the Bishops and Deacons between whom they are vsually ranged by Ignatius as the second degree of the Clergie willing the Lay-men to bee subiect to the Deacons the Deacons to the Presbyters the Presbyters to the Bishop and the Bishop to Christ which by the way is H. I. third testimonie and in effect the same with the second And againe let the Presbyters and the Deacons and the rest of the Cleargie together with all the people bee obedient to the Bishop By which it is plaine they had not in those times either Lay-Elders or Lay-Deacons For the very Deacons are by him called the ministers of Christ vnto the word of God and ministers of the mysteries of Christ. As for the BB they were not parish Byshops assisted according to the new conceit with Lay-Elders but BB of Cities such as Ignatius himselfe who was Bishop of Antioch the chiefe Citie of Syria hauing the assistance of diuerse Presbyters who were Clergie men or ministers and so are in expresse termes reckoned by Ignatius as one of the degrees of the clergie whom in the words before alleaged and in other places hee resembleth to the Apostles of Christ and would haue them so obeyed exhorting them with the words which Saint Peter vseth to ministers 1. Epist 5.2 to feed the flocke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. This is also proued by the vniuersal consent of the most ancient Councells Canons and Fathers who in innumerable places meÌ„tioning Bishops Presbyters Deacons neuer conceiue of them otherwise then of 3. degrees of the clergie in that very sense wherin our church doth vse retaine them And thus much concerning that most worthy martyr and Bishop Ignatius sauing that I would commend a few senâ—ences of his to this disputer and his consorts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be you vnited to the Bishop submitting your selues to God by him in Chirist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for whosoeuer are Christs they are with the Bishop And againe doe not thinke that I speake this as hauing vnderstood the separation of some he is witnesse to me for whose sake I am bound that I haue not learned this from the mouth of man but the spirit hath preached vnto me saying these things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the Bishop doe nothing loue vnitie auoid diuisions The testimonie which is vsually cited out of Tertullian is in his Apologetico Where hauing said that Christians did vse to meet in assemblies and congregations to prayer and to the hearing of the word he addeth there are also exhortations chastisâ—ments and diuine censure iudgement is exercised with great aduise as among those who are certaine that God doth see them and it is a great foreshewing of the iudgement to come if any shall so offend as that he shal be banished from the communion of prayer and of the assembly and of all holy fellowship Praesident probati quique seniores honorem istum non pretio sed testimonio adepti the presidents of our meetings are approued Seniors hauing obtained this honour not by reward but by good report By which testimonie it is apparant that the same parties were the presidents of the assembly as well in prayer and in the ministerie of the word as in the exercise of discipline and censures But Ministers and not Lay-Eldeâ—s were presidents and Rulers of the meetings in publicke prayer and ministerie of the word therefore also in the exercise of discipline Who these presidents were Tertullian himselfe sheweth else where testifying that the Christians receiued the Sacrament both in the time of their meales and also in their meetings before day nec de aliorum manu quam presidentium sumimus Neither doe we receiue it at the hands of any others then of our presidents On which words Beatus Rhenanus writeth thus Presidentes voc at presbyteros etiam alibi the Presbyters he calleth presidents also in another place and quoteth the place alleaged out of the Apologeticke And whereas Tertullian imagined though erroneously that the husband of a second wife could not be a Bishop or Minister his opinion he vttereâ— in these words how derogatorie from faith and how opposite to pietie second mariages are the discipline of the Church and the prescript of the Apostle doth declare cum digamos non siuit presidere when it doth not suffer twice maried men to be presidents that is Ministers And whereas the Catholicks whom he endeuoureth to refute vnderstood that rule of the Apostle as peculiar to Bishops Ministers he chargeth them also with the breach thereof euen in that sense Quot enim ex digamiae president apud vos insultantes vtique apostolo for how many after their second mariage are presidents among you euen insulting ouer the Apostle and blush not when these things are read before them It is plaine therefore that the Seniors which were presidents in the assemblies of Christians of whom Tertullian speaketh were Ministers whatsoeuer some new writers whom he quoteth doe say to the contrarie For whereas among others who were parties in the cause he quoteth B. Iewell who indeed is no partie I answere if he haue alleaged the rest no better then him as for my part I meane not to search especially seeing the chiefe of his Authors are quoted at Random he will gaine the opinion of a notable falsifier of Authors Harding blamed the translator of the Apologie into English for translating Presbyteri Elders and not Priests The translation Bishop Iewell defendeth saying that Presbyter a Priest is nothing else but Senior and that a Priest and Elder are both one thing And whereas Harding affirmed that Priests and Deacons waited onely vpon the Bishops but gaue no sentence in counsels which in respect of prouinciall counsels is euidently false he disproueth that assertion First by Act. 15. Secondly by Nicephorus Thirdly by this testimonie of Tertullâ—an president probati quique Seniores the iudges in such Ecclesiasticall assemblies be the best allowed Elders that is according to Bishop Iewels interpretation Priests for to that end he citeth the testimonie and before he had said that Senior and Priest is all one D. Whitgift conceiuing as Bishop Iewell did that these Seniors were Ministers T. C. obiecteth and it is the onely thing he obiecteth that it is incredible that all the Churches whose defence Tertullian taketh vpon him and whose vsage he doth describe had such a college of Seniors that were Ministers Whereunto the answere is easie that Tertullian speaketh of the Churches in cities in which onely were Presbyteries vnto which the parishes of the countrey adioyning so soone as there were any were subiect and those wholy consisting of Ministâ—rs Neither can any testimonie or example be alleaged either of Presbyters that were not Ministers or of Presbyteries in villages or countrey parishes As touching Cyprian the disputer might haue cited some testimonie or at least quoted some place in his
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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 able to preach as most plainly appeareth by comparing that place with Tit. 1.5 7.9 Socrates reporteth that in Caesarea of Cappadocia and in Cyprus on the Saterdaies and Lords daies in the euening 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Presbyters and B B. expound the scriptures § Sect. 5. As touching the custome of Alexandria in restraining the Presbyters from preaching he saith that it began after Arrius troubled the Church and Sozomen likewise that it was not the custome before Arrius being a Presbyter by his preaching broached his new opinions And this is most plainely testified by Epiphanius who saith that Arrius was a Presbyter in Alexandria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who was Rector of the Church called Baucalis for all the Catholicke Churches saith he in Alexandria are vnder one Archbishop and to them seuerally are assigned Presbyters whereof when he had named some he saith in one of these was Colluthus in another Carpones in another Sarmatas Arrius in another Now it is manifest that euery one of these at their accustomed meetings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teaching the people committed to their charge in their Sermons made diuision in the people whereof some inclined to Arrius othersto Colluthus some to Carpones others to Sarmatas And as they taught diuersly in their seuerall Churches some one thing some another so the people called themselues some Arrians some Colluthians c. Neither was it the custome of the Churches of Affrica as T.C. gathereth that Presbyters should not preach at all but that they might not preach nor administer the communion in the presence of the Bishop And that was it which both Valerius granted to Augustine being a Presbyter potestatem coram se in Ecclesia Euangelium predicandi power to preach the Gospell in the Church himselfe being present contrarie to the vse and custome of the Affrican Churches and also nonnulli Episcopi not all but some Bishops found fault with Whose reprehension Valerius regarded not because he knew it was the custome in the East Churches as appeareth by Chrysostomes homilies at Antioch And some other Bishops euen Aurelius himselfe the Bishop of Carthage were so farre from finding fault with Valerius that they followed his example Insomuch that some other Presbyters hauing receiued the like power began to preach the word to the people Coram Episcopis in the presence of the Bishops But that so learned a man as T. C. should be so transported with preiudice as to thinke that Augustine was a Lay-presbyter I cannot sufficiently wonder especially considering that Valerius when he had ordained him Presbyter reioyced and gaue thankes to God who had heard his prayers in sending such a one as might verbo Dei doctrina salubri Ecclesiam Dei aedeficare edifie the Church of God with the word of God and wholesome doctrine Ierome such another Lay-Presbyter no doubt though hee grant that the Presbyters may not celebrate the Communion in the presence of the Bishop standing at the Altar for so his words are Nec ego dico presentibus Episcopis c though in Gratian it be corruptly written Ecce ego dico yet he saith it was a very bad custome in some Churches that Presbyters might not preach in the presence of Bishops And such was the custome of the Church of Rome as appeareth by Leo who denieth it to be lawfull for Presbyters in the presence of the Bishop vnlesse he command them either to administer the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ or to teach the people c. The Councell of Vaux held not long after Ambrose his time decreed for the edification of all Churches and for the profite of the whole people that not onely in cities but also in parishes the Presbyters should haue power giuen them to preach And if by any infirmitie the Presbyter were hindered so that he could not preach by himselfe that then the Deacon should read some homily of the Fathers To conclude it seemeth strange to me that they who out of the Fathers would proue the Presbyters to be equall to the BB. in power of order as indeed they are excepting the power of ordination for as Ierome saith excepting ordination what doth a Bishop that a Presbyter may not doe equall I say in the ministerie of the word and Sacraments should denie they were Ministers or that to preach or to administer the Sacraments did not belong to them by reason of their office Ambrose saith of a Presbyter and Bishop there is one order vterque enim sacerdos est for either of them is a Priest There remaine the lawes and discipline peculiar to Presbyters as being of the sacred ministerie As for example that Presbyters and Deacons should not be chosen ex plebe out of the people or laitie but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the sacred order or Clergie That as in the Counsell of Nice it was attempted so in some others concluded that Presbyters and Deacons should lead a single life that he which had married a widow or was the husband of a second wife might not be a Presbyter That they might not take vpon them worldly busines not so much as Gardianship that they might not remoue from citie to citie or from one Church to another without the leaue of the Bishop that they might not goe into a Tauerne and such like It is therefore most euident that howsoeuer the Bishops were called the Doctors yet the Presbyteri also were Ministers Neither can any one instance be giuen of a Presbyter either in or before or after Ambrose his time who was not a Minister For howsoeuer T. C. affirmeth that this Eldership of theirs continued in the Church diuerse hundred yeares after Ambrose his time which doth not well agree with his exposition or reading of Ambrose yet being chalenged by D. Whitgift to shew any one testimonie and auouching that he could not produce any one he answereth thus The next I leaue to the Readers iudgement For the third there was great necessitie that the Bishops in the primitiue Church when they had neither the assistāce of the Magistrate nor direction of Ecclesiasticall lawes should vse the Councell and assistance of wise and learned men For which cause Cyprian to auoid both ouersights in himselfe and offence in others resolued to doe nothing of moment without the common councell and aduise of his Clergie and for the same cause was Chrysostome accused 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that without the Presbytery and without the consent of his Clergie he made ordinations And that Presbyters were wont to heare causes and to assist the B. it appeareth by the testimonies first of Ignatius who calleth the Presbytery the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or consistorie of God a band of Apostles and the Presbyters the Councellers and Coassessors of the Bishops 2. of Tertullian president probati
ecclesiasticall gouernement to haue beene dioceses as hath beene shewed I say then which also I prooued afterwards by the testimonies of Cyprian and Ierome whereto the authoritie of Basil may bee added that the vnitie of each Church meaning a diocesse dependeth of the vnitie of the Bishoppe and the setting vp of a second vnlesse it were by way of coadiutorshippe hath euer been esteemed the making of a schisme in the Church But of this more anon § 2. But let vs heare if it bee worth the hearing what more particularly hee obiecteth against these three points And first he trifleth to no purpose when he asketh If there bee not as much vnity in a parish vnder one Pastor as in a diocesse vnder a Bishoppe For though ech parish if it were according to the new conceit an entire body within it selfe vnsubordinate to any other may perhappes haue vnitie within it selfe yet in the Church of the diocesse or prouince that may happen which Ierome affirmeth is like to happen where is no Bishoppe that there shall bee as many schismes as parishes And surely what man of iudgement and moderation can without horrour thinke of those manifold schismes and diuisions which would ensue if euery parish should haue according to the newe conceit sufficient authoritie within it selfe vnsubordinate and independent for the gouernment of it selfe in all causes ecclesiasticall Yea but saith he If there bee not as great vnitie of the Church in a parish vnder one Pastor as in a diocesse vnder one Bishoppe then the more Churches are vnder one gouernement the greater is the vnitie But the consequent is false therefore the antecedent The consequence of the proposition is true being not extended without the limits of the question The more particular Churches in any one visible Church are subordinate to one Bishoppe the greater is the vnitie But by one visible Church I meane the Christian people of one diocesse or of one prouince or at the most of one Nation For the Christian people liuing vnder diuers lawes as they be diuers Nations so are they diuers visible Churches though the faithfull in them all are members of one and the same Catholike Church Let vs heare how he prooueth the assumption If the more Churches are vnder one gouernment the greater vnitie then welfare the Pope who if this be true maketh vnitie of all Churches in the world As who should say all the Churches in the world are vnder the Popes gouernment so that whiles hee denieth the superiority of Bishoppes hee seemeth else there is no sense in his speech to hold the Popes supremacie If any man shall say that as the vnity of ech Church dependeth on the singular preeminence of the Bishoppe so the vnity of the whole Catholicke Church by the same reason shall depend of the Popes supremacy which seemeth to haue beene the Refuters meaning who desireth as much as may bee that the superioritie of Bishoppes and supremacy of the Pope may seeme to bee of one tenure I answere that the vnitie of the whole Church standeth in this that it is one body vnder one head Christ. And as in a diocesse to set vp a second head is to set vp an Antibishoppe and to make a schisme from the true Bishoppe so in the whole Church to acknowledge a second head is to set vp Antichrist and to make an apostasie from Christ. Neither was it euer the meaning of our Sauiour that as euery particular Church should be vnder one Pastor so the whole Church should be vnder one visible head or earthly Monarch For then would not he haue furnished his twelue Apostles with equall power and authority as I haue said before As touching the second he confesseth all that I said namely that from the power of ordination the perpetuity of the Church dependeth and yet cauilleth with mee as if either I had said there could bee no ordination at all without a Bishoppe or that the Bishop had the sole power thereof Thus being resolued to wrangle if he finde not matter to cauill at he will faine it I did not say there could be no ordination without a Bishoppe but that euer since the Apostles times to our age it hath been the receiued opinion in the Church of God that the right of ordination of Presbyters and Deacons is such a peculiar prerogatiue of BB. as that ordinarily and regularly there could be no lawfull ordination but by a Bishop otherwise I doe confesse in the sermon that extraordinarily and in case of necessity Presbyters may ordaine in the want of a Bishop Concerning the third he saith it is enough to preserue good order in Churches if iurisdiction be in the ministers and Presbyters Hee meaneth in the seuerall parishes which may after a fashion be gouerned where the supreame ecclesiasticall officer◠I meane the parish minister assisted with such a senate as ech parish is like to afford hath the reines of gouernment in all causes ecclesiasticall committed to them But I pray you how shall there be any good order in the gouernment of the Churches of a diocesse or prouince when euery parish is so according to the new conceipt an entire body of it selfe indeed a member by Schisme rent from the the rest as it hath neither consociation with nor subordination to others For they are not gouerned by consociation who deny the definitiue power of synods as our new Disciplinarians do neither do they acknowledge any subordination for their Pastor forsooth is the supreme ecclesiasticall officer and the power of ech parish is independent immediatly deriued from Christ. Now how is it possible there should be good order in the gouernment of so many parishes in a Kingdome where is no subordination no superiours nor inferiours but all equall But this is enough for our Disciplinarians if they might be subiect to no superiors but that each of them might be the supreme ecclesiasticall officer in euery Church Serm. sect 4. pag. 32. As touching the first whereas there were many Presbyters in one Citie c. to pag. 36. l. a fine 8. Jn this section I proue that the Bishops of the primitiue Church were superior to other Ministers in singularity of preeminence for terme of life Which is a point very materiall prouing both against the new Disciplinarians that the BB. were diocesan there being but one for ech diocesse as hath been touched before and against the elder that the BB. were not such as their Presidents of the Presbytery or Moderators of assemblies among them whose preeminence is but a priority of order and but for a short time and against both disprouing the parity of Ministers which is the other maine piller of the pretended discipline Here therefore it behoued the Refuter if his cause were such as indeed he could maintaine with soundnes of learning and euidence of truth both to haue disproued this superiority of BB. and to haue proued his parity of Ministers But he passeth by in
a Catholike Apostasie from Christ. So that this pretended remedie against Schisme causing a Catholike apostasy is as much or more to be auoided then Schisme it selfe the remedie being far worse then the feared maladie Serm. sect 6. pag. 37. This power is twofold the power of ordination and of iurisdiction c. 19. lines to Titus in Creet Where I place the power wherein Bishops are superior to Presbyters in these two things the Reader is to vnderstand that I mention the principall and most essentiall for otherwise ancient writers mention other prerogatiues of Bishops wherein their superioritie doth consist as by imposition of hands to confirme them that are baptized and publickely to reconcile the penitents to consecrate Churches c. of some whereof Ierome indeed saith they did belong ad honorem potius Sacerdotij quà m ad legis necessitatem rather to the honor of the Priesthood then to the necessitie of law But what saith the Refuter Now at the last yet saith he it seemeth that hee hath been long delaied or that he hath greatly longed in hope to do great matters to deale in this matter of ordination let vs see how it is proued that Bishops must haue sole power of ordination But where good sir do I say they must haue the sole power of ordination which you haue so oft objected and now againe do repeat make you no conscience of publishing vntruthes cannot BB. be superior to other ministers in the power of ordination and jurisdiction which is the thing which I maintaine vnlesse they haue the sole power or do I heere dispute what Bishops must haue when I onely shew what the ancient Bishops were wont to haue If he shall say that vnlesse they had the sole power of ordination they had not the superioritie which our Bishops haue I answer that our BB. haue no more the sole power of ordination then the ancient Bishops had And this I added in the Sermon that although the power of ordination was held in the primitiue Church to be so peculiar to Bishops as that ordinarilie and regularlie the ordination was not thought lawfull which was not done by a Bishop yet it doth not follow but that extraordinarily and in case of necessitie Presbyters might ordaine Howbeit I must confesse I am not able to alleage any approued examples thereof If the Refuter can which I do more then doubt of he shall do well to produce them it may tend to the credit of some other Churches it cannot be preiudiciall to the cause which I maintaine Seeing therefore the Refuter doth alter the state of the question making me to proue that which I did not intend because he could not answeare that which was propounded I should neither wrong him nor the Reader If I vouchsafed him no further answeare in this point But in very truth he is so far from refuting the superioritie of Bishops in the power of ordination which J propounded that he is not able to disproue their sole power which himselfe hath foisted into the question For as touching my first argument whereas he frameth for me this consequence It hath been the receiued opinion in the Church of God euer since the Apostles times that the right of ordination of Presbyters is such a peculiar prerogatiue of Bishops as that ordinarilie and regularlie there could be no ordination but by a Bishop therefore BB. haue sole authoritie of ordination he should haue said therefore they are superiour to other ministers in the power of ordination he passeth by this consequence though he would faine perswade his Reader that it is lyable to he cannot tell what just exception and only insisteth on the antecedent which is the assumption of his prolixe syllogisme But it is worth the hearing how he doth disproue it Forsooth It halteth downe right hauing no strength but from a false supposition and so proued to be that there were alwaies Diocesan Bishops Here the Refuter if he would haue said any thing to satisfie his Reader should haue produced some approued example of ordination either in the Apostles times or since performed by Presbyters without a Bishop whereby he might haue disproued my assertion but not being able so to doe he betaketh himselfe to his ordinarie trade of answearing by meere cauillations He talketh of a supposition whereon the assumption is grounded when as the speech is simple and categoricall as they speake and not hypotheticall and the effect of his answeare is not the deniall of a supposition but the taking away of the subiect of the question as if he should say Bishops were not therefore they had not this power For where he addeth Diocesan that is spoken vnseasonably for the question now is not what their authoritie was extensiuè whether to a Diocese or not which in this point is not materiall but what it was intensiuè in respect of other ministers By that starting hole therefore he cannot escape especially if it be added that the supposition is not as he vntruely saith false for that errour he will as I hope recant when he shall haue read what I haue alledged for the proofe of Dioceses and Diocesan Bishops And whereas he saith he hath proued it to be false that also is vntrue for he neuer went about it Nec ausus est nec potuit onely he rejected it in a glorious maner as being so manifestly false that he should not need to disproue it But suppose for a little while that the refuters and the rest of the challengers conceit were true that there were no Bishops but parishionall and that the Presbyters joyned to them were lay elders it would then be knowne when the pastorall charge was voide who did ordaine the new Bishop or Pastor You will say that is alreadie defined It is one of the maine positions which the great challengers haue offred to prooue that euery parish hath within it selfe authoritie to elect ordaine depose and depriue their Minister Not that the whole parish doth ordaine but onely the Presbyterie Very good this then is the effect of the new Disciplinarians conceit that the power of ordination belongeth ordinarily neither to Bishops nor to other ministers but to their Presbyterie consisting of lay elders But if they can proue by any one approued example that lay elders had euer or at any time right to ordaine or to impose hands I will yeeld in the whole cause My second proofe he hath peruerted proportioning it to his owne strength for he should haue framed it thus If the power of ordination were not in the Presbyters of Ephesus and Creet neither before Timothe and Titus were sent but in the Apostles nor after but in the Bishops that is to say in Timothe and Titus and their successors then the power of ordination is a prerogatiue peculiar to Bishops wherein they are superior to other ministers But both the parts of the antecedent are true therefore the consequent The former part of the
which themselues doe bring to proue them and also that by such an answere the superiority of Bishops is sufficiently auoided But to conclude this point whiles the Refuter goeth about to proue that Antioch which was the Metropolis of Syria and the chiefe Citie of all the East was but a parish Church and the Bishop of Antioch who was also as Ignatius testifieth of himselfe the Bishop of Syria and as Theodoret saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the chiefe or prâ—â—ate of all the Bishops in in the East to haue been but a Parson of a parish Church the Reader will hereby learne what conceit to haue of his learning and iudgement and what credit to giue to his new-â—angled opinions Serm. sect 11. pag. 47. Now the Presbyters were subiect to their B. both as their ruler to be guided c. to page 50. med Hauing in generall shewed the Bishops superiority in iurisdiction ouer the Presbyters euen those of the Citie in this section J proue it more particularly by the parts of gouernment which are both to rule and direct as also to censure and correct I shew therefore that the Presbyters of the Citie were subiect to the Bishoppe both as their ruler to be guided and dâ—rected by him and also as their Iudge to be censured and corrected of him Where the Refuter if he would needs be analysing and syllogising should haue framed this argument To whom the Presbyters were subiect both as to their ruler to be guided and directed by him and as to their Iudge to be censured and corrected of him he was superior to them in the power of iurisdiction and maiority of rule To the B. the Presbyters were subiect both as to their ruler to be guided and directed by him and as to their Iudge to be censured and corrected of him Therefore the B. was superiour to the Presbyters in power of iurisdiction and maiority of rule The proposition of this syllogisme is of euident vndeniable truth The assumption consisteth of two parts the former concerning the rule of direction the latter concerning the power of correction which I doe in order proue by euident testimonies whereunto he opposeth nothing but cauilling shifts and euasions By way of analysis he saith thus The former proofe of the assumption touching the Bishops maiority of rule was generall concerning diocesan and parishionall Presbyters Now follow the reasons for each of them in particular and first for the Bishoppes iurisdiction ouer the diocesan in regard of direction Where I desire him to tell vs what he meaneth by diocesan Presbyters whether such as assisted the Bishop in the diocesan gouernment If yea hee dreameth of that hee cannot proue To omit the commendation of his skill in analysing which is not great his resutation heere is as you plainely see not onely a dreame but the dreame of a dreame He saith I dreame of diocesan Presbyters when himselfe belike did dreame so Where speake I one word of diocesan Presbyters where doe I once name them Is the Refuters conscience no better then still to father vpon mee vntruths for his owne aduantage doth he not thereby bewray what a cause he maintaineth which cannot be vpheld but by forgeries Neither if J had spoken of diocesan Presbyters would I haue vsed the word in that sense For as parts of the diocesse in the country are sometimes in the Councels called dioceses so are Country Ministers called dioecesani qui per dioeceses ecclesias regunt which in the Councell of Neocaesaria are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Country Ministers and are opposed to the Presbyters of the Citie who are there called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and else where ciuitatenses Presbyteri Of whom it may bee truly said that the Colledge or company of them was the Presbytery which being not assigned to any one parish was prouided to assist the Bishoppe in the feeding and gouernment of the diocesse as I haue prooued before and in that sense might be called dioecesani But let vs see his reason saith the Refuter If the 40. Canon of the Apostles saith he I said the ancient Canon if the Councels of Arles and Ancyra Tertullian Cyprian and Ignatius affirme that BB. had maiority of rule for direction ouer Diocesan Presbyters then they had such maiority But all these affirme so therefore they had so The former part of my aforesaid Assumption that the Presbyters of the City were subiect to the B. as their ruler to be directed by him I proue first in generall because they might doe nothing of importance without his direction or consent then particularly in respect of those things which did belong to the power of their order For as touching the former if the Presbyters might doe nothing without the B. nothing without his appointment or consent then were they subiect to him as their ruler to be guided and directed by him But the former I proue by these testimonies whereto more may be added therefore the latter cannot be denied Of the Syllogisme which he framed hee denieth first the Consequence of the proposition not shaming to affirme that although the ancient Canon called the Apostles though the auncient Councels of Ancyra and Arles though Tertullian Cyprian and Ignatius doe all testifie the maiority of rule in BB yet it would not follow that they had it It will follow then that the ancientest Councels and Fathers deserue no credit which whosoeuer shall affirme doth much more without comparison deserue not onely no credit but no audience nay no sufferance he is not to bee endured But what pretence hath hee to discredite their authorities forsooth none of them excepting Tertullian and Ignatius liued in the first 200. yeares As if all truth were confined within that periode or as if some of the Fathers which succeeded as Cyprian by name deserued not as much credite as they As for Cyprian hee came 40. or 50. yeares after and the Councell of Ancyry some 50. or 60. yeares after him No doubt but great alteration in discipline and Church-gouernement was or could be pretended to haue been in the Church before Constatines time whiles it was vnder the Crosse. But let the Refuter esteeme of these authorities as hee pleaseth there is no modest or moderate Christian but will preferre the affirmation of any of these especially in a matter of fact before the negation of a thousand such as the libelling refuter After he hath thus eleuated their authority hee cauilleth with their testimonies denying also the assumption And first to the ancient Canon forbidding Presbyters Deacons to doe anything 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the appointment and consent of the Bishoppe hee frameth such an answere as euery word whereof almost doth argue extreame either vnconscionablenesse or ignorance Hee saith It doth not proue they had maiority of rule or sole soueraignty ouer them Sole soueraignity O defiled conscience which ceasest not to ascribe such
The proofe of their exposition of Ambrose disproued and the reasons why the counsell of the Seniors was neglected defended Chap. 9. Answering the testimonies which the Refuter alleageth to proue Lay-elders Chap. 10. Contayning an answere to the same testimonies and some others as they are alleaged by other Disciplinarians Chap. 11. Answering the allegations out of the Fathers for Lay-elders The second Booke proueth that the Churches which had Bishops were Dioceses and the Angels or Pastors of them Diocesan Bishops CHap. 1. Intreating of the diuers acceptations of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Church Diocese and Paraecia which is translated parish Chap. 2. Prouing by ether arguments that the ancient Churches which had Bishops were not Parishes but Dioceses Chap. 3. that the seauen Churches in Asia were Dioceses Chap. 4. That Presbyteries were appointed not to Parishes but to Dioceses Chap. 5. Answering their obiections who say that in the first 200. yeeres all the Christians in each great city were but one particular congregation assembling in one place Chap. 6. The Arguments for the new found Parish discipline answered Chap. 7. That the Angels or Bishops of the primitiue Churches were Diocesan Bishops The third Booke treateth of the superioritie of Bishops aboue other Ministers CHap. 1. Confuteth the Refuters preamble to the fourth point concerning the superiority of Bishops and defendeth mine entrance thereinto Chap. 2. Declareth in generall that Bishops were superiour to other Ministers in degree Chap. 3. Sheweth more particularly wherein the superiority of Bishops did and doth consist And first their singularity of preheminence for terme of life Chap. 4. Demonstrateth the superiority of Bishops in power and first in the power of ordination Chap. 5. Proueth the superiority of Bishops in the power of iurisdiction Chap. 6. Treateth of the titles of honour giuen to Bishops The fourth Booke proueth the Episcopall function to be of Apostolicall and diuine institution CHap. 1. That the Ecclesiasticall gouernment by Bishops was generally receiued in the first 300. yeeres after the Apostles Chap. 2. That the Episcopall gouernment was vsed in the Apostolicall Churches in the Apostles times without their dislike Chap. 3. That the Apostles themselues ordayned Bishops Chap. 4. The places where and the persons whom the Apostles ordayned Bishops but chiefly that Timothie was Bishop of Ephesus and Titus of Creet Chap. 5. Answereth to the allegations out of Ierome Chap. 6. Directly proueth the Episcopall function to be of diuine institution Chap. 7. Defendeth the conclusion of the Sermon and sheweth that the chiefe Protestants did not dissallowe the Episcopall gouernment FINIS An Ansvvere to the Preface THE scope of the refuter in his preface is as of Orators in their Proemes to prepare the Reader and if he be such a one as will be led with shewes to draw his affections to himselfe and to withdrawe them from me It containeth a Prologue to the Reader an Epilogue concluding with prayer and with praise to God The former consisteth of a declaration and of a direction to the Reader He declareth three things first the weightie causes mouing him to vndertake this worthie worke secondly his valiant resolution in vndertaking it thirdly his manner of performance As touching the first that you may not thinke him after the manner of factious spirits blinded with erroneous conceits and transported with vnquiet passions vnaduisedly or headily to haue attempted this busines he telleth you that there were two motiues that moued him thereto the one his strong opinion pag. 3 the other his vnquiet desire pag. 7. His opinion was that my sermon defending the honourable function of Bishops was most needfull to be answered for so he saith I deemed it as needfull to be answered as any booke our Opposites haue at any time set forth And that no man should thinke this his opinion to be fantasticall or erroneous hee confirmeth it with diuers reasons but such as who shall compare them either with the truth or with his opinion for the proofe whereof they are brought or one with another he shall see a pleasant representation of the Matachine euery one fighting with another The first reason because he sawe the Sermon tended directly to proue that the calling of our L. BB. as they now exercise it in the Church of England is to be holden Iure diuino by diuine right not as an humane ordinance their ancient and wonted tenure c. In which speech are diuerse vntruthes For first with what eye did hee see that directly proclaimed in the Sermon which directly and expressely I did disclaime pag. 92. where I did professe that although I hold the calling of BB. in respect of their first institution to be an Apostolicall and so a diuine ordinance yet that I doe not maintaine it to be Diuini juris as intending thereby that it is generally perpetually and immutably necessarie as though there could not be a true Church without it which himselfe also acknowledgeth pag. 90. of his booke 2. where I spake of the substance of their calling with what eye did he see me defending their exercise of it As if he would make the reader belieue that I went about to iustifie all the exercise of their function which in all euen the best gouernements whatsoeuer is subiect to personall abuses 3. Neither is it true that the ancient tenure of BB. was onely Iure humano vnlesse he restraine the ancieÌ„tnesse he speakes of to these latter times which are but as yesterday For in the primitiue Church as hereafter shal be plainely proued the function of BB. was without contradiction acknowledged to be a tradition or ordinance Apostolicall and the first Bishops certainely knowne to haue bene ordained by the Apostles And as his first reason fighteth with the truth so the second both with his opinion and with it selfe For why was the sermon most needfull to be answered because saith he it is euident that the doctrine therein contained howsoeuer M. D. saith it is true profitable and necessarie is vtterly false very hurtfull and obnoxious necessarie indeed to be confused at no hand to be belieued In which words 3. reasons are propunded which now come to be examined It is euident saith he that the doctrine in the sermon is vtterly false therefore it is most needfull to be confuted But say I if it be euidently false it needs no confutation Things manifestly false or true are so iudged without disputation or discourse Neither doth any thing need to be argued or disputed but that which is not euident This reason therefore if it were true would with better reason conclude against his opinion It is euident saith he that it is vtterly false therefore it needeth not to be confuted The second brâ—anch It is very hurtfull and obnoxious therfore c. Obnoxious what is this subiect or in danger to be hurt with euill tongues subiect to sophistical cauillations and malicious calumniations But hurtfull it is not for I
giue the sole authoritie Ecclesiasticall to the Bishop Indeed if we were so madde as to thinke that there were no Ecclesiasticall gouernement but parishionall there were something in his speech But when besides and aboue the gouernement not onely parishionall but also Diocesan we acknowledge a superiour authoritie in the Archbishop and his courts in the prouinciall synodes especially that authoritie of making Church-lawes whereby both Dioceses and parishes are to be ruled it is apparent that although I did take all authoritie from parish-bishops and their Elders yet it would not follow that I giue the whole authoritie Ecclesiasticall to the Diocesan alone But that which hee saith of my ascribing the supreme authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall to the Diocesan Bishops that is the supreme and the loudest lye and maketh the assumption of his chiefe Syllogisme most euidently false Doe I or any of vs say that the Diocesan Bishop hath the supreme authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall doth not our Church subiect the Bishop to the Archbishop and prouinciall Synodes doth not appeale lye from the sentence of the Bishop to the Archbishop and likewise from him to the Kings Delegates doth not himselfe acknowledge pag. 69. the Bishops so to be subiected to the two Archbishops as that if we may iudge by the outward appearance and practise we may in his opinion seeme to haue but two Churches and those prouinciall the one of Canterbury and the other of Yorke doe wee not all with one consent acknowledge the Kings Maiestie to haue the supreme authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall and whereas the greatest authoritie of Churchmen is exercised in Synodes and the greatest authoritie of Synodes is the making of Church-lawes yet the ratification of them we submit to the King according to the Practise of the ancient Churches liuing vnder Orthodoxall Kings in so much that they and all our Church-lawes are called the Kings Ecclesiasticall lawe Now then if neither I take all authoritie from the pastors nor giue all to the Bishops nor ascribe vnto them◠sole nor supreme authoritie what haue the libellers gained by all their triumphing outcryes but the manifestation of their owne manifold vntruthes Yea but the title of absolute Popelings agreeth better to our Diocesan BB. then to their parish BB. Neither did I say that they are such but that if they did not ioyne vnto them a consistory of Elders they would seeme to set vp not onely a Popeling but an absolute Popeling in euery parish a petite pope indeed their pastor is in regard of that supremacy they ascribe vnto him making him the supreme Ecclesiasticall officer in euery Church which wee deny to our Bishops and were it not that hee hath a consistory ioyned to him as the Pope hath of Cardinals hee would bee more then a pope And againe whereas our Bishops are to be guided by lawes which by their superiors are imposed vpon them their pastors with their Elders and people hauing as the Pope saith he hath a supreme immediate and independent authoritie sufficient for the gouernement of their Churches in all causes Ecclesiastical and therefore for making of Ecclesiasticall lawes they are to be gouerned by their owne lawes For the chiefe thing in Ecclesiasticall gouernement is the authoritie to prescribe lawes Ecclesiasticall If therefore each parish hath as they say it hath sufficient authoritie within it selfe for the gouernement of it selfe in all causes Ecclesiasticall immediately deriued from Christ then questionlesse they haue authoritie to prescribe lawes Ecclesiasticall And as the Pope doth not acknowledge the superioritie of a synode to impose lawes vpon him no more doe they They will giue synodes leaue to deliberate of that which may be best and to perswade thereto but they will not be ruled by them As for the Kings supremacie in causes Ecclesiastical how it may stand with their maine assertion wherein they ascribe to euery parish an independent authoritie immediately deriued from Christ sufficient for the gouernement of it selfe in all causes Ecclesiasticall I will not dispute Serm. Sect. 3. pag. 5. Concerning the secōd viz. what was the preheminence of these BB. in the Churches in respect whereof they are called the Angels of the Churches others more wise and learned then the former granting they were BB. of whole cities the countries adioyning that is to say of Dioceses notwithstanding the sway of the gouernement they ascribe to the Presbyteries of those Churches consisting partly of Ministers and partly of annual or Lay-presbyters making these Angels or Bishops nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or presidents of those Presbyteries and such presidents as were not superior to other Ministers in degree c. to pag. 6. in their turnes Of the two points seruing to shew by way of explication of the text what manner of Bishops were meant by the Angels the latter I propounded in this section to be examined A reason whereof I alledge a controuersie betwixt vs and another sort of disciplinarians who are as I said more wise and learned then the former who though they grant that which the former denied yet doe greatly differ from vs concerning the preheminence which the Angels or ancient Bishops had in the Churches So that in this section are 2. things first the proposition of the second point concerning the preheminence of BB. in respect whereof they were called the Angels of the Churches secondly a reason thereof To the proposition he answereth that they had this name Angels in regard of their generall calling of the ministerie not because of any soueraignetie or supremacie ouer other their fellow Ministers as he saith I imply here and plainely but vntruely affirme afterwards In which fewe words are 2. vntruthes Whereof the former is an errour that they are to tearmed in respect of their generall calling of the ministery For though to be called Angels generally agreeth to all Ministers yet for one and but one among many Ministers in one and the same Church to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called the Angell of that Church is not a common title belonging to all Ministers in regard of their generall calling but a peculiar stile belonging to one who had singular preheminence aboue the rest that is to say a Bishop So saith D. Raynolds in the Church of Ephesus though it had sundry Elders and pastors to guide it yet among those sundry was there one chiefe whō our Sauiour calleth the Angell of the Church and writeth that to him which by him the rest should know And this is he whom afterward in the primitiue Church the fathers called Bishop As touching the latter where he saith that I doe here imply that the Bishops haue a soueraignety or supremacy ouer other Ministers and afterwards doe affirme it plainely that plainely is a plaine lie Soueraignetie and supremacy ouer other Ministers none but Papists giue to their Bishop and they to none but to the Bishop of Rome Superioritie indeed belongeth to
of God as well as those which concerned the ceremoniall law Neither do I therefore reiect the exposition of Beza and some others who by the causes of God vnderstand Ecclesiasticall causes and by the causes of the king ciuill causes because it is preiudiciall to my defence but because it is repugnant to the truth for though their interpretation were admitted it would no more proue that there were two distinct Synâ—dria then that which I doe embrace For though Zebadiah the prince of Iuda was the chiefe in the causes of the King as Amariah the high priest was the chiefe in the causes of God yet were they Colleagues and coassessors in the same counsell as Iosephus also doth witnesse For speaking of this act of Iosaphat he saith that he being returned to Ierusalem appointed iudges there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Priests and Leuits and of the chiefe or principall men of the people requiring them to exercise iust iudgement but especially that they should be diligent in determining those difficult causes that should be brought to them from inferiour iudgement seats but the chiefe or presidents of them as colleagues and coassessors be appointed Amasiah the Priest and Zabadiah of the tribe of Iuda and relating the law Deu. 17.8 he saith if the iudges in the cities be not able to determine any cause it is entirely to be sent to the holy citie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and let the high Priest and the Prophet that is the scribe or Doctor of the law saith Sigonius and the senate assembling together pronounce what seemeth right Besides it is manifest that the counsell at Ierusalem after the captiuitie which consisted of priests and Leuits besides the Seniors of the people and whereof the high priest was president as Bertram confesseth hauing authoritie to assemble it c. Act. 5.21 Matt. 26.57.59 was the high councell of state called the Sanedrin or Synedrion or coÌ„sistorium Gazith which dealt in causes not onely Ecclesiasticall but also ciuil and in causes criminall and capitall Neither happened this by the ambition of the priests but by the ordinance of God in respect of the first institution Deut. 17. and instauration by Iosaphat 2. Chron. 19. and by his approbation as Caluin witnesseth in respect of the erection of it after the captiuity For as the Lord promised by Esay to restore their iudges and counsellers after the captiuitie as before so Ezekiell prophecieth that the Priests after the captiuitie should not onely teach the people and iudge betweene holy and prophane betweene cleane and vncleane but also that they should stand vp to iudge controuersies iudging according to Gods iudgement Iosephus also testifieth that the Priests were ordained by Moses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ouerseers of all iudges of controuersies and punishers of such as are by the law condemned And so much for the present shall suffice concerning the counsell at Ierusalem vntill I come to answere Caluins opinion As touching Ecclesiasticall Presbyters in other cities Beza hath nothing but his owne coniectures For the courts of iudgement which both Moses instituted and Iosaphat renewed though they had Leuites among them were to deale not onely in Ecclesiasticall but also in ciuill and criminall causes The reasons which he bringeth for distinct Ecclesiasticall senates are three First because the Archisynagogi had as it is probable Seniors of the people ioyned with them Secondly because the name of Church in this place of Mathew is giuen to them which could not be vnlesse they did consist of the laitie as wel as the clergie Thirdly because as the ciuill consistories assembled in the gates so the Ecclesiasticall in the Synagogues To the first I answere that a probabilitie if this were such as indeed it is not is no proofe to the 2. that the name Ecclesia is not giuen to the Archisynagogi but to the Rulers of Christs Church assembling in his name with whom he promised his presence and to whom he committed the power of the keyes to whom also the name Ecclesia which may be giuen to any company of Christians be it but of two or three meeting in the name of Christ doth fitly agree Thirdly he telleth vs of Ecclesiasticall consistories ordained by Moses and renewed by Iosaphat sitting in Synagogues when there is not once mention in the old testament either of Ecclesiasticall consistories or yet of Synagogues And in the new such iudges are mentioned in Synagogues as punished by stripes Bertram also witnesseth that in the Synagogues of the cities iudgements were exercised by ordinarie iudges the greater and weightier causes as also the appeales of the lesse being referred to the counsell â—t Ierusalem And againe that the people came to the Synagogues to prayer to heare the law and the Prophets and to heare the iudgement of Moses law as well ciuill as Ecclesiasticall And so much of Beza Caluiâ— by Ecclesia vnderstandeth the Synedrion or Sanedrin of the Iewes instituted by them after their returne from Babylon which he conceiueth to haue beene an Ecclesiasticall senate to which belonged the censure of doctrine maners hauing the power oâ— excoÌ„munication c. What this Synedrion was Caluin himselfe shall tell vs It is certaine saith he that the Iewes when they were returned from the Babylonian banishment because they might not make a King did imitate this example of appointing 70. Elders Num. 11 in ordaining the Synedrion Onely so much honour was granted to the memorie of Dauid and the Kings that out of their stocke they would choose 70. gouernours in whom should be the chiefe power And this course continued vntill Herod c. The Sanedrin indeed was the high counsell of state which was to iudge of causes not only Ecclesiasticall but also ciuill and criminal yea capitall hauing the authoritie of the sword and power of life and death Whereby they adiudged malefactors conuicted of capital crimes to one of these foure kinds of death stoning burning killing with the sword and strangling hauing also authoritie to ordaine Sanedrioth that is the consistories of iudges in other cities to whom alone it appertained to iudge the cause of a tribe of a false Prophet of the high Priest c. And howsoeuer their power was much restrained after Iewrie became a prouince subiect to the Romanes notwithstanding the Romanes hauing granted the Iewes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 libertie to liue according to their owne lawes permitted them to exercise authoritie both in iudging not onely Ecclesiasticall but also ciuill and criminall causes and also in punishing by stripes and imprisonment and sometimes by death Moreouer by the law of God he that disobeyed the sentence of this counsell was not as our Sauiour Christ heere saith to be held as an heathen or Publican but he was to die the death Finally there was but one Synedrion for the whole estate of the Iewes by the appointment of God and that in the
by reason of his great learning and renowned piety yet were it a sawcie part for him that is but a Presbiter to thinke himselfe equall with a Bishop Ierome was farre from it and therefore in his Epistles to Augustine giueth him titles of great honour vsing this inscription Domino verè sancto beatissimo Papae Augustino c. And this farewell the Lord preserue you Domine verè sancte suscipiende Papa and the like I haue said before of Caluin From Augustine he maketh a large step to Erasmus who saith Of olde there was no difference betweene a Presbyter a Priest but that the Refuter left out for feare of excluding his lay-elder and a B. And then hee leapeth backe againe to Theodoret Beda Sedulius Oecumenius Primasius Theophilact c. who affirme the same And doe not I my selfe professe the same in this Sermon doe I not also proue it in the Sermon of the dignity of the ministerie that in the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles these two words Presbyter Episcopus were confounded and the same men were called Presbyteri Episcopi what will hee conclude thereof that therefore in the three hundred yeares after the Apostles the Church was not gouerned by BB or that the office of a B. and a Presbyter were at any time confounded nay can hee proue so much as the names after the Apostles time were vsually confounded Ignatius who liued in the Apostles times euery where distinguisheth them and so doe the after Writers as Irenaeus Tertullian Cyprian Eusebius c. sauing that to BB. they giue sometimes the more generall name of Presbyters or Priests which is not to be meruailed at seeing the Apostles Peter and Iohn doe call themselues Presbyters Yea but some Protestant Writers whom afterwards hee will cite haue vnderstoode Ierome and the rest as the Refuter doth and not they onely but Michael Medina a Popish Writer is of opinion that they held the same error with Aerius This is a strange kind of arguing which our Refuter vseth to bring new Writers to depose what the old haue testified Are not their testimonies extant in print may we not read them with our owne eyes and weigh them in our owne iudgements that wee leauing the records themselues should seek to the dâ—positions of new writers to know what the olde haue testified but of the errour of them who suppose Ierome and some other of the Fathers to haue beene of the same iudgement with Aerius I haue spoken before neither doubt I now to affirme that they ioyned in opinion with Aerius no more then I do for they writing on Phil. 1. 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1. 1 Pet. 5. doe say that in these places the names Presbyter Episcopus were confounded which places my selfe haue alledged to the same purpose After he had alledged what hee was able out of the olde Writers and yet neuer a word to the purpose he proceedeth to the new Writers who as he saith were called out of the thickest mists of Poperie to the light of the Gospell heaping vp a sort of testimonies without order and without iudgement and mingling also some testimonies out of the canon law and some Popish Writers among them And because to follow him were to runne the wild-goose race I will reduce their testimonies to certaine heads and then giue him an answere to them all Some therefore are brought to testifie that in the Apostles times BB. and Presbyters were all one the which is true for the same men were called Presbyters and BB as Heming and Zauch in Phil. 1.1 Isidor and Dist. 21. c. Cleros ex Isidor Duaren de ministr benef l. 1. c. 7. Gloss. ord Hugo Card. Cassander the councils of Constance and Basill Chemnitius Lubbertus D. Fulke D. Willet D. Morton Some that there was no difference betweene B. and Presbyter till after the Apostles times but afterwards BB. were set ouer Presbyters as Danaeus Some that at the first there were no such BB. as were afterwards and when they were brought in they were not Monarches of the Church c. as Chamier Some that iure diuino Episcopi Presbyteri be all one as Iunius and Phil. Morney and D. Whitak which is true concerning the vse of the words in the Scriptures Some that Episcopatus is not a distinct order from Presbyteratus iure diuino as D Holland whose not writings but speeches he citeth vpon report Some that B. and Presbyter by the word of God is the same not in name onely but also in office as Sadâ—â—l Some that in the Apostles times the Churches were gouerned communi presbyterorum consilio but after the Apostles they chose one to be B. as Musculus Some that Christ made ministers equall that there was at the first no contention which how true it is appeareth by Christs appointing twelue Apostles and seauentie Disciples and by the contention among the Apostles themselues for superioritie whiles Christ was with them as Bullinger Some that as the Apostles were equall so their successors which is true for the BB. are equall among themselues though superiour to other ministers as the Apostles were to the seauentie Disciples as D. Whitakers Some that Aerius was not an hereticke for saying that according to the vse of the scriptures Episcopus Presbiter is all one which is true neither had he beene an hereticke if he had said no more and that Ambrose Chrysostome Ierome and Augustine were of the same iudgement as B. Iewell Some that in the Apostles times there were onely two degrees of ministers Presbiters and Deacons as D. Humfrey Some that Bishops were not in the Apostles times as Sadeel Some that BB. he superiour to Prebiters by mans decree and not by scripture by custome of man not by the authoritie of God by mans law and not by Apostolicall institution as Heming in Phil. 1.1 Bulling Iunius B. Pilkington the Canon law falsified de iure positiuo as Cusanus not by Gods law as D. Raynolds no otherwise but by custome as Sadeel Some that Episcopus and Pastor of one flocke was at the first all one as D. Raynolds Some that there was alwaies one principall which by common vse was called a B. being chiefe though not alone both in gouernment and ordination as D. Fulke Some that BB. be in a higher degree of superioritie but not Princes that not they onely are Pastors that they haue the right of consecration though not onely as D. Willet Some that the sole and supreame authority in a B. is tyranny as Bullinger Some that the gouernment of the Church by the first institution was not Monarchicall but Aristocraticall as Chamier Some that elections were not in corners nor by one as Gualther Some that Presbiters may ordaine as being all one with BB. in office as Sadeel Some that Priests had voices and seates in Councils as indeed they haue with vs as the councill of Constance and Basill Some that
so gouerned still Whereunto I answere according to the euident light of truth that the Presbyters gouerned the Churches as vnder the Apostles and that but for a time vntill the Apostles substituted BB. or left them as their successors committing the gouernment of the seuerall Churches vnto them To the second part of his assumption I answere that the Apostles contradicted that gouernment which hee speaketh of by common counsell of Elders ruling without a B. not so much by words as by deeds when ordayning BB. in seuerall Churches they committed the whole care thereof as Ierome speaketh or at least the chiefe care and authoritie as Ignatius testifieth to them And so leauing the Refuter to rowle the stone he speaketh of I proceed to my third argument The III. CHAPTER Prouing that the Apostles themselues ordayned Bishops Serm. Sect. 5. pag. 65. But yet I proceede to a further degree which is to proue that the Apostles themselues ordayned BB. and committed the Churches to them and therefore that the Episcopall function is without question of Apostolicall institution c. to 38. yeares pag. 69. THE refuter would faine haue me seeme to proue idem per idem but that he could not but discerne that I argue from the ordination of the persons to the institution of the function against which consequence though himselfe say that without question it is good yet I confesse he might haue taken more iust exception then he hath hitherto against any which was not of his owne making so farre is it from concluding the same by the same For he might haue said though they ordayned the persons yet Christ instituted the function and that is the iudgement of many of the Fathers who holde that our Sauiour Christ in ordayning his twelue Apostles and his seauentie two Disciples both which sorts he sent to preach the Gospell he instituted the two degrees of the ministerie BB. answering to the high Priest and Presbyters answerable to the Priests Againe those Fathers who affirme the BB. to be the successors of the Apostles doe by consequence affirme that Christ when he ordayned Apostles ordayned BB. and Cyprian in plainetermes saith so much that our Lord himselfe ordayned Apostles that is to say Bishops For the Popish conceipt that the Apostles were not made Priests till Christs last supper nor BB. till after his resurrection as it is sutable with other their opinions deuised to aduance the Popes supremacy so it is repugnant to the iudgement of the ancients contrary to the truth Seeing the very Disciples who were inferiour to the Apostles were authorized before Christs last supper to preach to baptise Neither had they or needed they any new ordination whereby they might be qualified to administer the Sacrament But of this matter I will not contend for whether the function were first ordayned by Christ or instituted by the Apostles Christ is the authour thereof either immediatly according to the former opinion or mediatly according to the latter And those things are said to be of Apostolicall institution which Christ ordayned by the Apostles The antecedent of my argument viz. that the Apostles ordayned BB. and committed the Churches to them was in the Sermon explaned and proued by shewing the time when the places where the persons whom the Apostles ordayned BB. As concerning the time I said there was some difference betweene the Church of Ierusalem and the rest in respect of their first Bishop For there because shortly after Christs passion a great number were conuerted to the faith for we read of three thousand conuerted in one day and because that was the mother Church vnto which the Christians from all parts were afterwards to haue recourse the Apostles before their dispersion statim post passionem Domini straight wayes after the passion of our Lord ordayned Iames the iust Bishop of Ierusalem as Ierome testifieth Here my refuter maketh me to argue thus culling out one part of my argumentation from the rest Iames was ordayned Bishop by the Apostles therefore the Apostles ordayned Bishops And then denieth the consequence because though Iames being an Apostle had Episcopall power in respect of ordination and iurisdiction yet it would not follow that the Apostles ordayned Diocesan Bishops in other Churches But my argument is an induction standing thus The Apostles ordayned BB. at Ierusalem and in other Churches which afterwards particularly I doe enumerate therefore they ordayned BB. That they ordayned BB. at Ierusalem I proue because they ordayned Iames the Iust and Simon the sonne of Cleophas BB. of Ierusalem That they ordayned Iames B. of Ierusalem I proue in this section That they ordained Simon the sonne of Cleophas B. of Ierusalem and Bishops in other Churches I proue afterwards according to the order of time Beginning here with Ierusalem because that Church had first a Bishop Now that Iames was by the Apostles made B. of Ierusalem I proue by these testimonies first of Ierome whose words are these Iames who is called the brother of our Lord fâ—â—named the iust straight wayes after the passion of our Lord was ordayned by the Apostles the Bishop of Ierusalem This is that Ierome on whose onely authoritie almost the Disciplinarians in this cause relye alledging out of him that Bishops were not ordayned till after the Apostles times Secondly of Eusebius and of the most ancient histories of the Church whose testimonies he citeth to this purpose first therefore he saith in generall that the histories before his time did report that to Iames the brother of our Lord surnamed the iust the throne of the Bishopricke of the Church in Ierusalem was first committed Then particularly he citeth Clemens Alexandrinus testifying that Iames Peter and Iohn after the ascension of our Sauiour did choose Iames the iust Bishop of Ierusalem Afterwards Hegesippus who was nere the Apostles times as Ierome speaketh being as Eusebius saith in the very first succession of the Apostles to the like purpose Eusebius himselfe in his Chronicle translated by Ierome hath these words Iames the brother of our Lord is by the Apostles made the first Bishop of Ierusalem Againe in his history he not onely saith that Iames called the brother of our Lord was the first Bishop of Ierusâ—â—em but also testifieth vpon his knowledge that the Episcopall throne or chaire wherein Iames sate as Bishop of Ierusalem and wherein all the BB. of that See succeeded him was yet in his time to be seene being preserued as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a worthy and sacred monument And finally both in his historie and Chronicle he setteth down the succession of the Bishops of Ierusalem from Iames vnto Macarius whom he noteth to haue been the thirtie ninth Bishop of Ierusalem reckoning Iames the first and Simon the second and Iustus the third Zacheus the fourth c. Epiphanius also testifieth that Iames the Lords brother was
be doubted but that each of these had Bishops to their successours euen in the Apostles times as before hath beene shewed and therefore the refuter should not make it so strange that Bishops were the successours of Timothie and Titus Serm. Sect. 8. pag. 75. Against this two things are obiected first that Timothie and Titus may seeme not to haue beene appointed BB. of Ephesus and Creet because they did not continue there but were remoued to other places c. to other in Creet pag. 78. The first obiection is thus framed by the Refuter Timothie and Titus did not continue in Ephesus and Creet but were remoued to other places Therefore Timothie and Titus were not ordayned Bishops of Ephesus and Creet I answere by distinction For if by continuing they vnderstand as the words seeme to import a perpetuall residence without remouing or trauelling thence vpon any occasion then I denie the consequence or proposition which is vnderstood For by no law either of God or man are Bishops or other Pastors so affixed to their cures but that vpon speciall and extraordinarie occasion they may either for their owne necessitie or for the greater or more publicke good of the Church trauaile or remoue to other places It is sufficient that they be ordinarily resident vpon their charge If by continuing be meant ordinarie residence then I denie the antecedent and doe contrariwise affirme that although vpon speciall and extraordinary occasions they were by the Apostle called to other places as his or the Churches necessity required yet these were the places of their ordinary residence And that I proue because they both liued and died there That they continued or had their ordinary abode there in their life time I proue by testimony of Scripture and other euidence For if Paul required Timothie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to continue or abide still in Ephesus and appointed Titus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to continue to redresse vvhat vvas vvanting in Creet then vvere they to continue or haue their ordinarie residence there But the antecedent is true in both the parts thereof Therefore the consequent The Refuter denieth the consequence to be of any force vnlesse first it could be proued that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a perpetuall abiding in a place without departing from it all a mans life vvhich needeth not seeing ordinarie residence which is meant by that terme which is required in BB. ordinarie Pastors may be without such perpetuall abiding Secondly except 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be vnderstood also for the whole terme of life But it sufficeth that it signifieth to continue in redressing as the Geneua translation also readeth For thereby is meant as I said that hee was not left there for a brunt but that he should as things were defectiue or wanting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 continue to redresse them and still keepe that Church in reparation For though the Church were new as the Refuter obiecteth to signifie that it should not need any reparation yet were the Bishops and Presbyters subiect to death and the places of them which dyed were to be supplied and the Church subiect to personall corruptions both for doctrine discipline manners which would need reformation And whereas their opinion who imagine that Timothie was required to stay at Ephesus but for a short time when Paul went into Macedony Act. 20. is contrary to that former testimony concerning Timothie I shew that in all the iourneyes of Paul into Macedony mentioned in the Acts Timothie did accompany him And therefore that this voyage of Paul was after his first being at Rome with which the Acts of the Apostles end not mentioning any of his trauels and other occurrents which afterwards happened for the space of nine or tenne yeares The Acts of which time cannot otherwise be knowne but by such of his Epistles as were written in that time and other monuments of antiquity The which passage though the Refuter hath passed by in silence I thought good to put the Reader in minde of that he may acknowledge many things to haue beene done by the Apostles which are registred in other records of anitquity though they be not mentioned in the history of the Acts of the Apostles which endeth vvith those things which happened aboue fourty yeares before the death of S. Iohn Now the Acts of the Apostles which were performed after S. Lukes history thereof were in part recorded by Hegesippus and Clemens and other auncient Authors which testifie that Paul ordayned Timothie B. of Ephesus and Titus of Creet and that he and other Apostles appointed other Bishops in other places Whose testimonies whosoeuer doe refuse to beleiue doe themselues deserue no credit To those allegations therefore out of Paul I added the credible testimony of diuers Authors viz. Dorotheus in synopsi Hieron siue Sophron. in Catalogo in Tito Isidorus de vita morte sanctorum Num. 87. 88. Vincent lib. 10. c. 38. Antonius ex Policrate part 1. tit 6. c. 28. Niceph. l. 10. c. 11. Who report that Timothie and Titus as they liued so also dyed the one at Ephesus the other in Creet The Refuter answereth he may well credit the report of these Authors and yet not grant that therefore they were Diocesan Bishops of those places Indeed if I had argued thus as the Refuter would haue the Reader thinke Timothie and Titus dyed the one at Ephesus the other in Creet Therefore they were BB. there it had beene a loose consequence But he wrangleth besides the pupose It was obiected that Timothie and Titus were not Bishops of those places because they did not continue there I proue that they held their ordinary residence there not onely because S. Paul required them both to continue there but other Authors also testified that they both liued and died there The Refuter answereth and would haue the Reader content himselfe with this answere that howsoeuer indeed it is true that they continued there yet hereof it followeth not that they were Diocesan Bishops of those places Yea but saith he it would be obserued that M. D. granteth the consequence to be good namely that they were not Bishops of Ephesus and Creet if they did not continue there but were remoued to other places Now that they were remoued himselfe confesseth c. If I had confessed that they were remoued and also that if they were remoued they were not Bishops Then I should haue granted both the antecedent of the Enthymeme which hee said before that I denyed and also the consequence But indeed I denyed the consequence in that sence which the Refuter conceiueth and yet granted that though they were sometimes remoued yet they kept ordinary residence the one at Ephesus the other in Creet And therefore their trauelling or remouing vpon extraordinary occasions doth not hinder their being BB. Doe you indeed grant that sometimes they were remoued marry that will I proue saith the
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
authority and consent of the Apostles This generall decree was made in the Apostles times Therefore not without their authority and consent The assumption I proue thus This generall decree in the whole world was made either in the Apostles times or neare their times But not neare their times for there could no such generall decree be made without a generall Councill And there was no generall councill before the councill of Nice before which councill there were not onely Diocesan and Metropolitane Bishops but also Patriarches The Refuter answereth that Ieromes words deceiue mee For though Ierome saith it was decreed yet he doth not meane that it was decreed but that it came from custome and that paulatim by little and little The Refuters answere therefore maketh Ierome to contradict himselfe whose speeches notwithstanding are thus reconciled For that which hee there calleth custome in another place hee termeth an Apostolicall tradition and the Apostolicall tradition is that vniuersall decree which hee speaketh of And vvhere Ierome saith by little and little that the rootes of discension might be plucked vp the whole care was committed to one that is to be vnderstood thus that although it were agreed vpon at once and decreed to be put in practise in the vvhole vvorld yet it vvas not practised at once in the whole world but first in one Church as at Ierusalem after in Antioch then in Rome after in Alexandria in all which Churches not onely the first Bishops were ordayned in the Apostles times but their successours also and that by the testimonie of Ierome himselfe as followeth in the next proofe For hauing thus shewed in generall both the time and place out of Ierome when and where Bishops were ordayned that is to say in the Apostles times in the whole world and consequently that they were ordayned by the Apostles in the next place I declare more particularly out of Ierome that by the Apostles Bishops were first ordayned noting also the persons whom and the places where and the time when they ordayned Bishops Doth not Ierome plainely testifie that Iames was by the Apostles ordayned Bishop of Ierusalem before their departure thence that when hee had gouerned that Church 30. yeares Simon his brother or kinsman succeeded him in the Bishopricke who liuing vntill he was 120. yeares old was crucified vnder Traiane Doth not he witnesse that Ignatius was the third Bishop of Antioch in the Apostles times that Marke was the first Bishop of Alexandria and that he dying at Alexandria in the eight of Nero that is foure or fiue yeares before the death of Peter and Paul Anianus succâ—eded him Doth he not say that Clâ—mens was the fourth Bishop of Rome after Peter For saith he Linus was the second Anacletus the third all in the Apostles times Doth hee not expresly testifie that Polycarpus was S. Iohns Disciple and by him ordayned Bishop of Smyrna and is it not testified in the same Catalogue that Timothie was of blessed Paul ordayned B. of the Ephesians and that Titus was B. of Creet Hereunto the Refuter maketh an answere like himselfe that hee hath often told me that Iames Marke and Timothie neither were nor might be Bishops And I haue often tolde him of his poore shifts whereof this is one For the question being here not whether these men simply were Bishops or not but whether Ierome saith so or no I hauing alledged plaine testimonies of Ierome auerring that they were Bishops he in steed of maintayning his assertion which was that Ierome testifieth Bishops not to haue beene ordayned vntill after the Apostles times giueth Ierome the lye but answereth not to the point For if Ierome testifie that these men were Bishops in the Apostles times how is not he ashamed to say that in Ieromes opinion there were no Bishops in the Apostles times And where he saith that Polycarpe and the like no doubt would say of Linus and Clemens and Ignatius c. was the ordinarie Pastor of that one congregation at Smyrna and no Diocesan Bishop which euasion I haue heretofore auoided I desire this answere may be compared with the next which he maketh concerning the end The end saith Ierome was to auoid Schisme and acknowledgeth that for the same end they are to be retayned professing that the safety of the Church dependeth vpon the dignitie of the Bishop to whom if a peerelesse power and eminent aboue all be not yeelded there would be as many Schismes in the Churches as Priests The Refuter answereth that some say the remedy was almost worse then the disease But first what is this to the purpose that the Refuter had rather there should be a Schisme in euery Parish then a Bishop of the Diocese it was Ieromes iudgement that I opposed to their allegation out of Ierome And if Ierome testifie that in the Apostles times Bishops vvere ordayned to auoyd Schisme and that this was a necessarie remedie insomuch that he doubteth not to say that the safety of the Church dependeth vpon it it was as much as in this place either I intended or could by the aduersarie be required Secondly where Ierome saith that Bishops were ordayned for auoyding of Schisme hee meaneth such Schisme as the Presbyters vvhom hee calleth Sacerdotes Priests would make if there were not one in euery Church set ouer them to vvhom the care of that vvhole Church should belong Novv applie the Refuters answere concerning Polycarpus which is his ordinarie answere that the first BB. were but ordinarie Pastors of one congregation such as wee call Rectors or Pastors of seuerall parishes Were such ordained to auoide schisme among priests or were not such the priests whose schisme was to be auoided by setting one B. in euery diocese ouer them or could the refuter thinke that the ordaining of such ordinarie pastors was a remedie worse then the disease is it not therefore cleare that the Bishops whom Ierome acknowledgeth to haue beene in the Apostles times were not ordinarie Pastors of seuerall congregations or parishes equall to other Presbyters but one in euery diocese set in a superiour degree aboue the rest to preserue them in vnitie and to keepe them from schisme Thirdly where to the iudgement of Ierome he opposeth the testimonie of others who say the remedie was almost worse then the disease because this superioritie of BB. did breed the Papacy this sheweth that great and sound Dâ—uines sometimes let fall especiallie when they write 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnsound speeches grounded on weake proofes For how is it prouâ—â— that the superioritie of Bishops did breed the supremacie of the Pope Because as at the first one Presbyter was before the rest and made a Bishop so afterwards one B. was preferred aboue the rest so this custome bred the Pope and his Monarchy By which reason all superioritie should be condemned as the originall of the Popes supremacie For might not a man
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
and Presbyter were at the first all one yet professeth that the safety of the Church dependeth vpon the dignity of the Bishop c. Hauing passed by these two hee professeth to begin with Wickliffe whom hee would faine haue the Reader beleeue to haue beene a Marprelate or an oppugner of the superiority of Bishops But howsoeuer either Papists through malice or Protestants for want of information haue in some points so conceiued of him of both which sorts the refuter quoteth some yet those who haue perused his writings protest that not onely for doctrine but also for discipline hee was wholy conformable to the present Church of England approuing the gouernment of Archbishops Bishops and Archdeacons c. And whereas the Rhemists obiect against Wickliffe that he had renued the heresie of Aerius D. Fulke answereth thus It appeareth by many places of Wickliffe his works and namely in his Homily on Phil. 1. that he acknowledged the distinction of Bishops and Priests for order and gouernment although for doctrine and administration of the Sacraments they are all one Indeed in the booke of Martyrs where be eighteene articles obiected against Wickliffe though neither the twelfth article which the Refuter mentioneth nor that which Pighius obiecteth against him is contayned in that number the which articles he explaneth Among which the fifteenth is this that euery Priest rightly and duely ordered according to the law of grace hath power according to his vocation whereby he may minister the Sacraments and consequently absolue any man confessing his fault being contrite and penitent for the same Which article when he came to expound hee gaue this reason because that the order of Priesthood in his owne nature and substance receiueth no such degrees either of more or lesse And yet notwithstanding the power of inferiour Priests in these dayes be vpon due consideration restrayned and sometimes againe in time of extreame necessitie released And thus according to the Doctors a Prelate hath a double power to wit the power of order and the power of Iurisdiction or regiment And according to the second power the Prelates are in an higher maiestie and regiment Thus haue I recited word for word what is set downe in the booke of Martyrs the words whereof the Refuter depraueth making Wickliffe to say the order of Priesthood receiueth no degrees of more or lesse howsoeuer the Doctors say that the Prelate hath a double power c. Whereby he would make the Reader beleeue that he differed from those Doctors with whom he doth agree affirming as many others haue done who notwithstanding allowed of the superiority of Bishops that in the power of order all Priests are equall though Bishops haue also the power of Iurisdiction wherein they are superiour to other Priests To the same purpose is alledged his assertion of two orders Priests and Deacons which the Papists themselues holde diuiding Priests â—nto Maiores which be Bishops and Minores which be Presbyters Why he quoteth Bales centuries I know not vnlesse it were to shew his more exquisite reading then other mens hauing belike read there something concerning this cause which no man else is able to read or to finde But I had almost forgotten his first allegation which the Refuter pretending such plenty might well haue omitted as impertinent For though he enuied against the excessiue lordlinesse and tirannicall domination of the Popish Bishops Yet doth it not proue that he was an enemie to the superiority of Bishops or the substance of their calling And whereas with Wickliffe hee ioyneth the Waldenses whose opinion he doth not cite but by the report of Pighius it is euident by the booke of Martyrs in their story that they acknowledged these three degrees Bishops Priests and Deacons Artic. 7. And therefore is vntruly layd to their charge by Aeneas Syluius that they held no difference of degrees among Priests vnlesse perhaps by Priests be meant Bishops The next is Iohn Hus saith the Refuter who was charged by the Pope and his officers to erre First in that he held not nor allowed that by the Church was meant the Pope Cardinals Archbishops and Clergie vnderneath them but affirmed that signification to be drawne out of the Schoole-men Secondly that he auouched all Priests to be of like power and therefore the reseruation of the Bishops casualties order of Bishops and consecration of Clerks was inuented onely for couetousnesse Thirdly that he held that euery man hath authority to inuest men into the cure of soules Whereto I answere first that these articles were indeed exhibited against him to the Pope by Michael de Causis but I doe not read that either he acknowledged them to be true or that he was condemned for them Secondly in the book of Martyrs and also in his Story prefixed before his works it is said that of the articles which were obiected against him there were but a few which he acknowledged to be true This therefore is the refuters argument Iohn Hus was accused by his malicious aduersaries who made no conscience of accusing him falsly that hee held all these articles therefore all these were his opinions But if it be sufficient to accuse as the Emperour said who can be innocent the godlyest Martyrs neuer wanted accusers whom if the refuter should therfore pronounce guilty of those matters whereof they were accused he should shew himselfe a wise man But so he dealeth with Iohn Hus he was accused of these opinions therefore he held them Wherfore he must either proue that Hus did acknowledge them to be true or else what doth hee but subscribe to the accusations of his malicious accusers against him But suppose the first of these three were his what will the refuter inferre thereof he did not hold nor allowe that by the Church was meant the Pope Cardinalls Archbishops and Clergie vnderneath them therefore hee did not allowe the calling of Orthodoxall Bishops Michael de Causis his accuser for this article quoteth his booke de Ecclesia where I finde this assertion by the allegation whereof you may guesse how he was vsed in the rest that the Pope of Rome with his Cardinalls is not the whole body of the vniuersall Church but a part and that the Pope is not the head thereof but Christ. The which assertion hee opposeth against the sayings of some Doctors who held first that the Romane Church is the Church vniuersall that of the Church of Rome the Pope is the head and the colledge of Cardinalls the body Which assertion if you shall compare with his aduersaries allegation and apply to the refuters purpose you shall perceiue the malice of the one and folly of the other For the second article his accuser doth not quote any of his bookes but saith thus aliqualiter patet iste articulus ex praedictis this article after a sort may be gathered out of the precedent articles wherein there is
no such matter contayned The third he proueth by Husses fact because in the kingdome of Boheme many by him and his fauourers and abetters haue beene thrust into Parish Churches which they a good while ruled without the institution of the See Apostolicke and also of the ordinary of the City of Prage Whether Hus did this or no it is questionable but if there had beene Orthodoxall Bishops by whose authority faithfull Ministers might haue beene instituted without question he would neuer haue attempted any such enterprise But hee held the Popish Clergy to be Antichristian and therefore did as he did Otherwise for the function it selfe of Bishops he saith plainely more then once that the rest of the Apostles had equall honour and power with Peter and that when they deceased the Bishops did succeede in their place And that all Bishops of Christs Church following Christ in manners are the true Vicars of the Apostles And out of Ierome that all Bishops are the Apostles successours And approueth that saying of Bede as no man doubteth but the twelue Apostles did premonstrate the forme of Bishops So the seauenty two did beare the figure of the Presbyters and second order of Priests And thus much of Iohn Hus to whom the refuter ioyneth Ierome of Prage who iustifieth the doctrine of Wickliffe and Hus against the pompe and state of the Clergie Which if he had done he had spoken neuer a word in disallowance of the Episcopall function But that word state is foisted in by the refuter who alledgeth almost nothing truely His words were these whatsoeuer things M. Iohn Hus and Wickliffe had holden or written specially against the abuse and pompe of the Clergy he would affirme euen vnto the death And againe that all such articles as Iohn Wickliffe and Iohn Hus had written and put forth against the enormities pomp and disorder of the Prelates he would firmely hold and defend And persisting still in the praise of Iohn Hus hee added moreouer that hee neuer maintayned any doctrine against the state of the Church but onely spake against the abuses of the Clergy against the pride pompe and excesse of the Prelates For it was a greife to that good man saith he to see the Patrimonies of Churches mispent and cast away vpon harlots great feastings and keeping of horses and dogges vpon gorgeous apparrell and such other things vnbeseeming Christian religion And againe I take God to my witnesse that I doe beleiue and hold all the articles of the faith as the holy Catholicke Church doth hold and beleiue the same but for this cause shall I now be condemned for that I will not consent with you vnto the condemnation of those most holy and blessed men aforesaid vvhom you haue most wickedly condemned for certaine articles detesting and abhorring your wicked and abhominable life Whereby it is apparant that both hee and they did not speake against the function or calling of Bishops but against the personall abuses and enormities of the Popish Bishops which none but a viperous broode would apply to the persons of our Bishops and much lesse against their sacred function After them ariseth Martin Luther saith the refuter whose sayings hee quoteth in his booke against Popish Bishops of priuate Masse and against the Papacie c. But for the first of these Luther himselfe hath giuen vs this caueat Let no man thinke that what is spoken against these tyrants is spoken against the Ecclesiasticall state and true Bishops or good Pastors Let no man thinke that what is said or done against these sluggish beasts and slowe bellies is said or done against the heads of the Christian Church And howsoeuer in the heate of his zeale against these Antichristian Bishops hee vttered some things vvhich seeme preiudiciall to the calling yet you haue heard it testified before by sufficient vvitnesses that in his iudgement hee allowed the gouernment of Bishoppes Whereunto adde the testimony of Camerarius that Melancthon non modò ad stipulatore sed etiam authore ipso Luthero not onely by the consent but aduise of Luther perswaded that if Bishops would grant free vse of the true doctrine the ordinary power and administration ouer their seuerall Dioceses should be restored vnto them The like may be said of Zuinglius For he that professeth as Zuinglius doth in the booke before cited that Iames was B. of Ierusalem Philippe of Caesarea Timothie of Ephesus cannot lightly speake against the Episcopall function it selfe If he speake against the Popish Clergy for arrogating the name Church to themselues what is that to the purpose or if he affirme that euery seuerall congregation according to the phrase of the Scriptures is a Church who denieth it or if hee inueigh against the sole and supreme power of Bishops whom doth this touch but the Pope Oecolampadius might be of opinion that the Church was gouerned by onely gouerning-Elders and perswade the Senate of Basill who had no Bishop that such may be chosen to assist their Pastor and yet notwithstanding not disallowe the gouernment of Bishops Caluin Zanchius and other learned men haue said and done as much who notwithstanding approued the Episcopall function And as Melancthon was of Ieromes iudgement that Bishop and Presbyter at the first was all one so with Ierome he doth allowe the superiority of Bishops and where the Episcopall gouernment was ouerthrowne he sought to restore it as you haue heard before and did restore it as may appeare by these testimonies You will not beleeue saith he writing to Luther how greatly they of Noricum and some others doe hate me propter restitutam Episcopis iurisdictionem for restoring the iurisdiction to Bishops Againe some are wonderfully angry with me because I seeme to restore the dominion of Bishops Camerarius also reporteth how inhumanely some accused Philip for maintaining of Bishops c. Where hee alleadgeth Master Tindall affirming that in the Apostles times an Elder and a Bishop were all one c he doth but play with names which no man denyeth to haue been confounded so he saith all that were called Elders or Priests if they so wel were called BB. also though they haue diuided the names now Yea but in his booke of the obedience of a Christian man he saith that a B. is the ouerseer but of a parish and is to preach the word of God vnto a parish and for the same to chalenge an honest liuing of the parish This allegation the refuter hath notably wrenched For Tindals words be these by the authoritie of the Gospell they that preach the word of God in euery parish and performe other necessary ministeries haue right to chalenge an honest liuing For Tindall speaketh of such a B. as was but a Presbyter and saith that hee which preached the word in euery Parish should haue an honest liuing the refuter citeth him as saying that a B.