiue power ouer the Presbyters is because Timothe and Titus had such power ouer the Presbyters of Ephesus and Creet as I proue by most euident testimonies out of Pauls epistles written to them and Epiphanius his inference on these words to Timothe Against a Presbyter receiue not thou an accusation but vnder two or three witnesses c. Therefore saith he Presbyters are subiect to the B. as to their Iudge To my inference out of S. Paul he answereth that Timothe and Titus were not BB. and that I shall neuer prooue they were I desire therefore the Reader to suspend his iudgement vntill hee come to the proofes on both sides and if he shall not find my proofes for their being BB. to be better then his to the contrarie let him beleeue me in nothing In the meane time let him know that if the generall consent of the ancient Fathers deserue any credit for a matter of fact then must it be granted that Timothe and Titus were Bishops Against Epiphanius hee obiecteth that hee tooke for granted that which Aerius constantly denied But this is one of his presumptuous and malapeit conceits for when Epiphanius prooueth against Aerius that Bishops were superiour to other Presbyters because Timothe was taking it for granted that Timothe was a Bishoppe what moderate or reasonable man would think otherwise but that this assertion that Timothe was a Bishoppe was such a receiued truth as hee knew Aërius himselfe would not deny it Serm. sect 12. pag. 50. But consider also the Presbyters as seuered in place from the Bishop and affixed to their seuerall Cures c. to offenders pag. 52. My first Argument to proue the iurisdiction of Bishops ouer Presbyters assigned to their seuerall cures is that when any place in the country was voide the Bishoppe assigned a Presbyter to them out of his Presbytery which as hath beene said before Caluin confesseth and is an euident argument as to proue the iurisdiction of the Bishop ouer the country parishes and Presbyters thereof so to demonstrate that the Bishops were Diocesan This reason because hee could not answere he would as his maner is perswade the Reader that it is needlesse Secondly I alledge that these Presbyters might doe nothing but by authority from the Bishoppe from whome they had their iurisdiction and therefore were subiect to him as their ruler Thirdly that they were subiect to his iudgement and censures These two points with their proofes hee passeth ouer as if hee made hast to the reason following which he supposeth to be the weakest For this is his maner to passe by in breuity or in silence the best proofes and if he meet with any thing which seemeth to him weaker then the rest there he resteth like aâ—lie in a raw place But by his leaue I will insist a little on these two points And first for the former point in generall the ancient Councell of Laodicea hauing ordained that Country Bishops might do nothing without the consent of the B. in the City in like maner commaundeth the Presbyters to doe nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the consent of the B. The same hath Damasus who hauing spoken of Country Bishops in like manner saith this must be held concerning Presbyters vt sine iussu proprij Episcopi nihilagant that they do nothing without the commaundement of their owne B. To omit those actions that belonged to the power of order which I haue already proued they could not performe without licence and authority from the Bishop consider how in respect of their persons those of the Clergy were subiect to the Bishop to be disposed by him First hee had authority to promote theÌ„ from one degree to another as he saw cause insomuch that if they refused to bee promoted by him they were to loose that degree from which they would not be remoued Secondly they might not remoue from one Diocese to another without his consent If they did he had authority to call them backe Or if any other Bishop should ordaine any of his Clerks without his coÌ„sent or letters dimissory and in that Church preferre him to a higher degree his own B. might reuerse that ordination bring him again to his own Church Con. Nic. c. 16. Arel 2. c. 13. Sard. c 15. Constant. in Trullo c. 17. Venet. c. 10 Epaun. c. 5. Thirdly they might not so much as trauel from one City to another without the B. licence his commendatory letters This was decreed by the councell of Laodicea and diuers others as Con. Agath c. 38. Epaunens c. 6. Aurelian 3. c. 15. Venet. c. 5. Turon c. 11.12 Hereby the Reader will easily discerne that the whole Clergy of euery Diocese was subiect to the B. as to their Ruler And that he was their iudge it is euident Cyprian testifieth that heresies and schismes arise hence that the Bishop is not obeied nec vâ—us in Ecclesia ad tempus sacerdos ad tempus index vice Christi cogitatur neither is one B. in the Church and one iudge for the time in the stead of Christ acknowledged First in their controuersies for when Clerks are at variance the B shal bring them to concord either by reason or by his power If there be a controuersie betweene Clerks saith the Councel of Chalcedon they shal not forsake their owne B. but first their cause shall be tried before him And if in their sutes they thought themselues wronged in their Bishoppes court then were they either to seâ—ke to the next BB if the matter could not be differred to the next Synode or else they might appeale to the Metropolitane or Prouinciall Synode But that the B. should be ouerruled controlled or censured by his owne Presbytery it was neuer heard of vnlesse it were by way of insurrection or rebellion Secondly in causes criminall that the Presbyters and others of the Clergy were subiect to the BB. censures it is euery where almost in the ancient Canons and Councels either expressed or presupposed If any Presbyter or Deacon saith the ancient Canon be excommunicated by the B. he may not be receiued by another
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
perpetually vsed in all Christian Churches in the first three hundred yeeres after Christ and his Apostles the latter and was not ordained by generall Councils The former part I proue by foure arguments The first whereof is this If the Angels or gouernors of the primitiue Church in the first 300. yeeres after Christ and his Apostles were diocesan BB. then the gouernment of the Church by such BB. was generally and perpetually vsed in that time But the antecedent is true Therefore the consequent He maketh a doubt of the proposition because he hath not learned that speeches in disputation indefinitly propounded are generally to be vnderstood for auoiding of clenches and therefore when I say the Angels or gouernours I meane all the Angels or gouernours when I say in the three hundred yeers I meane throughout that terme euen from the death of Saint Iohn to the end of the foure hundred yeere after the incarnation of Christ. The assumption hath beene proued at large in the former part of the Sermon and in this defence thereof first by this disiunction either the Churches after the Apostles time were gouerned by diocesan BB. as we say or by presbiteries consisting for the most part of Lay-elders as the disciplinarians hold But neuer by such presbiteries Therefore euer by BB. Secondly I haue proued that euer since the Apostles times the Churches haue been dioceses and the BB. diocesans superiour to other ministers in degree hauing singularity of preeminence during life and majoritie of power in respect both of ordination and iurisdiction his answere is that he hath answered those points of my Sermon where he hath shewed that I proued no such matter whereunto I reply that all his answeres were but shifts and euasions and stand fully confuted But perhaps the refuter will say if I had vnderstood your proposition as vttered in generall termes as now it is expounded by you then I would haue taken the same exception against the proofe of the assumption which I did against your proposition for although in some part of that time some BB. were perhaps such as you described yet it followeth not that generally and perpetually in the first three hundred yeeres after Christ and his Apostles they were such That they were generally such in the last of the three hundred yeeres which is the fourth century after Christ it thing most fully testified and most manifestly proued in the proofe of the former points and hath been confessed by the refuter neither can be denyed of any man who hath any sound learning ioyned with a good conscience Let vs then consider when such BB. had their beginning Perhaps some will say they began with Constantine for then was the greatest alteration in the state of the Church I answere the alteration was in respect of outward peace and prosperitie wherewith God blessed his Church not in the discipline or doctrin of the Church in respect of the wealth and better maintenance of the BB. not in the substance of their calling It is euident that BB. were diocesan before they were actually Metropolitanes and Metropolitanes before they were Patriarches for of the combination of dioceses did follow Metropolitanes and vpon the consociation of prouinces were Patriarches ordayned and yet long before the Councill of Nice the Patriarches were in vse and the customes of subiecting diuerse prouinces to them are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ancient customes In the same canon it was also decreed that the priuiledges or prerogatiues of Churches meaning especially the priuiledges of being mother Churches should be reserued to them which priuiledge as I haue shewed before belonged to them euer since the Apostles times When the B. of Antioch attempted to ordaine the Metropolitane of Cyprus the BB. of Cyprus complaine to the Councill of Ephesus alledging that euer since the Apostles the Metropolitane B. of Constantia was ordained by the Synode of the prouinciall BB. whereupon the Councill not onely censured the attempt of the B. of Antioch as an innouation contrarie to the rules of the Apostles but also determineth first that no B. should haue to doe with any countrey or prouince which had not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euer from the beginning belonged to his See and secondly that euery prouince within it selfe should retayne inuiolable such rights as they had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euer from the beginning according to the custome receiued of old If therefore Metropolitanes and Patriarches were in vse long before Constantines time who can doubt but diocesan BB. were much more Long since saith Cyprian in all prouinces and in all cities BB. are ordained in age ancient sound in faith tryed in affliction c. in Prouinces Metropolitanes such as himselfe was in Cities diocesans Without doubt if diocesan BB. had their beginning after the Apostles times then was it shortly after their decease But that cannot be first because as I shall proue in the next reason they were in the Apostles times secondly because as I said in the Sermon it is incredible that all the Churches would and impossible that they could agree in abolishing a gouernment receiued from the Apostles and setting vp at once in all places of the world one other vniforme gouernment by BB. without the gaine saying of any one of the godly Fathers or worthy Martyrs of Christ. Besides the succession of BB. from the Apostles times as I shall shew doth plainely proue their originall to haue beene in the Apostles times Whereunto may be added the testimony of Eusebius concerning the age succeeding the Apostles times for hauing shewed that about the twelfth yeere of Traian which was about seauen yeeres after the death of Saint Iohn Primus succeeded Cerdo in the Bishopricke of Alexandria and Alexander Euaristus in the Bishopricke of Rome he testifieth that in those times both the doctrine of Christ and his Church did flourish dayly more and more Likewise in the time of Adrian he testifieth both that the Churches shined in all places of the world like most glorious lights and the faith of Christ in all nations flourished And in the same book after he had noted the succession of the BB. of Rome Alexandria Antioch shewing how Soter succeeded Anicetus at Rome Agrippinus Celadion at Alexandria Theophilus Heros who had succeeded Cornelius and he Heron at Antioch and hauing mentioned some other famous BB. as Dionysius of Corinth and Pinytus of Candy Philippe Apollinaris Melita Musanus Modestus and Irenaeus he saith that Hegesippus flourished at the same time whose testimonie of the estate of the Church in his time he hath recorded to this effect that iourneying toward Rome in many places he had conference with the BB. all which he found to be teachers of one and the same doctrine and hauing spoken of the Epistle of Clemens to the Corinthians he giueth this testimony to the Church of Corinth in particular that it had continued in the right faith
the behalfe of those which had fallen promising when God should grant peace vnto them that he might returne to them the behauiour and repentance of them which had fallen should be examined in their presence and hauing signified his great dislike of the Presbiters act who not reseruing vnto him the honour of his Priesthood and chaire had without his allowance communicated with them which had fallen In the end he desireth that they which had fallen would patiently heare his counsell expect his returne that when through Gods mercy we shall come vnto you many of my fellow BB. being assembled together may according to the discipline of the Lord in the presence of the confessors examine the letters and desires of the blessed Martyrs he writeth in like manner to the Clergy that is to the Presbiters and Deacons willing them for as much as still his returne was delayed that in the case of necessity they should not expect his presence but for such as should be in danger of death to lay their hands vpon them and reconcile them especially such as had beene commended by the Martyrs as for the rest he would haue them stay till hee being restored to the Church and they all being assembled together might determine what was to be done But being importuned againe by letters from the Confessors who had desired him and by him the rest of the BB. to grant peace as themselues did to them which had fallen he writeth againe to the Presbiters and Deacons that letter which by the refuter is cited saying concerning those which had fallen and by the Confessours haue desired to be reconciled vntill it be certainely knowne what course they haue taken since their fault committed seeing it is a matter which belongeth to the Councill and iudgement of vs all I dare not preiudicate and challenge to my selfe a thing which is common and therefore appointeth that course to be taken which I mentioned out of the last Epistle and to the same purpose writeth to diuers BB. and by name to Calidonius shewing him what order he had taken in this matter and willing him to signifie the same to other BB. that the like course might be taken by them If these letters all concerning the same businesses be conferred together you may obserue first that Cyprian was a Metropolitane B. hauing authoritie to assemble and to direct his comprouinciall BB. as may appeare also by the Synodes held and Synodicall Epistles written by him Secondly that he speaketh not of Church businesse in generall but of this particular which was of so great importance that he saith it was the cause not of one Church or of one Prouince but of the whole world Thirdly that he would not deale alone in this busines but he would call a Synode of his fellow BB. besides his Clergie and in the presence of the people haue the cause of them which had fallen examined Fourthly that although he would not deale alone in this busines being a cause of so great moment but would haue it referred to the examination censure of his fellow BB. besides the concurrence of the people and his owne Clergy in this iudgement notwithstanding the chiefe stroak in this busines was in him as appeareth both by their petitions and his directions And therefore the whole cariage of this businesse doth prooue the Episcopall authoritie of the B. and Cyprians superioritie not onely ouer his owne Presbiters but also ouer his fellow Bishops so farre is it from impleading the same and further I say that Cyprian because his comming to the Bishopricke was much resisted by Felicissimus and his complices and the time wherein he liued troublesome and dangerous therefore though he might as Ierome speaketh of all Bishops rule alone as Moses yet as Moses he voluntarily vsed the assistance of others hauing as himselfe saith from the beginning of his Bishoprick determined to doe nothing by his own priuate sentence without the counsell of the Clergy and consent of the people whereby it appeareth that his vsing of the Clergies counsell and consent of the people was not of necessity but voluntary and therefore when he saw cause and did finde himselfe not to need either the counsell of the Clergy or consent of the people he would sometimes doe matters of importance as namely the ordination of Clerks alone as himselfe signifieth in an Epistle to the Presbiters Deacons and the whole people In ordaining of Clerkes I doe vse before hand to consult with you and by common counsell to weigh the manners and deserts of all but humane testimonies are not to be expected when we haue diuine suffrages and therefore signifieth that he had without them ordained Aurelius and others to be Clerks But suppose that of necessitie Cyprian was to vse the aduise or expect the presence and conscience of his Clergy in dispaching matters of importance would this be an instance against the Episcopall gouernment in those times did the fourth Councill of Cathage set foorth these two Canons the one that a B. without the Councill of his Clergie should not ordaine Clerkes requiring also that the assent or conniuence and testimony of the people should be had the other that a B. should heare no mans cause but in the presence of his Clerkes and that the sentence of the B. should be void which was not confirmed by the presence of his Clergie and yet no man doubteth but that when that Councell was held which was about foure hundred yeeres after Christ the sway of Ecclesiasticall authoritie both for ordination and iurisdiction was in the Bishop But I haue vouchafed too long an answere to so weake an allegation In the next place he mentioneth Ambrose his testimony which was as he saith debated at large in the first point It was debated indeed but nothing to this present purpose Ambrose saith that the B. was wont to vse the aduise of his Presbiters though in his time it was growne out of vse and the matter debated betweene vs was whether those Seniors were Ministers as I proued or Lay-elders as the refuter pretended but whether they were the one or the other the authoritie and gouernment of the B. was no more impayred by vsing their counsell then the authority of a Prince by vsing the aduise of his Counsellours vntill such time and in such cases as by the Canons and Canonicall law their consent was required as necessarie These two allegations if they had beene reduced into sillogismes would haue made very loose inferences and so would the testimonies of Ierom who euery where almost saith the refuter speaketh for vs. This is vauntingly spoken and yet the truth is that as no where 's indeed he speaketh for them so none of the Fathers is more plentifull of pregnant testimonies then he is for BB. as partly hath beene shewed already and more shall be declared hereafter Of the testimonies which the refuter citeth three
as much in effect yea and in expresse termes had been giuen to others as to the B. of Alexandria called by some the iudge of the whole world to the B. of Constantinople called vniuersall or oecumenicall Patriarch to Iames the B. of Ierusalem Heare B. Iewels words Clement vnto Iames B. of Ierusalem writeth thus Clemens Iacobo fratri Domini Episcopo Episcoporum regenti Hebraeorum sanctam Ecclesiam Hierosolymis sed omnes Ecclesias quae vbique Dei prouidentia fundatae sunt Clement vnto Iames the brother of our Lord the B. of BB. gouerning the holy Church of the Iewes at Ierusalem and besides all the Churches that be founded euery where by Gods prouidence These be all his words sauing that hee saith if Harding had so good euidence for the B. of Rome he would not thus haue passed it ouer in silence Which if you compare with the refuters allegation you may well wonder at his dealing Doth not B. Iewel himselfe in plaine termes call Iames the B. of Ierusalem and that which is said of his gouerning other Churches is not his saying but Clements if it be truely printed in the copies which B. Iewel did follow Neither would it follow of those words alledged as they are that he was no otherwise B. of Ierusalem then ouer all the other Churches The B. of Constantinople though he were called vniuersall or oecumenicall Patriarch yet was he the Diocesan B. of the Church of Constantinople alone and that was his peculiar Diocese So if Clement had meant that Iames had beene the gouernour of all Churches yet the Church of Ierusalem was his Diocese wherein Simon and the rest of the Bishops of Ierusalem did succeed him and thereof he had his denomination The Pope himselfe though he claime to be vniuersall Bishop yet is he specially Bishop of Rome and his cathedrall Church is the Church of Laterane of which he is Bishop Howbeit in the edition of that Epistle set forth by Sichardus and printed at Basill together with his recognitions anno 1526. we read thus Sed ominibus Ecclesiis quae vbique sunt By which copy if it be true Iames is not signified to be the gouernour of all Churches but Clements Epistle is directed not onely to Iames but to all Churches c. Yea but D. Whitakers by eight arguments doth proue that he neither was nor might be B. of Ierusalem I promise you this maketh a faire shew if it be true But this also is a manifest vntruth For the arguments that he vseth are to proue that Peter was not Bishop of Rome Yea but the same are as effectuall to proue that Iames might not be Bishop of Ierusalem and therefore to these eight arguments he doth referre me But this also is vntrue For six of these eight are such as the refuter with all his sophistry cannot with any shew of truth applie to St. Iames. For his third argument taken from Peters long absence from Rome after he was according to their opinion B. there cannot be applyed to Iames who was resident at Ierusalem as the Actes besides other witnesses testifie Nor the fourth that if Peter were B. then had he two Bishopricks For he had beene by their owne doctrine as well B. of Antioch as of Rome But no such thing can be obiected against Iames. Nor the fift that whiles Peter liued Linus was B. of Rome so he was indeed by the appointment of Peter and Paul as Irenaeus teacheth But whiles Iames liued none was B. of Ierusalem but he But after he was dead Simon was chosen to be his successor Nor the sixt that the authors which mention Peters going to Rome note this to haue beene the end not to be B. there but to oppose Simon Magus But the cause of Iames his staying and continuing at Ierusalem was to take charge of that Church which during his life had no other B. Nor the seauenth that if Peter were B. of Rome then would he haue professed himselfe the Apostle of the Gentiles neither would he haue conuenanted with Paul that he and Barnabas should take care of the Gentiles but himselfe and Iames and Iohn of the Circumcision For Iames as he is said to haue beene B. of Ierusalem so hee professeth himselfe to haue beene the Apostle of the Iewes For besides that he writeth his Epistle to the Iewes he and Peter and Iohn gaue the right hand of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas that themselues would be for the Circumcision And for as much as Peter and Iohn trauelled to other parts Iames alwayes abiding at Ierusalem it is more then probable that the Church of Iewry was peculiarly assigned to him Neither is it for nothing that both in the 15. of the Acts he is noted as President or chiefe in that Councill and in the 2. Chapter to the Galathians Paul speaking of such Apostles as were at Ierusalem he giueth the precedence to Iames before Peter and Iohn Nor the eight for they that say Peter was Bishop of Rome say Paul was also meaning that they were both founders of the Church but Linus was the B. to whom they both committed the Church as Irenaeus saith But they which say Iames was B. of Ierusalem mention him alone Neither was he founder of that Church but Christ himselfe who was the minister of Circumcision But it will be said the two first reasons of the eight doe proue that Iames was not B. of Ierusalem That commeth now to be tryed The first reason is this Bishops haue certaine Churches assigned to them The Apostles had not certain churches assigned to them Therefore the Apostles were not Bishops The assumption is to be distinguished according to the times For when Christ gaue them their indefinite commission goe into all the world hee assigned no Prouinces nor parts of the world to any Notwithstanding before they were to goe abroad he willeth them to stay at Ierusalem till they had receiued the holy Ghost who should direct them what to doe and we may be assured that he did not direct them to goe confusedly but distinctly some to one part of the world some to another Howbeit when they ceased to trauaile in their olde dayes and rested in some chiefe Citie where they had laboured they were reputed Bishops of that place where they rested though some of them perhaps were not properly Bishops And this is true of Peter and of the most of the Apostles But herein Iames differeth from the rest for to him at the first before their dispersion the Church of Ierusalem was assigned Neither did he trauaile as the rest from one Country to another being not confined to any one Prouince though in the end of their trauels some of them made choise of some speciall place where they rested exercising no doubt a patriarchall authority as it were in that circuit where they had trauailed and planted Churches Thus Iohn rested at Ephesus and others in other places That
the Apostles would put off the matter till there was no remedie and I cannot much blame them if it be true which D. Bilson saith that they were to keepe the power of imposition of hands to themselues vnlesse they would loose their Apostleship It is more meruaile therefore that they would ordaine any Bishops at all as long as they liued then that they would deferre the doing of it so long as they could Which words as they contayne a meere cauill at my words not worth the answering so a meere belying of that reuerend B. who saith that the Apostles could not loose that viz. the power of imposing hands and deliuering vnto Sathan which the Fathers call Episcopall power vnlesse they lost the Apostleship withall Secondly hee obiecteth want of proofes What proofe bringeth he that the Apostles ordayned such Bishops in other Churches neither one text of Scripture nor any testimonie out of the ancient Writers onely authoritate praetoria hee telleth vs Pythagoras like they did so c. Here in complayning of the want of proofes he giueth sufficient proofe of a bad conscience In this section I did but in generall hauing noted the difference of the time declare what course the Apostles tooke first in deferring the choise of Bishops and afterwards in appointing them The proofes doe follow in the sections following shewing the places where and the persons whom the Apostles ordayned Bishops That imputation of speaking Pythagoras like hee hath often layd vpon me and yet not so oft as vniustly who haue in this Sermon and in this Treatise deliuered nothing almost without plentifull proofe or sufficient authority Thirdly hee carpeth at the names wherewith I said the first Bishoppes were called asking what is all this to the matter Would he prooue they were Diocesan Bishops because they were called by these names what a notorious cauiller is this may nothing be spoken but by way of proofe may nothing be said by declaration or explanation or preuention I knew it was obiected that Bishops are not mentioned in the scriptures the name Episcopus Bishop being giuen to Prebyters and therefore that is not like they were ordayned by the Apostles of vvhom no mention is in the Scriptures For preuention of this obiection or assoyling this doubt I declared first that the Bishops in the writings of the Apostles are called sometimes the Angels of the Churches sometimes their rulers sometimes their Apostles Yea but in my former Sermon I gaue all these names saue onely the name of Apostles to all ministers The former Sermon is of ministers in generall including the Bishops and diuers things there spoken of ministers in generall doe principally belong to Bishops All Pastors are rulers or rectors of their seuerall flockes but the Bishops are rulers both of them and their flocke All ministers are called Angelâ— but the Bishop alone is the Angell of each Church or Diocese c. But by what authority saith he is the title of Apostle appropriated to BB he would haue said communicated to them with the twelue For I know no man so foolish as to appropriate it to the Bishops This reason I rendred why they be called the Apostles of the Churches because they succeeded the Apostles in the gouernment of the particular Churches whereof I gaue instance Phil. 2.25 where Epaphroditus who was the B. or Pastor of Philippi is therefore called their Apostle Therefore saith he Who saith so Ambrose Ierome Theodoret Caluin Thomas Aquinas if we will beleiue D. D. but if we will looke vpon the bookes themselues not one of them saith so Caluin Aquinas and some other indeed as Lyra interlineall glosse Lombard Anselme c. are of minde that Apostle there signifieth teacher and no more Caluin saith thus The name of Apostle here as in many other places is taken generally for proquolibet Euangelista for any Euangelist But by their Euangelist he vnderstandeth their Pastor and so calleth him diuers times vsing that word vpon that occasion sixe or seauen times in that place Paul sendeth to them Epaphroditus ne Pastore carerent qui recte compositum statum tueretur least they should want their Pastor who might maintaine their well ordered state On these words verse 26. He had a longing desire towards you all and was pensiue because you had heard that he was sicke Caluin noteth a signe of a true Pastor that when he was farre distant from them notwithstanding was affected with the care and desire of his flocke and when he vnderstood that his sheepe sorrowed for his sake was pensiue for their sorrow In like manner the godly carefulnesse of the Philippians for their Pastor is noted on the 27. where Paul signifieth what griefe he should haue conceiued if Epaphroditus had died Paul saith he was mooued with the losse of the Church which he saw would haue beene destituted optimo Pastore of a very good Pastor in so great want of good men On the twenty eight he saith Paul did the more carefully send him because he was sory that for his occasion he had beene withheld from the flocke committed to him On the twenty nineth he obserueth how desirous Paul is that good Pastors may be much esteemed c. let the reader therefore iudge whether Epaphroditus were not in Caluins iudgement the Pastor of the Philippians By the Apostle saith Ambrose he was made their Apostle that is Bishop as Ambrose expoundeth the word in other places Apostoli Episcopi sunt the Apostles are Bishops But according to the refuters sence he had beene an Apostle not of Pauls making but of their owne Ierome writing on those words my fellow Souldiour and your Apostle fellow Souldiour saith he by reason of his honour because he also had receiued the office of being an Apostle among them And on those words haue in honour such not onely him saith hee qui vester est Doctor who is your Doctor by vvhich vvord in Ieromes time Bishop most commonly was signified c. Theodoret saith thus hee called him Apostle because to him the charge of them was committed Wherefore it is manifest that those which in the beginning of the Epistle were called Bishops were vnder him as hauing the place of Presbyters And from this place as afterwards I noted Theodoret gathereth that at the first they whom now wee call Bishops were called Apostles Thus Epaphroditus was the Apostle of the Philippians Thomas Aquinas hee calleth him brother saith he by reason of his faith fellow worker in the labour of preaching fellow souldier because they had suffered tribulation together your Apostle that is Doctor Hic fuit Episcopus Philippensium Hee was the Bishop of the Philippians And so saith Bullinger Philippensium Episcopus erat With what face therefore could the Refuter denie that any one of these Authors did say that hee was therefore called the Apostle of the Philippians because hee vvas their Bishop and Pastor And so are they to be
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
dissolued the former standing thus If in the Epistles to Timothie and Titus it be presupposed that Paul had ordayned Timothie and Titus Bishops of Ephesus and Creet then is it true that they vvere by him ordayned BB. of those Churches But the antecedent is true Therefore the consequent That the antecedent is true I proue by this reason because it is presupposed in the Epistles that the Apostle had committed to them Episcopall authority both in respect of Ordination and Iurisdiction to be exercised in those Churches Against which consequence this onely thing can be obiected that the Episcopall authority might be committed to them not as ordinarie Bishops or Pastors of those Churches but as extraordinarie gouernours or Euangelists which afterwards is answered To this argument the Refuter answereth not The second he frameth thus If the Epistles written to Timothie and Titus be the very patternes and precedents of the Episcopall function whereby the Apostle enformeth them and in them all Bishops how to exercise their function then Timothie and Titus were Bishops But the antecedent is true Therefore the consequent First he taketh exception against the proposition saying though it make a goodly shew yet was it confuted long agoe by M. Cartwright Whose confutation either he thinketh to be insufficient or else he doth but kill a dead man in seeking with a new on-set to disproue the consequence First for the consequence it selfe I auouch thus much that from that antecedent I might not onely haue inferred that particular that therefore these two to whom the Epistles were written were Bishops but in generall that the function of Bishops whose authority and office is described and the manner of the execution thereof prescribed in the directions giuen to Timothie and Titus in these Epistles hath warrant in the word of God and when they can make as good an argument for their lay-elders out of the Scriptures I will subscribe to their Presbyterian discipline Of T. C. answere to that consequence I haue taken speciall notice heretofore and did greatly wonder that hee could satisfie himselfe with such a friuolous answer And I do no lesse wonder at the Refuters either lacke of iudgement who tooke that answere for good payment or want of consideration and care of T. C. credit in referring vs to so sleight and friuolous an euasion For whereas D. Whitgift argueth thus That Timothie was Bishop the whole course of the Epistles written vnto him declareth wherein is contayned the office and dutie of a Bishop and diuers precepts peculiarly pertayning to that function T. C. answereth that by this reason he might as well proue that Timothie was a deacon or a widdowe an olde man or an olde woman seeing in those Epistles the Apostle wrote of their duties Yea rather that hee was a Deacon considering that there is nothing in the description of a Deacon which agreeth not to him but in the description of a Bishop that which he requireth of not being giuen to wine and not being a young Christian could haue no place in Timothies instruction Not to argue with T. C. but to let him rest in peace can the Refuter be so ignorant or without iudgement as to thinke that D. Whitgift when hee spoke of the whole course and tenure of the Epistles did meane onely the description of a B. or Minister set downe in the beginning of the third chapter of the former Epistle if that had beene his argument hee had argued thus Paul directeth Timothie what manner of men to ordayne Bishops or Ministers and likewise Deacons Therefore Timothie himselfe was a B. or Minister or likewise a Deacon Is it not plaine that by the whole course hee vnderstandeth all those directions which are giuen to Timothie throughout the Epistles for the discharge of his office either in respect of the Ministerie common to all Ministers or of his Episcopall function chiefly in regard either of Ordination or Iurisdiction vnto which heads the precepts directions in those Epistles are to be referred for when he speaketh of the duties of men and women olde and young hee directeth Timothie and in like manner Titus what to preach When hee describeth the qualities of Ministers and Deacons and Widowes he directeth him what manner of Ministers and Deacons to ordayne and Widowes to admit And whereas D. Whitgift hauing said that in those Epistles diuers precepts pertaine peculiarly to the Episcopall function T.C. chalengeth him to shew him any one precept in those Epistles which is proper to a B It is not hard to shew him more then one as lay thy hands hastily on no man Against a Presbyter or Minister receiue not an accusation but vnder two or three witnesses c. These are perpetuall directions which were not common eyther to other Christians or other Ministers therefore peculiar to BB. And this was T. C. confutation of the Proposition Now let vs heare what the Refuter can say The Proposition saith hee is grounded vpon a false supposition and what is that that the Apostle by describing in these Epistles the rules to be obserued in ordination and iurisdiction intended to informe Timothie and Titus as BB. and in them all other BB. how to carry themselues in those matters Is this the Supposition whereon the Proposition is grounded Alas good man you know not what the Hypothesis or Supposition of an Hipotheticall Proposition is this which you suppose to be the Supposition of the Proposition is plainly the Assumption of the Syllogisme which your selfe framed But because the Refuter hath confounded himselfe with his owne hypotheticall or connexiue Proposition I will propound my Argument in another forme Whosoeuer describing vnto Timothie and Titus their office and authoritie as they were Gouernours of the Churches of Ephesus and Creet and prescribing their dutie in the execution thereof and that as afterwards I shew to be performed by them and their Successours till the comming of Christ doth plainely describe the office and authoritie and prescribe the dutie of BB hee doth presuppose them to be BB the one of Ephesus the other of Creet But Paul in his Epistles to Timothie and Titus describing vnto them their office and authoritie as they were Gouernours of the Churches of Ephesus and Creet and prescribing their dutie in the execution thereof to be performed by them and their successours vntill the comming of Christ doth plainly describe the office and authority and prescribe the duty of BB. Therefore Paul in his Epistles to Timothie and Titus presupposeth them to be Bishops the one of Ephesus the other of Creet This Proposition because I know not what can be obiected against it T. C. and the Refuter hauing assailed it in vaine I will once againe take for granted The assumption I proue by those particulars wherein the Episcopall authoritie doth chiefly consist both in respect of Ordination Tit. 1.5 1 Tim. 5.22 and also of Iurisdiction they being the censurers of other Ministers
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
cleane spoileth his conceipt For can any man of indifferency thinke that Ierome being an elegant writer if he had meant that the aduerbe statim should haue waited on the verbe meminit would haue disposed it thus cuius Ioannes meminit filius post passionem Domini statim ab Apostolis Hierosolymorum Episcopus ordinatus But now weigh the refuters iudgement Suppose that this place were read as Iunius would haue it and that Iames were not so presently made Bishop of Ierusalem after Christs passion as Ieromes words seeme to import but that after the Apostles he tooke the gouernment of the Church of Ierusalem as Ierome citeth out of Hegesippus what is all this but the same that my selfe set downe in the Sermon both in this place also pag. 68. in these words the Apostles first ioyntly ruled the Church at Ierusalem but being to goe into all the world and no longer to be accounted members of that particular Church ordained Iames to be Bishop And that charge which before they had in common they now comitted to him in particular And this is that which Ierome citeth out of Hegesippus who saith Iames the brother of our Lord surnamed Iustus receiued or vndertooke the Church of Ierusalem after the Apostles And if the refuter will needs expound after the Apostles to signifie after their departing from Ierusalem I must intreat him to take with him the words both of Eusebius who sometimes saith the throne of that Bishopricke was committed to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Apostles therefore before their dispersion sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Apostles therefore whiles they were present and also of Ierome who plainely saith that he was ordained Bishop of Ierusalem by the Apostles but chiefly that he will remember that the words straight wayes after the passion of our Lord are to be ioyned with the other words ordayned by the Apostles then will he acknowledge himselfe satisfied for this point § 4. Secondly I answered in respect of other Churches that which Ierome saith neither proueth that the office of Bishops and Presbyters were confounded neither doth it hinder but that the distinct office of Bishops is of Apostolicall institution Both the parts of this answere I explaned and confirmed The former thus it is true that for a time the Presbyters by common counsell gouerned the Churches but as vnder the Apostles who kept in their own hands the Episcopall authority they I meane the Presbyters hauing neither the right of ordination nor the power of outward or publike iurisdiction This therefore doth not proue that the offices of BB. Presbyters wer confounded The name of B. was confounded with Presbyter but the office and authority of the B. was as yet in the Apostles the Presbyters being such then vnder the Apostles as they were afterwards vnder the Bishops The latter thus but when the Apostles were to discontinue from those Churches which they had planted then were BB. substituted Whereunto the factious behauiour of the Presbyters whereof Ierome speaketh might be some inducement For parity indeed breedeth faction and confusion for the auoyding whereof when the Apostles should be absent BB. were instituted but when and where and by whom and to what end let Ierome himselfe testifie The summe is that although for a time the Churches were gouerned by the common counsell of Presbyters yet this doth not hinder but that the Episcopall function is of diuine institution For after a while the Apostles ordayned BB. as Ierome himselfe doth most plainely and fully testifie shewing the places where and the persons whom and the time when and the end wherefore they ordaynd them Now let vs see what the Refuter can reply against this answer Forsooth as if he knew or regarded no lawes of disputation he thrusts himselfe into the answerers place and maketh me the opponent casting my answer into a Syllogisme and bids me proue euery part and parcell of it or else all that I say is to little purpose himselfe in the meane while who should follow the argument which I answered and take away my answer goeth about to proue nothing but himselfe to be a shifting Sophister I thinke it was neuer heard in disputation that the opponent hauing receiued the answere and reciting the summe thereof saying sic respondes would cast it into a Syllogisme and then bid the answerer proue the parts thereof But such a disputer am I matched with And how I pray you doth he reduce my answere into a Syllogisme that vvhich I brought to cleare the former part of my answer is made the argument to proue both the parts in a filthy long Syllogisme and that vvhich I added to proue the latter part he mentioneth as straggling speches brought in to no purpose This is his analysing which whether it be done of vnskilfulnes or wilfulnes I refer it to his owne conscience I cannot iudge therof because I know not the man But if my answere must needes be reduced into Syllogismes I would intreat that the parts thereof may seuerally be concluded as they were by me seuerally explicated and then that the first Syllogisme may be this If whiles the Churches were gouerned by the common counsell of Presbyters the Presbyters did gouerne the same as vnder the Apostles the Episcopall office and authority being not in them but in the Apostles the Presbyters being such then vnder the Apostles as they were afterwards vnder the Bishops then their gouerning of the Church by common counsell doth not proue that the office of a B. and a Presbyter was confounded But the antecedent is true in all the parts thereof Therefore the consequent The consequence I did illustrate by this distinction the name of Bishop was confounded with Presbyter but the office was not for that was not in the Presbyters but in the Apostles The consequence when it was worse for the addition of the second part the Refuter granted yet he thought good to gather out of it this worthy obseruation that if there was a time before there were Bishops When the Presbyters gouerned the Churches as vnder the Apostles then all that while there were no Diocesan Bishops the Refuter speaketh sentences and so no distinction betweene a Bishop and a Presbyter in office This and so could not well be gathered out of the proposition being repugnant vnto it for if there were no distinction betweene the office of a Bishop and a Presbyter then were the offices confounded Suppose the common-wealth of Iewry being a Prouince vnder the Emperour of Rome had beene gouerned by the Synedrion or common counsell of the Seniors for a time vntill the Emperour had placed a soueraigne King ouer them as hee did Herod it might be said that for a time that common-wealth was gouerned by the common counsell of their Elders but as vnder the Emperour who kept the regall authority in his owne hands Hereof it might not be infered that the office of
the Senatours and of a King were confounded For the soueraignty was in the Emperour and the Senatours might haue beene the same vnder their King which they had beene vnder the Emperour c. As touching the assumption he saith it should haue beene proued and I say if he were able he should haue disproued it For my part I was in this place the answerer and the parts of the assumption be such as either had beene before cleared or seemed to neede no proofe For first that the Presbyters ruled the Churches as vnder the Apostles it is manifest That the Episcopall authority consisting specially in the power of Ordination and publicke Iurisdiction was not in them but in the Apostles partly was proued before to wit that Presbyters neuer had it and partly needed no proofe viz. that the Apostles had it And surely little need had Paul to haue sent Timothie to Ephesus and Titus to Creet to exercise the power of Ordination and publicke Iurisdiction in those Churches if the Presbyters had the same before they came But still I desire some euidence whereby the deriuation of this power of Ordination and Iurisdiction from the Apostles to the Presbyters or people may be warranted Thirdly that the Presbyters were the same vnder the Apostles then which they were afterwards vnder the Bishops I take for a certaine truth For if they were the same vnder Timothie and Titus that they were vnder the Apostles then questionlesse they were the same vnder the Bishops who haue no other function nor exercise any other authority then that which Timothie and Titus had and exercised in Ephesus and Creet And these I hope are reasons sufficient to approue the former part of my answere vntill the refuter who is the opponent be able to disproue it The second part of my answere may be concluded thus If after a while namely when the Apostles were to discontinue from the Churches which they had planted the Apostles themselues ordayned BB. then the Presbyters ruling of the Churches by common counsell for a time doth not hinder but that the Episcopall function is of Apostolicall institution But the former is true Therefore the latter The consequence needeth no proofe the assumption I proue by Ieromes owne testimony For if Ierome doe testifie that the Apostles ordayned BB. and withall doe note the time when the place where and the end wherefore then doth he giue plentifull testimony to this truth But Ierome doth testifie that the Apostles ordayned BB. and withall noteth the time when the place where and the end wherfore The time and place he noteth first generally the time when Bishops were ordayned was in the Apostles time the place where in all the world Which two if you ioyne together it will appeare that by Ieromes testimony the function of BB. is of Apostolicall institution For it is vtterly incredible that BB. should be ordayned in all parts of the Christian world in the Apostles times and yet not be of the Apostles ordayning That Ierome helde BB. to be ordayned in the Apostles time I proue out of the place alledged when factions began to spring in the Church saith Ierome some saying I am of Paul I am of Apollo I am of Cephas which was in the Apostles times 1 Cor. 1. and it were fond to imagine that factions did not begin till after their time This argument the Refuter would discredit because Sanders vseth the like and his owne answere he would credit with the name and countenance of certaine learned men which is one of his ordinary shifts to bleare the eyes of the simple who many times respect more who speaketh then what is said But my argument standeth thus When the factions began whereof Ierome speaketh BB. were ordayned as he saith In the Apostles times the factions began whereof Ierome speaketh Therefore in the Apostles times Bishops were ordayned as he saith The effect of the answere which hee bringeth is that Ierome speaking of Schismes which did arise after the Apostles times alludeth to that speech of the Apostle not that hee thought Bishops were ordayned in those times but that hee might shew that schisme was the cause of changing the order of Church-gouernment Which answere might haue some shew of probability if Ierome himselfe did not both in other places which I cite most plainely testifie that Bishops were ordayned in the Apostles times and also in the place alledged expressely speake of those factions which did arise in Corinth and other places in the Apostles times The factions whereof he speaketh did arise from hence that vnusquisque eos quos baptizauerat suos putabat esse non Christi saith Ierome euery one esteemed those whom he had baptized to be his owne and not Christs Now it is apparant that this is the very thing which Paul reproueth in the Corinthians that euery one sayd they were his who had baptized them and therefore thanketh God that he had baptized none of them but Crispus and Gaius and the houshold of Stephanas For by this meanes as Caluin also obserueth the factious and ambitious teachers whom he meant vnder the name of Paul and Apollos sought to draw Disciples after them Yea but Ierome in his Epistle to Evagrius sheweth that in the Apostles times Bishop and Presbyter was all one and that afterwards Bishops were first ordayned as a remedy against schisme To this I haue answered before shewing that Ierome there proueth that the names at the first were confounded and the same men were called Presbyters and Bishops vntill one out of the Presbyters in euery Church was chosen and set aboue the rest and called a Bishop Which Ierome there confesseth to haue bin done euer since St. Markes time and therefore in the time of the Apostles For the first Bishops were not chosen out of the Presbytery of the Churches whereof they were made BB. but were Apostolicall men I meane either Apostles or some of their companions and assistants all which while the Bishops were called Apostles as I shewed out of Theodoret the names Presbyter Episcopus being as yet confounded And whereas he saith that I answered euen now the course of gouernment was not changed at the first when factiâ—â—s began he doth but threapen kindnesse on mee for I said no such thing If therefore Ierome teacheth that Bishops were ordayned when factions began and also that in the Apostles time factions did begin then in Ieromes iudgement Bishops were ordayned in the Apostles times but Ierome teacheth both the one and the other as is manifest by that which hath beene said As touching the Place Ierome saith in toto orbe decretum est it was decreed in the whole world that one being chosen from among the Presbyters should be set ouer the rest to whom the whole care of euery Church should appertaine From whence I reason thus A generall decree in the whole Christian world could not be made in the Apostles times without the
as the Episcopall function hath been manifestly proued to be lawfull and good as being the ordinance of God so we would all be perswaded to acknowledge it But the refuter is like the deafe Adder that stoppeth her eare he will not be perswaded though he be conuicted For though he braggeth that this answere of his doth manifest that I haue not brought any one good proofe in the whole Sermon yet this defence of mine will make it euident that he hath not been able to disproue any one of my proofes which he hath gone about to answere for the most part with sound learning but to elude with shifts and cauillations But some will say this is not all that you vvould perswade vs vnto that the function of Bishops is lawfull and good but when you say it is of diuine institution you seeme to meane that it is diuini iuris and consequently that not onely it is lawfull but that it onely is lawfull and that all Churches are so perpetually and necessarily tyed vnto it as that no other forme of gouernment is warrantable in the Church of God My resolution of this doubt I signified before Serm. pag. 92. that I did not hold it so to be diuini iuris as that necessarily it were to be obserued alwayes and in all places and so himselfe confesseth pag. 90. of his booke And therefore when he said my resolution was obscure and doubtfull for doubling I leaue to him he was disposed to cauill I referre indeed the consideration of this inference to our Disciplinarians who hauing conceipted the Presbyterian platforme to be described in the scriptures doe therefore vrge the same as perpetuall and vnchangeable signifying that if they will be constant in their iudgement they must by the same reason acknowledge the Episcopall gouernment which hath warrant in the word to be perpetuall and vnchangeable Which conceipt of theirs hath perhaps beene the cause vvhy they haue giuen out to make my Sermon odious among their followers that I maintaine the Episcopall function to be diuini iuris as being commanded of God and perpetually imposed vpon all Churches Neuerthelesse I plainely declared my resolution to be this that although we be well assured that the forme of gouernment by Bishops is the best as hauing not onely the warrant of scripture for the first institution but also the perpetuall practise of the Church from the Apostles times to our age for the continuance of it notwithstanding vve doubt not vvhere this may not be had others may be admitted neither doe we deny but that siluer is good though gold be better vvhich obiection and answere I inserted of purpose into the Sermon to preserue the credit of those reformed Churches vvhere the Presbyterian discipline is established and that they might not be exposed or left naked to the obloquies of the Papists To which my charitable endeauour the refuter opposeth himselfe as being alwaies ad oppositum without regard either of my charitable intent or of the credit of the reformed Churches labouring tooth and naile to perswade his reader that I contradict my selfe and that in the conclusion of my Sermon I did ouerthrow what before I had builded But as alwayes hitherto so now also he hath shewed his malice to be greater then his strength For though hee chargeth me as hauing often and peremptorily auouched the perpetuall necessitie of the gouernment of the Church by Diocesan Bishops yet neither often nor once neither peremptorily nor at all neither the perpetuall necessitie nor any absolute necessitie at all is vrged in any one of the allegations which hee so hotly as it were with fire and towe obiecteth The first which is obiected out of pag. 33. hath beene explained before For when I said that as the gouernment by Bishops was first ordayned for the preseruation of the Church in vnity and for the auoiding of schisme so it is for the same cause to be retained I did not meane any absolute necessitie of retaining it but that as at the first it was ordained as being thought fit expedient and needfull to auoid schisme so it is fit expedient and needfull for the same cause to be retained Neither doe I see how hee can inferre this perpetuall necessitie which he talketh of out of pag. 72. where I said the Epistles to Timothie and Titus are the very patternes and Presidents of the Episcopall function whereby the Apostle informeth them and in them all Bishops how to exercise their function touching ordination and iurisdiction For although Paul giueth his directions primarily to Timothie and Titus and to all such as should haue the like function that is to say Bishops yet if this forme of gouernment be changed those which shall exercise the like authority must follow those directions as being giuen though primarily and directly to Bishops yet secondarily and by consequence to those who though they were not Bishops should haue the like authority And to the like purpose is that alleadged out of pag. 74. and that we should not thinke as some doe that these things were spoken to them as to extraordinarie persons whose authoritie should dye with them but to them and their successors to the end of the world he straitly chargeth Timothie that the commandements and directions which hee gaue him should be kept inuiolable vnto the appearing of our Lord Iesus Christ and therefore by such as should haue the like authority vnto the end And presently after for the authority which was committed to them is perpetually necessary without which the Church neither can be gouerned as without iurisdiction neither yet continued as without ordination and therefore not peculiar to extraordinary persons but by an ordinary deriuation to be continued in those who are the successors of Timothie and Titus Here I appeale to the refuters conscience whether he be not perswaded of the truth of both these sentences Can he deny the authority which was committed to Timothie and Titus to be perpetually necessary which is the summe of the second sentence or if it be perpetually necessary that some were to haue it to the end of the world which was affirmed in the former sentence If he had learned the distinction betwixt potestas modus potestatis whereof I spake before the power or authority it selfe being the perpetuall ordinance of God the manner or forme of gouernment wherein that power is exercised being mutable hee would not so hotly haue vrged these allegations Yea but that pag. 79. is aboue all shew of exception saith hee where hee saith the function and authority which Timothie and Titus had was not to end with their persons but to be continued in their successors as being ordinary and perpetually necessary not onely for the well being but also for the very being of the visible Churches How this speâ—ch is to be vnderstood I distinctly shewed before not thinking I protest of this obiection made by the Refuter For when I said their function
and authority was ordinarie and perpetually necessary I meant that their function was ordinary as being Pastorall and Episcopall and that the authority which they had was perpetually necessary as was said in the former allegations If he shall perhaps vrge those words which mention the successors of Timothie and Titus to the end of the world I answere it is more then likely that they shall haue successors in the same function in some Churches to the end that is to say Bishops though in some others that forme of gouernment being altered the authority may be in those who doe not succeed them in the said function at least in the same forme and manner of gouerning This being all which he hath gained by these allegations he might haue forborne his triumphing insultations which bewray his want of iudgement For where he obiecteth against me this contradiction as though I held both that the gouernment by Bishops is necessary for the very being of visible Churches and also that there may be visible Churches without it either he doth ignorantly mistake or wilfully depraue my sayings For though I said the authority which Timothie and Titus exercised was perpetually necessary both to the being of Churches as the power of ordination and to the well being as the authority of iurisdiction yet I neuer said that this forme of gouernment was necessary to the being of visible Churches And where hee goeth about to proue that the Episcopall gouernment is not perpetually necessary because there be many visible Churches at this day without it what doth hee else but fight with his owne shadow seeing that in fauour onely of those Churches this passage was by me inserted howbeit hee impudently ouer-reacheth when he saith almost all visible Churches are without Bishops For not to mention all other Churches which be in the Christian world which haue alwayes had and still haue Bishops and to speake onely of the reformed Churches in Europe is it not euident that the farre greater part of them is gouerned by Bishops and which is all one with Bishops by Superintendents The refuter when hee desired to the vttermost pag. 52. to enlarge the number of those Churches which haue the Presbyterian Discipline he reckoned the reformed Churches of Fraunce the Low-countreyes Saxony Heluetia Bohemia Zuricke Berne Geneua Sauoy Palatine Poland Hungary Gernsey Iersey Scotland from which number notwithstanding some Churches are to be substracted as all in Scotland and some if not all in Saxony neither doe I suppose that their Presbyterian discipline is established in Zuricke and all the Churches of Heluetia neither is any one whole kingdome ruled by that discipline So that I am perswaded there are scarse so many particular Churches or congregations gouerned by the Presbyterian discipline in all the world as are gouerned by Bishops in the Kings dominions in great Britaine and in Ireland But besides these I finde alledged by one of great wisdome and iudgement many more which are not gouerned by the Presbyterian discipline as the Churches of Denmarke Sueuia all the reformed Churches of Germany sauing in some parts of the Low-countreyes and of late about Heidelberge procured in the minority of the Prince all the Churches in the Duchy of Saxony the Duchy of Brunswicke and Luneburge the Duchy of Megalopurge the Duchy of Wirtemberge all the Churches within the countreyes of the Marquesse of Brandeburge and the Marquesse of Bade all the Churches within the gouernment of the Earledome of Henneberge the Earledome of Swartzenberge the Earledome of Lenning the Earledome of Hannaw the Earledome of Oetinghe the Earledome of Mansfield the Earledome of Stalbergh the Earledome of Glich the Earledome of Rheinesterne and the Earledome of Leonstine and all the Churches in the Barony of Limpurge the Barony of Schenburge and the Barony of Wildenfield Whereunto may be added all the Churches in foure or fiue and thirty at the least free cities with their territories the most of them as large and ample as Geneua in none whereof the Presbyterian discipline is erected Which enumeration is a good euidence also to iustifie my answere to the next obiection which is this Some will say the Protestants which were the blessed instruments of God for the reformation of religion in this last age are thought to haue preferred the other discipline by Presbyteries before this by Bishops and therefore in thus magnifying the Bishops you seeme to ioyne with the Papists against them Whereunto I answered that those godly and learned men allowed the Episcopall function and simply desired the continuance thereof if with it they might haue enioyed the Gospell For proofe whereof I referred the reader to the Suruey of the pretended discipline cap. 8. pag. 110.111 c. In refuting of which answere the refuter dealeth very absurdly with me and the reuerend author of the Suruey For when I referred the reader to a Chapter of that booke contayning many notable testimonies to proue that which I said the refuter dealeth as a man resolued to deny my conclusion what proofes so euer I should bring against him And though I referre him to testimonies for number and weight sufficient either to satisfie or to conuince him if he would but haue turned to the place yet he saith hee cannot possibly see how I should haue any such opinion of those godly and learned men whose writings as he saith doe so often and so vehemently professe the contrary And that he may not seeme to speake without ground he desireth me to leaue the Surueyour and heare what he can say As if the Surueyour were not worthie to be heard when the learned refuter is to speake When as indeed our Refuter for ought I see by him is not for wisedome learning and iudgement worthie to be named with that reuerend Author on the same day But though he would seeme not to vouchsafe an answere to the Suruey yet the truth is he durst not acquaint the Reader with those testimonies which howsoeuer before I did mention for breuity sake I may not now wholy conceale from the Reader And although I might by way of requitall desire him to lay aside hâ—s misse-alledged allegations as vnworthie to be examined and to giue eare to those testimonies cited by the Surueyour yet I will vouchsafe an answere to his authorities after I haue recited some few testimonies of the chiefe Protestant writers as I find them cited by the Surueyour referring the Reader for the rest to the Suruey it selfe And first I wil begin with the Augustane confession whervnto the chiefe learned men who first were called Protestants did subscribe Caluin soone after being one of the number and with the Apologie thereof We haue oft protested say they that we doe greatly approue the Ecclesiasticall policy degrees in the Church and as much as lyeth in vs doe desire to conserue them We doe not mislike the authority of Bishops so that they would not compell vs to doe
against Gods commandement We doe here protest and we would haue it so recorded that we would willingly preserue the Ecclesiasticall and Canonicall policy if the Bishops would cease to tyrannize ouer our Churches This our minde or desire shall excuse vs with all posterity both before God and all Nations that it may not be imputed vnto vs that the authority of Bishops is ouerthrowne by vs. I would to God it lay to me saith Melancthon to restore the gouernment of Bishops c. By what right or law may we dissolue the Ecclesiasticall policy if the Bishops will grant vs that which in reason they ought to grant and though it were lawfull yet surely it were not expedient Luther was euer of this opinion whom many for no other cause I see doe loue but for that they thinke they haue cast off their Bishops by meanes of him and haue obtayned a liberty which will not be profitable for our posterity Would to God saith George Prince Anhall that those which carry the names titles of Bishops would shew themselues to be Bishops indeed I wish they would teach nothing that is disagreeable to the Gospell but rule their Churches thereby Oh how willingly and with what ioy of heart would we receiue them for our Bishops reuerence them obey them and yeeld vnto them their Iurisdiction and Ordination Which we alwaies and M. Luther both in words and in his writings very often professed If they would bring vnto vs such an Hierarchy saith Caluin wherein the Bishops shall so rule as that they refuse not to submit themselues to Christ that they so depend vpon him as their onely head c. Then surely if there be any that shall not submit themselues to that Hierarchy reuerently and with the greatest obedience that may be I confesse there is no Anathema whereof they are not worthy In the articles agreed vpon by Melancthon Bucer Caluin and other learned men it is said for the auoyding of Schismes there was a profitable ordination that a B. should be chosen out of many Priests who should rule the Church by teaching the Gospell and by retayning the discipline and who should gouerne the Priests themselues Afterwards also there were degrees made of Archbishops aboue them of Patriarches c. These Ordinations if those that gouerne doe their duety as preach ouersee the doctrine and manners of their Churches correct errours and vice practise Ecclesiasticall censures c. are profitable to preserue the vnity of the Church And in their additions to the said articles As concerning ordination we especially approue the ancient custome of the Church c. This difficult and necessary charge for the Church it is to be wished reformation being made that the Bishops would take vpon them And we heare that our learned men haue expresly so yeelded ordination to those Bishops if first there may be a reformation In a Treatise made by Bucer with the aduise of the said learned men and offered to the Emperour it is thus written we must endeuour that that forme and distribution of Ecclesiasticall gouernment which the Canons doe prescribe to Bishops and Metropolitanes be restored and kept The same Bucer speaking of Bishops and Metropolitanes and of their authority ouer the Churches and Ministers within their Dioceses and Prouinces he saith this was agreeable to the law of Christ c. And in another place Now by the perpetuall obseruation of all Churches euen from the Apostles times we doe see it seemed good to the holy Ghost that among Priests to whom the procuration of Churches was chiefly committed there should be one that should haue the care charge of diuers Churches and the whole Ministery committed to him and by reason of that charge he was aboue the rest and therefore the name of Bishop was attributed peculiarly vnto these cheife rulers of Churches And againe In the Apostles times one of the Priests or Pastors was chosen and ordayned to be the Captaine and Prelate ouer the rest who went before the rest and had the care of soules and the administration of the Episcopall office especially and in the highest degree And this he proueth by the example of Iames Act. 1. and after concludeth in this sort The like ordination hath beene perpetually obserued in other Churches likewise as we may learne out of the Ecclesiasticall Histories and the most ancient Fathers as Tertullian Cyprian Irenaeus Eusebius and others It were a most profitable order for the welfare of the Church saith Iacob Heerbrandus a very learned man if euery particular Prouince had her Bishops and the Bishops their Archbishops These few testimonies among many doe sufficiently discouer with what minde the Refuter desired me to lay them and all the rest aâ—ide and to giue eare to his allegations as more worthy to be heard Let vs therefore heare them and let the Reader iudge with what conscience hee either reiected the former or alledged these And first though he saith hee will passe by an Epistle of one Oram written vnder the name of Lucifer to the Pope and his Prelates yet because he entreateth the Reader to turne to it in the booke of Martyrs as fitting belike our Bishops hee is worthy not to passe vnpunished when hee comes to light For that letter being a meere inuectiue against the horrible enormities of the Popish Prelates speaking nothing at all of their office but that they were the successours of the Apostles in referring the Reader vnto it what was his intent but that he should apply the things spoken of their greiuous enormities to our Bishops then which hee could not offer a greater villany to them I desire the Reader that hath any moderation in him to read that Epistle and by his intended application thereof to our Bishops to iudge of our refuters spirit though he professeth in the last page how greatly he reuerenceth the Bishops persons In the next place to let you thinke hee hath great store euen whiles hee quoteth either not Protestants or such as were not of our age of whom alone the question is hee saith he will passe by also that which is written by defensor pacis part 2. c. 15. and well might hee passe by him for though he hold that the Priestly Character is the same in Priests and Bishops yea in the Pope himselfe and that they haue the same essentiall authority which is the power of order and likewise in imitation of Ierome holdeth that Episcopus and Presbyter at the first were one c. Notwithstanding he no more disalloweth the superiority of Bishops then either some other Papists who haue contended that for as much as order in that it is a Sacrament hath reference to the Sacrament of the Altar which the Priest doth offer and make his maker as well as the Pope himselfe that therefore Bishops and Presbyters be of one order or then Ierome who though he saith Episcopus
must be giuen him as deseruing it whether he need or not For although it be a crying sinne and doe offend more against charitie to hold it from him if he need yet it offendeth as much against iustice to withhold the stipend from the workeman that is not in need The stipend which Paul appointeth to Presbyters in respect of their paines in edifying the Church which is the house of God is as due in iustice to them for their worke sake as the stipend is due to a Carpenter that buildeth an house And as it were iniustice ioyned with folly for a man not to thinke himselfe bound to giue the Carpenter his stipend vnlesse he be poore the like is to be conceiued of the stipend denied to Presbyters for their wealth which is due for their worke The rest of his speech is vttered in rancour and gall but the points be these First that it doth not become me c to call it a beggerly maintenance Secondly that it is more then is giuen to our Church-wardens that are crept into their roomes The third which is more plainely vttered in the abortiue booke that the like perhaps will not make D. D. rich In what sense I called it beggarly almes giuen onely in charitie opposing it to honourable stipend due in iustice I haue already explaned To the second I answere our Church-wardens hauing lesse trouble haue notwithstanding no lesse allowance then your Elders for they haue none at all And where you say our Church-wardens are crept into their roomes you must first proue that euer they had a roome in the Church For we will neuer grant that our Church-wardens be your Elders successours till you haue proued your Elders to haue beene their predecessors And whereas you make your selues merrie with my want of riches as you did before with my want of preferment I tell you plainely I had rather be poorer then M.D. is with a good conscience then to be as rich as some of you by maintaining a faction to be maintained by it Thus haue I maintained my assumption and the prosyllogisme thereof concerning their confession Now I will proue by another argument that the honour of maintenance is not by the word of God due to Lay-Elders and that the Lay-Eldership is not the ordinance of God nor hath any warrant in the scriptures We haue often heard great words that your Presbyterian discipline is an essential note of a true Church if not an article of your faith that it is to little purpose to receiue the doctrine vnlesse we also embrace the discipline of Christ meaning the pretended discipline that your discipline is the kingdome of Christ wherein your Presbyters hold as it were Christs scepter that to denie this discipline yet to professe Christ to be our King is with the souldiers that crucified him to put a Reede in his hand and a crowne of thornes on his head that in the second petition of the Lords prayer Let thy Kingdome come wee are to pray that your Discipline may be aduanced that the question betweene the BB. and you is about no lesse matter then this whether Iesus Christ shall bee King or no that in denying your discipline wee are the men that say Luke 19. Wee wll not haue this man to raigne ouer vs and to vs is applyed that terrible doome Those mine enemies that would not haue mee to raigne ouer them bring hither and slay them before mee and many such like speeches concerning the kingdome of Christ which being applied to your owne deuices are not farre from blasphemie These confident speeches considered a man would think that you haue most euident certaine and vndeniable grounds for your Presbyteries But when I come to examine your proofes to search the Scriptures and records of antiquitie I professe vnfainedly in the feare of God that I cannot sufficiently wonder that men of reading should approue men of sinceritie should vrge so confidently and maintaine so resolutely euen vnto silencing and depriuation such not onely humane deuices but meere nouelties as the sacred ordinances of Christ our Sauiour for which after all the search which hath beene made there cannot be produced any sound testimonie But to come to the point you say if you deny my aforesaid assumption that to Lay-Elders gouerning well double honour is due by the word of God for their worke sake I say the holie Ghost is so farre from assigning this double honour to them that neither their worke or office it selfe for which that honour should be due to them nor their qualities whereby they should bee qualified for that office nor themselues or their names wherby they should be knowne are once mentioned or intimated in the holy scriptures For first as touching their office it is by them assigned either to their Elders seuerally or to the Elder-ship iointly Their duty seuerally is to be watchmeÌ„ in the Church hauing their seuerall Wards or precincts appointed to them wherein they are to obserue the manners of men for auoiding offences and other occurrents for peruerting disorders The manners of men they are to enquire into and to prie into their faults that if they be secret or small they may admonish the offenders priuâ—ly if opeÌ„ or great they may informe the Consistory therof And for other occurreÌ„ts they are to looke that good orders be kept especially respecting the sacraments As they are to informe their pastor if there be any childe in their Warde to be baptized if there be any in their precinct lately come into the parish to acquaint the Minister before the Communion and at the Communion to keepe backe those whose religion and honestie is not knowne and whom the Ministers haue not dealt withall before Wherfore as in respect of manners they are by them coÌ„pared to the Censors of the Romanes so in respect of good orders they are as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Athenians The ioynt-office of the Elders is the office of the whole Presbyterie or Eldership Consistorie or sacred Senate which in the Assemblie of the Elders of the Church who by common counsell and authoritie do rule and gouerne the same For as Lacedemon had her Seignorie Athens her high court of the Areopagiâ—â—s Rome her Senate and euery kingdome their counsell so euery Church that is euery parish according to the new disciplinarians must haue her Presbyterie or sacred Senate vnto which Christ hath giuen the keyes of the kingdome of heauen whereby is meant all Ecclesiasticall power and authoritie This authoritie respecteth either the Officers of the Church or the offenders Officers as Pastors Doctors Elders Deacons Concerning whome the Eldership hath authoritie to elect ordaine depriue or depose them As touching offenders the Eldership hath authoritie to censure them either by reproofe suspension or excommunication Belieue mee if the word of God hath committed these things to the hands of the Elders then haue they an office of
great consequence indeed But if you remember their own positions that the Word of God doth perfectly describe all the lawfull offices of the Church and that no office or calling in the Church is lawfull but that which is directly warranted out of the Word yet it was the sinne for which Coreh Dathan and Abiram were punished in that they presumed though they were Leuites to take in haÌ„d that for which they had no warrant then can you not but expect most manifest pregnant proofes out of the Scripture directly warranting this whole office and all the branches thereof Or if you faile of your expectation you cannot but wonder at the extreme boldnes of them who holding these positions impose vpon the Church an office of such authority not as an humane pollicie but as the holie ordinance of Christ hauing no warrant in the Scriptures But what one pregnant testimonie of Scripture can they produce pursuing any one part of their Lay-Elders office Vpon my credite not one For first a peculiar office either of spirituall watch-men the scriptures acknowledge none Besides Prophets and Priests or Ministers or of Censors of mens manners besides ministers and Magistrates and much lesse doe the scriptures appoint a peculiar officer to be the accuser of the bretheren Indeed it is the dutie of all good Christians mutuallie to exercise the duties of the Communion of Saints by instructing exhorting admonishing rebuking comforting one another And as the Apostle sâ—ith to consider or obserue onâ— another to prouoke vnto loue and to good workes We may not be of Cains minde who said Am I my brothers keeper We are so farre to be keepers and obseruers of our brethren as by all good meanes to further and aduance the saluation one of another The Lord hath charged thee in the Law freely to rebuke thy brother and not suffer sinne to rest upon him And likewise in the Gospell If thy brother sinne against thee either committing an iniurie against thee or giuing thee offence by some sinne committed in thy knowledge laying by his euill example a scandall or stumbling blocke in thy way goe and reprous him privately betweene thee him alone If he heare thee thou hast wonne thy brother But if he heare thee not take yet with thee one or two if he will not heare them tell the assemblie c. But a speciall Church-officer to prye into other mens faults such as S. Peter calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the scriptures do not appoynt and much lesse to informe against or to accuse priuate offenders such as we call Promâ—ters and the Grecians Sycophants As for their diuiding of Parishes into Wardes and awarding them to seuerall Elders as also all the rest of the offices and duties assigned to their Elders of acquainting the ministers who is to bee Baptized what new parishioners are come of helping at the Communion and repelling some there from they must and doe confesse they haue no scripture for them and yet all these duties must bee thought to be prescribed in Gods word To which purpose the arguments which some of their chiefe writers do vse are these First that although all these things be not specially expressed in scripture yet forasmuch as offences must bee auoided and those duties of Charitie and Communion of Saintes must bee performed as also those things which appertaine to good order prouided for and forasmuch as there are no other officers or Elders to whom the charge of these things should belong therefore satis vt opinor apparet haec ad Presbyterorum officium ex verbo Dei referenda esse I thinke it sufficieÌ„tly appeareth that these things by the word of God are to be referred to the office of Elders Their argument standeth thus All necessary duties which the Scripture hath not assigned to other officers or Elders it hath appointed to these Elders But the duties before spoken of are necessarie duties which the scripture hath not assigned to any other officers or Elders Therefore the duties before spoken of the scripture hath assigned to these Elders It seemeth by the proposition that the Lay-Elders haue begged a book of concealmeÌ„ts that they may be authorized to deale in all these causes for which other men haue not expresse coÌ„mission But first I denie that the Scipture hath graunted them any such concealements Nay I most confidently auow that they themselues are concealed in the Scriptures which doe not once mention them in anie place And therefore if there bee cases omitted that the Scripture hath not assigned to other Elders or officers We may thinke it hath referred them to the wisedome of the Church and authoritie of the Soueraigne râ—â—â—er then to them whom it neuer mentioneth Secondly I answere that there are many necessarie duties the performance whereof the holy Ghost hath not assigned to any publike Officers at all as though there should bee speciall offices appointed for them but are to be performed by euery Christian as the aforesaid duties which concerne the auoyding of scandales the duties of Charitie and Communion of Saints Likewise there are duties respecting outward order and decencie which the Scripture doth not prescribe in particular and much lesse assigne to any peculiar office But the determination of these particulars and the nomination of the functions or persons wherevnto they shal be assigned is left to the discretion of the Church and authoritie of the Soueraigne And to such purposes other Churches may appoint Lay-Elders as well as ours doth Churchwardens so they doe not vrge them as the ordinance of Christ nor giue them commission to intermeddle with things aboue their reach as being peculiar either to the Ministers of the Word or the Ciuil Magistrate Their second Argument As for that part of their office of taking heede to offences who can doubt but that charge properly appertaineth vnto the Elders seeing they are said in the Scriptures to ouersee and to gouerne For this ouersight can haue but two parts onely wherof the first partaineth to doctrine religion the other to life and manners Seeing then that two sorts of Elders are expresly named by Saint Paule wherof the first sort are occupied in Preaching and Doctrine It is necessary that the other should haue charge of manners and conuersation for that onely remaineth This discourse containeth 2. Syllogismes the First All Presbyters who in the Scriptures are said to ouersee and gouerne hauing not that ouersight which respecteth doctrine and religion haue the ouersight of manners and care of auoyding offences for these are the two parts of ouersight The Lay-Elders are such Presbyters as in the Scriptures are said to ouersee gouerne hauing not that ouersight which respecteth doctrine and religion Therefore the Lay-Elders haue the ouersight of manners and care of auoyding offences The 2. If the Apostle expressely name 2. sorts of Elders distinguished according to the 2. parts of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or ouersight viz