offices and to the Councell of Carthage Ambrose therefore saith that the Bishop must not be offended if either a Presbyter or Deacon or any other of the Clergie doe by mercy fasting integritie learning or reading obtaine great estimation Gratia enim ecclesiae laus Doctoris est for the grace of the Church is the Doctors that is the Bishops praise But if any doe not obey the Bishop and desiring to aduance himselfe seeketh aâ— counterfeit affectation of learning humilitie or mercy he is lifted vp with pride going astray from the truth In the Councell of Carthage it was decreed that the people which neuer had a Bishop of their owne should not haue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Doctor or Teacher of their owne that is a Bishop for so is the title of that chapter that the parts of the Diocesse without the consent of the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should not receiue another Bishop But hereupon we may not inferre with T. C. that therefore the Presbyteri mentioned in the Councells Fathers and histories of the Church were no Ministers or that by the word of God they had nothing to doe with the word and Sacraments Farre be it from vs so to thinke for nothing is more euident then that they were Ministers The Fathers knew no Lay-Presbyters nor Lay-Deacons no more then Lay-Bishops but reckoned these three for sacred or consecrated persons calling them three degrees of the Clergie the Bishop answering to the high Priest the Presbyters to the Priests and the Deacons to the Leuites For proofe whereof there are almost as many euidences in the Canons of the councells as there be leaues But that it may most clearely appeare that the Presbyters were Ministers I will proue it first by their name SecoÌ„dly by their office thirdly by some lawes that peculiarly concerned them For their name as they are most vsually called Presbyters so oftentimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Sacerdotes and these names confounded with Presbyteri that is Priests In the Councell of Carthage continencie is committed to Bishops Presbyters Deacons as it becommeth holy Bishops Priests and Leuits Tertullian reprouing the disorder of Hereticks saith among them hodie Presbyter qui cras laicus nam laicis Sacerdotalia munera iniungunt he is to day a Presbyter who to morrow is a lay-man for euen to lay-men doe they inioyne priestly functions Cyprian speaking of Numidiuns to be chosen a Presbyter saith he was reserâ—ed that God might adde him to our Clergy and that he might adorne the decayed store of certaine Presbyters with glorious Priests And more plainely in another place he saith that the Presbyters are ioyned with the Bishops in priestly honour Dionysius termed the Areopagite insteed of Bishop Presbyter and Deacon into which three he distinguisheth the Clergie vseth the names 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Presbyters and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Deacons Sozomen also calleth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Priests Isidorus those who in the old Testament were called Sacerdotes are they who who are called Presbyteri And then hee setteth downe their office That to them is committed the dispensation of diuine mysteries they rule the Church and in the consecration of the body and blood of Christ are partners with the Bishops as also in teaching the people and office of preaching The Ancient Councell of Ancyra permitting the Presbyters who hauing once sacrificed did after refuse to retaine their place notwithstanding suspendeth them from the exercise of their function in these respects forbidding them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to offer the communion to preach or to minister in any part diuine seruice The learned Author of the vnfinished worke which goeth vnder the name of Chrysostome by the seruant which receiued fiue talents and gained other fiue vnderstandeth a Presbyter sent of God whome he calleth sometimes Teacher and sometimes Priest and sheweth how by his fiue talents he gaineth other fiue that is by the knowledge of Christ as a talent committed to him a godly life by the office of a Presbyter the careful gouernement of the Church by the word the sincere preaching of the word of truth by baptisme the begetting of worthy children to the Church by the sacrifice the offering of an holy and immaculate sacrifice for the people and making intercession for their sinnes More particularly for the ministerie of the Sacraments the Councell of Laodicâ—a determined that those which returned from the heresie of the Cataphrygians though of the Clergie among them though supposed great men must with all diligence be instructed and baptized either of the Bishops or Presbyters of the Church Tertullian saith the chiefe Priest which is the Bishop hath right to giue baptisme then Presbyters Deacons c. In the Canons called the Apostles in diuerse Councells it is presupposed that to Presbyters it belongeth to administer the coÌ„munion In the Councell of Nice the Deacons who are there said to haue no power to celebrate the Communion are forbidden to deliuer it to the Presbyter who hath power but must receiue it either at the Bishops or Presbyters hands To omit other of the Fathers doth not Ierome expressely testifie that the Presbyters prayers the body and blood of Christ are consecrated For the Leiturgie or saying of diuine seruice it is reckoned among the functions both of Presbyters and Deacons and such Presbyters or Deacons as without the consent of their Bishop doe remoue to other Churches and refuse to returne when they are called by their B. are forbidden 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to minister or serue any more As for the ministery of the word though Presbyters were for a time by reason of Arrius his fall restrained from preaching yet both before and after they were allowed to preach Among their functions as you heard the Councell of Ancyra reckoneth preaching The 58. Canon of the Apostles so called requireth them to instruct not onely the laitie but the Clergie also Ignatius requireth them to feede the flocke Origen testifieth that all BB. and all Presbyters or Ministers erudiunt nos do instruct vs c. Basil saith that to them and to Deacons in committed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the preaching of the Gospel Caluin speaking of the primitiue Church saith it was the dutie in those times of the Bishop as wel as of the Presbyters to apply themselues to the ministerie of the word and Sacraments Chrysost. hauing affirmed that there is no great differeÌ„ce betweene a Bishop and a Presbyter rendreth this reason for they also haue receiued 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 authoritie to teach 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gouernement of the Church and what things the Apostle hath said concerning Bishops doe agreâ— also to Presbyters In them therefore it is required that they should be 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
his booke doe plainely bewray that hee doth not knowe what is the hypothesis or thing presupposed in a connexiue proposition The which that hee may know heere after let him dispose his connexiue proposition in an enthymeme and what part of the syllogisme is wanting let him vnderstand that to be presupposed as the hypothesis whereon that consequence is grounded And if that hypothesis bee false let him know that the consequence is naught But if it bee true as alwaies it is in their argumentations who do not dispute sophistically for they presuppose and take for granted nothing but that which in their opinion is certaine and manifest then is the consequence necessary As for example let his connexiue proposition be disposed in this Eâ—thymeme The 7. churches contained within their circuit not onely the Cities but the countries adioining Therefore the seuen Churches were dioceses That which is presupposed in this consequence is the proposition of the syllogisme which is vnderstood viz. Churches which within their circuit contained not onelie cities but the countries adioyning were dioceses Which being a certaine and manifest truth the consequence was necessary But if I should say thus Churches whose circuit contained both cities and countreys adioyning were dioceses Therfore the 7. churches were dioceses in this consequence the assumption were presupposed viz. that the circuit of euerie of the seuen churches contained both the citie and country adioyning Which parts of Syllogismes omitted in Enthymemes if the refuter would adde to make vp a simple syllogisme either in his arguing or analysing hee might spare both himselfe and his aduersary a great deale of superfluous trouble about his consequences Hee must therefore vnlearne that art if he would not be accounted a trifler of flinging all arguments into a connexiue Syllogisme that hee may haue a consequence to cauill with But so farre is the proposition which hee propounded from presupposing that all Churches in the world were great and ample Cities that it doth not so much as presuppose those seuen in Asia which it mentioneth to be such That is not presuppoâ—ed in the proposition but is assumed or affirmed in the Assumption Nothing is presupposed in the Consequence of the proposition but the simple proposition which I said was the hypothesis thereof If it be â—aid that what I say of the seuen churches I would haue vnderstood of all other churches and so seeme to presuppose though not in my proposition yet in my argumentation that which the Refuter doth obiect I answere that as in other places I am not to bee blamed for concluding from other Churches to these seuen so neither here for concluding from these seuen to all others For the forme and constitution of all the Primitiue Churches being one and the same as the Refuter confesseth it is euident that what is truely said of other Primitiue churches in respect of their constitution is verified of these seuen And what is verified of these seuen may bee truely affirmed of the rest Not that all churches had within their circuit great and ample Cities that was spoken concerning fiue of these in Asia it is sufficient that they had Cities with the countries adioining And so had all Churches which had a Bishop and a Presbytery or were as you speake and meane indued with power of Ecclesiasticall gouernement Neither can you giue instance in any one to the contrary Yes that they can T. C. hath an instance this disputer also hath one instance pag. 57. and one in this place and in some others And yet all is but this Some church was not a City as for example Cenchrea He might haue said Cenchrea Their reason is thus explicated Cenchreae was not a City Cenchreae was a Church Therefore some Church was not a City J distinguish of the word Church For I denie not but the company of Presbyters in a family is a Church much more in a village or towne But the question is of such a church as had a Bishop assisted with a Presbytery and had as they speake the power of Ecclesiasticall gouernement Such a Church was seated onely in Cities or great towns answerable to Cities And therefore if they meane as they doe or else they might aswell hold their peace that in Cenchreae was such a Church I deny the assumption Cenchreae was subiect to the church of Corinth as al other towns thereabouts and neuer had a Bishoppe or a Presbytery of her owne Yea but she had a Deacon Suppose that were so what then seuerall Deacons and seuerall Presbyters were placed in parish Churches where was neither B. nor Presbytery nor the power which they speake of of Ecclesiasticall gouernment And yet their Deacon was but a Diaconisse namely Phoebe Of whom also it may be doubted whether Paul calleth her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that ministred to the Church in Cenchreae in respect of an office imposed vpon her to minister to the needy to entertaine strangers on the churches cost or in regard of her voluntary ministring to the faithful there of her own substance For if she were as Bullinger and diuers before him report nobilissima ditissima foemina a most noble and most wealthy woman it is not like that she was a widow maintained of the church but one which like to Mary Ioanna Chusa Susanna mentioned in the Gospell which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ministred to Christ of their goods did maintaine and relieue the poore of the Church there and giue entertainement to Christian trauellers of her owne cost In which respect Paul saith of her that she had been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a patronesse of many yea of the Apostle himselfe Neither is it likely that a widdow maintained of the church as hauing little or nothing of her owne should haue such busines in Rome or as it is thought at the Emperours Court as that the Apostle should write to the faithfull in Rome to assist her in her affaires But it may be you desire to heare some further reason of his deniall of that consequence you shal heare it For saith he though it were granted that these 7. were great Cities the Countries adioyning â—et there might be diuers others which were small c. See you not how he seeketh about for starting holes What if there were and that is more theÌ„ might be other smal churches as indeed there was none such as we speak of but they were seated in the Cities neither was any so small but if it were indued with power of ecclesiastical gouernment it was of the same constitution with those which were greater What is that to this consequence If these Churches contained ech of them not onely the City but the country adioining then they were not Parishes properly but Dioceses His answere if it bee well weighed is an exception against the conclusion As if hee should say though I would fain wrangle with your propositioÌ„ but caÌ„not for how is it
in his throne In which throne of Iames reserued as Eusebius saith till his time the BB. of Ierusalem hauing the honour of Patriarches did succeed As touching Alexandria it is euident by that which before hath been shewed that Eusebius speaking of the Bishop there calleth him sometime the Bishop of the Church or paroecia sometimes of the Churches or paroeciae belonging to Alexandria and all in one and the same sense which plainely sheweth that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hee doth not meane that which we call a parish Which wil then better appeare when I shall proue that from Saint Marks time there were more Churches or parishes there and yet but one Church and one Bishop But suppose it were granted him that each of the Churches for a time did not exceed for their number the proportion of an ordinary congregation yet this would not proue them to haue been parishes as hath been shewed Thus and thus weakely to vse his owne words the Disputer hauing prooued his cause notwithstanding concludeth with a stout brag Now let any man iudge whether M.D. hath better proued that the Churches in those times were dioceses or I that they were parishes So say I let any man now iudge who is of iudgement and if there be any comparison betweene the plaine euidence which I haue brought and his slender proofes let me be taken for a man of no iudgement Yea but saith hee the worst is still behinde for his cause indeed but to mine aduantage For if there were not onely diocesan but also prouinciall Churches and that within the first two hundred yeeres then is it absurd to imagine that there were no Churches but parishional Neither did or doth the being of prouinciall Churches hinder dioceses or diocesan BB. These be the shallow conceipts of this disputer and his fellow challengers of disputation First that euery visible Church hath a sufficient and independent authority immediately deriued from Christ for the gouerâ—â—ent of it selfe in al causes ecclesiasticall Secondly that euery parish is or ought to be such a Church From the former of these this disputer seemeth to inferre that if diocesan Churches and BB. be subordinate to the prouinciall Churches and BB that then the prouinciall be the onely Churches And by the same reason when the prouinces were subiect to the Patriarches none but patriarchall Chuches as that of Rome Constantinople Alexandria Antioch and Ierusalem were to be esteemed Churches But let vs heare the disputer Admit the Churches were then diocesan what is that to vs who haue none such in these daies if G.P. say true And how is this proued because he saith the BB. of either prouince in England are Suffraganes or rather Curates to the two Arch-bishoppes in their seuerall prouinces euen their deputies exercising ecclesiastical iurisdiction from and vnder them It shall not be amisse therefore for M.D. to confute him the next time he writeth In the meane time you should haue answered for your selues and not put off the confutation of his reioynder to others But though you cannot confute him yet you can abuse him as by reuiling and scornefull termes in other places of your booke so here by notorious falsifying of his words For where doth he say that our Bishops bee but Suffraganes or Curates to the two Arch-bishoppes as you without shame or conscience doe belie him saith hee or meaneth he any more but this that during the time of the Archiepiscopal visitation wherby the iurisdiction of the Ordinary is suspended that ecclesiasticall iurisdiction which he practiseth he doth exercise from and vnder the Archbishop as his deputy And what is this to our purpose Yea but If we may iudge saith our Disputer by the outward practise we haue onely two Churches and they are prouinciall the one of Canterbury the other of Yorke vnsubordinate either to other or to any other ecclesiasticall power and so entire Churches such as hee would haue euery parish to be Heere by the way let the Reader iudge with what conscience the Refuter hath so oft obiected against our Bishoppes that they be petite popes hauing sole and supreme authority seeing now himselfe confesseth that according to the order and discipline of our Church they are subiect to the Metropolitanes But to the point none of these things which hee obiecteth doe hinder the being of dioceses or diocesan Bishoppes no not though they had been by G.P. called the Archbishoppes Suffraganes For whereas the Bishoppes haue been by authors which haue written within these nine hundred yeeres called Suffraganes to the Archbishoppes they meane thereby comprouinciall Bishoppes who in the election of the Metropolitanes and in the prouinciall synods held by the Metropolitanes did giue their suffrages with them not that they bee such as commonly we call Suffraganes but are as absolute Bishoppes as haue been since the first appointment of Metropolitanes and they were actually acknowledged as they were at the first intended so soone as the diuers cities of one prouince had their Bishops In all which as there was consociation among themselues as being all of one body so also subordination to the Bishop of the Metropolis or mother Citie as being their head Thus was it prouided in the canons which for their antiquity are called the Apostles canons that the Bishops of euery nation must acknowledge him that in the first or primate among them and esteeme him as the head and that they should doe nothing exceeding the bounds of their owne iurisdiction without his consent And that euery one may doe those things alone which belong to his owne Church and the Countries which bee vnder it Neither may hee meaning the Primate doe any thing without the consent of all The same is repeated and explaned as yee heard before in the Councell of Antioch calling the Primate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bishoppe which gouerneth in the mother Citie appointing him to haue the care of the whole prouince because there is concourse of men who haue businesse from all parts of the country to the mother Citie And although they forbad Bishoppes to attempt any thing beyond their compasse without his consent according to the antient canon yet they say Euery Bishoppe hath power or authority of his owne diocesse to administer or gouerne the same according to his conscience and to haue prouident care of the whole Country subiect to his Citie and to ordaine Presbyters and Deacons and to dispose of all things with iudgement It is apparant then that the being of prouinciall Churches doth not hinder the diocesan nor the authority of Metropolitanes take away the iurisdiction of diocesan Bishops Neither is any Church in the world more agreeable to the forme and gouernment of the most antient and Apostolicall Churches then this of England For at the first Metropolitanes were not subordinate to any superiour Bishoppes but were as Balsaâ—â— saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 heads by themselues of their prouinces being Bishoppes of
this distinction of Ministers is so frequent in the ancient Canons that if a man do but open the booke at all aduentures he shall not often light vpon such a place where this distinction is not to be found Jn the ancient Canons called the Apostles it is mentioned 20. times at the least in the Council of Nice 3. or 4. times in the Councill of Ancyra and Antioch often and so in the rest Which of the ancient Fathers doth not acknowledge this distinction of Ministers Ignatius as we shall heare giueth plentifull testimony to it Clement in his Epistle to Iames translated by Ruffiâ—â—â— testifieth this to haue been the Doctrine of Peter according to the institution of Christ that Presbyters should be obedient to their Bishops in all things And again that Presbyters and Deacons and others of the Clergy must take heed that they doe nothing without the licence of the Bishop Dionysius an ancient and learned writer if not the Areopagite propoundeth the same distinction vnder the names 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tertullian acknowledgeth it Orogen likewise terming the Bishop him qâ—â—totim Ecclesia aâ—cemobtinet So doth Cyprian and Cornelim and almost who not Yes saith the Refuter Anacletus and Damasâ—â—â— afformâ— there were but two degrees Bishops and Priests and Ignatius diuideth the offices of the Church into Bishops and Deacons But hauing thus as he thinketh set them and others of the Fathers togither by the eares he will not go about to part them Let them saith he agree about the matter as they can Howbeit the reconciliation is easily made For Anacletus if that were his Epistle speaketh only of Priests and of two orders of them ordained by Christ but Deacons were not called Sacerdotes as Bishops and Presbyters were Sacerdotes being vsually distinguished into maiores which be Bishops and minores which be Presbyters Neither were Deacons ordained by Christ himselfe but by the Apostles And with this distinction of Anacletus those vnsuspected fathers agree who hold that these two degrees of ministers were ordained by Christ when he appointed twelue Apostles whose successours are the Bishops and the three score and twelue Disciples whom the Presbyters succeed Now if the Bishops succeed the Apostles and the Presbyters succeed the 72. Disciples as diuers of the ancient approued Fathers do teach then it cannot be denied but that the calling of Bishops and their superioritie as also the inferior degree of Presbyters is of Christs owne institution The like is to be said of Damasus who acknowledgeth but two Orders among the Disciples in Christs time the twelue Apostles and the 70. disciples and by that reason rejecteth the Châ—râ—piscopi because they neither were Bishops as he proueth nor Presbyters as themselues pretended Among the Disciples of Christ saith he we know but two Orders that is of the twelue Apostles and soâ—mentie disciples Whence this third order is 〈◊〉 we know not As for Ignatius his testimonie is falsified In his Epistle ad Tralliâ—â—os he wisheth them To 〈…〉 without their Bishop to be subiect to their Presbyters and to please their Deacons as being the ministers of the mysteries of Christ. Againe He that doth any thing without the Bishop and the Presbyters and the Deacons such a one is without For what is the Bishop but he that hath power aboue all c. What the Presbyterie but a sacred companie counsellors and coassessors of the Bishop What the Deacons but imitators of the Angegelicall powers c. he that disobeyeth these reiecteth Christ and impeacheth his ordinance And in the end Farewell in the Lord Iesus being subiect to your Bishop and likewise to the Presbyters and Deacons His other Epistle ad Phil. is so wisely quoted that I know not whether he mean the Philippians or Philadelphians But it is no great matter whether he meane for as neither of both doth testify that for which he quoteth them so both of them doth mention the distinction of ministers into Bishops Presbyters and Deacons In the Epistle to the Philippians he exhorteth them to be subiect to the Bishop Presbyters and Deacons And towards the end he saluteth Vitalius their Bishop the sacred colledge of Presbyters and his fellow ministers the Deacons The Epistle to the Philadelphians he directeth especially to them who were one with the Bishop Presbyters and Deacons In the Epistle it selfe that al who be Christs are on the Bishops side And besides that testimony alledged in the Sermon he saith attend to the Bishop the Presbyters and Deacons To conclude in these 3. Epistles Ignatius giueth testimonie to this distinction into 3. degrees noting their callings 9. times and not once letteth any thing fal which may seeme to insinuate any such thing as the refuter alledgeth and therefore with what conscience he citeth authors let the reader iudge Now that these three orders were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 degrees it should not seeme strange seeing the Apostle vseth that word in that sense 1. Tim. 3.13 noting the Deaconship to be a degree to the Presbytery as it is with vs. Cyprian saith of Cornelius that he came to the Bishopricke not suddainly but hauing been promoted through all the Ecclesiasticall offices he ascended to the height of Priesthood by all the degrees of Religion In the Councill of Sardica it is decreed That if any rich man oâ— Rhetorician be from the court desired to be Bishop he shall not be ordained vntill he haue performed the ministry of a reader Deacon and Presbyter that so through euerie degree of he be thought worthy he may by way of promotion ascend vnto the height of Bishopricke and the degree of euery order shall haue a good time c. and he being thought worthy of the diuâ—es Priesthood shal be made partaker of the greatest honor The same Councill in their Synodicall Epistle report of the Arians that they had not only receiued thosâ— who had bin expulsed for Arianisme but also preferred them to a greater degree as from Deacons to be Presbyters and from Presbyters to be Bishops The Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon diuers times for a penaltie threaten Bishops Presbyters and Deacons with the losss of their degree And most plainly the Council of Carthage mentioneth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these three degrees 〈◊〉 Bishops Presbyters and Deacons And againe all the degrees of Clerkes from the hiest to the lowest The like testimonie to that which Cyprian gaue to Cornelius doth Nazianzen giue both to Athanasius that he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hauing gaue through all the degrees in order and hauing been in euery of them as Theodoret saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was chosen Bishop and also to Basil that he ascended to his Bishoprick by the order and law of the spirituall ascent and Socrates to Prâ—clus that he was first a
must not be taken for those that serued at the mysteries but for such as were trusted with the dispensation of the common necessities of those that were assembled togither And verily to me it seemeth more then probable that these 7. were not such as S. Paul speaketh of 1. Tim. 3. were in vse in the primitiue church being a degree inferior to Presbyters for these 7 or the most of them were as Eâ—â—phaenius others do testifie chosen out of the 70. Disciples were no doubt principall men among them full of the holy Ghost wisdom being before this ministers of Gods word For as the Apostles the chiefe and principal ministers thought it to appertain to their duty to take care of the poore so wheÌ„ the Apostles were disburdned therof that care was committed to 7 others who were chief men among the disciples Neither may it be doubted but that as Steuen was a worthy preacher so the rest wheÌ„ their teÌ„porary function at IerusaleÌ„ was ended by the dispersion of the faithful vpoÌ„ the death of Steuen gaue theÌ„selues to the preaching of the word as appeareth in Philip who was one of the 7. And wheras the Refuter saith that D. Bilson coÌ„fesseth the Deacons to haue bin only imploied in looking to the poor the coÌ„trary is euideÌ„t for speaking eueÌ„ of those 7. he collecteth by S. Pauls precepts coÌ„cerning DeacoÌ„s that their office was not only a charge to looke to the poore but also to attend the sacred assemblies seruice of the Church euen a step to the ministery of the word meaning as I suppose to the Presbytery As for those who properly are called Deacons it is most euident by innumerable testimonies that they were the third degree of the ministery whose office was a sacred ministery helping the Bishop or the Presbyter in the diuine seruice offering the bread and the cup performing as it were the office of a cryer in the Church which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in dismissing those which were to depart in commanding silence and exciting the people to deuotion and attention In the Council of Nice fault is found with Deacons who in some Cities did giue the Eucharist to the Presbyters but they are commaunded to containe themselues within their bounds knowing that they be the Bishops ministers are inferior to the Presbyters and to receiue the Communion after the Presbyters at the hands either of the Bishop or the Presbyters Iustine Martyr speaking of the Eucharist saith after the president hath giuen thanks and the people hath blessed they who with vs are called Deacons do giue and communicate to euery one that is present of the bread wine and doe carie it to those which are absent And hauing repeated the same againe he speaketh of the collections for the poore shewing that what was collected was coÌ„mitted not to the Deacon but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the President by him to be distributed Tertullian saith The chiefe Priest which is the Bishop hath the right of giuing Baptisme then the Presbyters the Deacons but yet not without the authority of the Bishop Cyprian euery where speaketh of theÌ„ as being of the sacred ministerie The ancient Councill of Eliberis hath this canon If any Deacon ruling or hauing the charge of a people without either Bishop or Presbyter baptize any those the Bishop by his blessing must accomplish The council of Carthage speaking of BB. other inferior orders which do handle the sacred mysteries reckoneth Subdeacons Deacons Presbyters Ierome hath these words If at the prayer of the Bishop alone the holy Ghost descendeth they are to be lamented who in villages and townes other remote places being baptized by Presbyters and Deacons do sleep or depart this life before they be visited of the Bishop The safetie of the Church dependeth vpon the dignitie of the chiefe Priest meaning the Bishop To whom if a power peerelesse and eminent aboue all be not giuen there will be as many schismes in the Church as Priests Hence it is that without the Chrisme which the Presbyters Deacons were wont to receiue from their own Bishop and commandement of the Bishop neither Presbyter nor Deacon hath right to baptize In the 4. Councill of Carthage which is so oft alleaged by the Disciplinarians ther is direction giueÌ„ for the ordination of the Bishop Presbyter and Deacon other of the Clergie The Deacon is taught to acknowledge himself to be the minister aswell of the Presbyter as of the Bishop The Deacon is authorized euen in the preseÌ„ce of a Presbyter if ther be necessity he be coÌ„maÌ„ded to deliuer the Eucharist of Christs body to the people to wear an Albe only in time of oblation or reading To conclude Cyprian and other of the fathers when they terme the Deacons Leuits make them answerable to the Leuits as they do the Presbyters to the Priests do euideÌ„tly declare what they thought coÌ„cerning the office of Deacons That the Presbyters were not ministers of the word the refuter proueth thus They who might not preach nor baptize nor doe any pastorall duty without the Bishops licence were not ministers The Presbyters might not preach nor baptize nor do any pastorall dutie without the Bishops licence Therefore they were not Ministers The proposition is proued by 2. reasons First because it were a mockery of a ministerie to deny Ministers power to execute their office Secondly because euery popish Priest had potestatem ordinis that is power to do all things that belong to his order First to the proposition it selfe I say it is very false and that the contradictorie in all the parts of it is true viz that they who might yea ought to preach baptize administer the Lords supper and performe any other pastorall dutie being therto licensed of the Bishop were ministers From which we may assume and conclude thus But the ancient Presbyters might yea ought to preach baptize administer the Lords supper and performe any other pastorall duties being therto authorized by the Bishop Therefore they were ministers And that the proposition is false it may appeare by the practise of our owne Church and of all the antient Churches whose Presbyters are and were Ministers as I haue sufficiently prooued before for the conuiction I doubt not of the refuters conscience and yet neither may nor might preach baptize administer the Lords Supper and performe other ministeriall functions but by leaue or authority from the Bishop Neither yet is the ministery of our clergy now nor of the Presbyters in times past a mockery because it agreeth not with his fancy but his fancy is a meere nouelty disagreeing from the generall practise of the most antient Churches For howsoeuer afterwards he malepertly chargeth mee with not vnderstanding the distinction of ecclesiasticall power in potestatem ordinis et iurisdictionis into the power of
order and iurisdiction yet doth he both here and there bewray himself not to vnderstand it For though euery Minister as hee is a Presbyter hath potestatem ordinis yet it doth not follow that hee may at his owne pleasure exercise that power We must therfore take knowledge of two distinctions the one of the power of order and of iurisdiction for euery minister hath the power of order as hee is a Presbyter simply but the power of iurisdiction as he is praelatus or pastor The former he hath giuen him in his ordination the latter in his institution By the former hee is qualified and authorized to preach and administer the sacraments and to doe other â—spirituall actions peculiar to his order which another man who is not of that order neither can doe nor may haue leaue to doe But hee may not performe these duties which belong to the power of his order to any congregation as the Pastor therof vnlesse that flocke be assigned and committed to him by the Bishop who hath the charge of the whole diocesse A presbyter therefore though he haue potestatem ordinis may not perform pastoral duties to any congregation which are part of the Bishops charge vnlesse hee be authorized therto by the Bishop from whom hee receiueth potestatem iurisdictionis curamque animarum et regimen ecclesia parochialis in his institution Againe we must distinguish betweene the power it selfe and the exercise execution of it For although euery minister hath thesame power of order which is common to them with Bishops in respect of preaching the worde and administring Baptisme and the Lords Supper yet the exercise of their power is and alwaies hath been subiected to the authority of the Bishop to be permitted directed restrained and suspended by him This subordination and subiection of the presbyters to the Bishop for the exercise of their power which euer hath beene practised in the Church doth not make either their function to be a mockery of the ministery as the refuter malepertly speaketh nor themselues to be no ministers But plainly proueth the contrary as I haue shewed For whereas he obiecteth out of Tertullian that any lay man might baptize by the Bishops 〈◊〉 he falsifies his testimony His words be these Dandi baptismum ius â—abâ—t summus sacerdos qui est episcopus c. The cheif Preist which is the Bishop hath the right to giue baptisme Then the presbyters and deacons but not without the authority of the Bishop for the honor of the Church which being safe peace is safe Otherwise euen laymen haue right Where Tertullian sheweth that the ordinary right of baptizing appertaineth to Bishops Presbyters deacons as belonging to the power of their order though for the honour and peace of the Church the Bishop bee superiour in the exercise of that power which the Presbyters and Deacons are not to exercise without his authority otherwise that is extraordinarily and in case of necessity the lay man euen without the Bishops leaue hath right in Tertullians iudgement to baptize Where he saith That in Tertullians time who was himselfe a Presbyter Presbyters and Deacons were not ministers and much lesse in Ignatius time I hope he wil râ—call this foule error proceeding from extreme ignorance when he hath read what before hath been alledged to the contrary And whereas the last testimony which I alledged out of Ignatius for these three degrees of the ministery plainely excludeth their lay Presbyters and lay Deacons reckening Presbyters and Deacons as degrees of the clergy he answereth two things the first That the Epistle strongly sauoureth of corrupter times then those Ignatius loued in by that very word clergy apprâ—priated therein to the ministers which is of a far latter breed He should haue done well to haue shewed how late the breed is For I am well assured that Cyprian vseth the word clerus for the clergy ordinarily who was little more then a hundred yeares after Ignatius And Origen before him mentioneth this distinction of the clergy and laity Tertullian who liued in the same century with Ignatius distinguisheth each company of Christians as sometimes into gregem duces the flocke and the guides ecclesiâ— ordinem laicos the order of the Church meaning those which were in orders and the lay people so sometimes in ecclesiaÌ„ cleruÌ„ the assembly and the clergy The clergy also or guides he distinguisheth into these three degrees Deacons Presbyters Bishops The antient Canons called the Apostles often mention those of the clergy as opposed to the laity But if I should say that S. Peter vseth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same sense when writing to Bishops whom he calleth Presbyters himself their Compresbyter he willeth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not exercise lordship ouer the clergy I should deliuer that which is agreeable to the interpretation of the antient Writers and as I am perswaded to the truth Neither doe I doubt but the vse of the word clerus was first taken from that place of Peter who therein followed the phrase of the old Testament wherein it is oft said that the Lord was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the portion or the inheritance of the Priests and Leuites For therefore are they called Clerici saith Ierome vel quia de sorte sunt Domini vel quia ipse Dominus sors i. pars clericoruÌ„ est Either because they are the Lords portion which notatioÌ„ some late writers do mislike not without cause the people also being Gods inheritance or because the Lord is their portion which is agreeable with the scriptures His other answer is that though the Presbyters and Deacons were of the clergy yet they were not Ministers for there were many of the clergy which were not Ministers Let him therefore tell me whether there were any Ministers in the clergy adioined to the Bishop or not if he say no hee is worthy to be hissed at if yea who were these Ministers if the Presbyters and Deacons were not Besides it is plaine that the Clergy of the antient Churches consisted wholly of schollers which were trained vp in learning the Clergie belonging to each Bishoppe being the seminary of the whole diocesse out of which not only euery parish both in the Citie and Country was to be furnished with Ministers but also the Bishop himselfe in the vacancie of the See was to be chosen Moreouer ordinarily those of the clergy ascended by degrees from the lower to the higher the Bishop being chosen out of the Presbyters Deacons for euen Ignatius his successor was his deacon Herâ— the Presbyters deacons out of the inferior orders as of sub deacons or readers c. Wherby it is most euideÌ„t that presbyters deacoÌ„s were not such as the lay-elders and lay-deacons which are now adaies in some reformed Churches but men brought vp in learning and seruice of the Church hauing attained degrees
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
But no wheres he saith that Bishops and Presbyters were equall for before BB. were ordained he could not say that Presbyters and Bishops were equall he saith they were the same After Bishops were ordained which he acknowledgeth to haue been done in the Apostles times and that by the Apostles for which cause he calleth their institution a tradition Apostolicall he plainly confesseth that one who was chosen from among the Presbyters and was called the Bishop of the Church to haue been placed in a higher degree But hereof we shall haue occasion hereafter to intreat more fully His second reason Ierome maketh Heraclas and Dionysius in Alexandria the first authors of aduancing one minister aboue another in power The words are Nam Alexandriae á Marco Euangelista vsque ad Heraclam Dionysium Episcopos Presbyteri semper vnum ex se electum in â—â—ccelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant quo modo si exercitus imperatorem faciat For euen at Alexandria euer since Mark the Euangelist vntill the Bishops Heraclas and Dionysius the Presbyters haue alwaies called one being chosen out of themselues and placed him in a higher degree Bishop euen as an armie chooseth their chiefetaine Which words as so far from giuing the least inckling of the Refuters conceit that Heraclas and Dionysius should be the first authors of aduancing Bishops that they plainely declare the Bishops euer from Saint Marks time to Heraclas and Dionysius to haue been placed in a higher degree aboue the Presbyters as the generall aboue the souldiours And truely of the two T. C. conceit who collecteth the cleane contrarie to our refuter hath the better glosse for he imagineth that vntill Heralas and Dionysius they who were chosen from among the Presbyters were called Bishops but then godly men misliking the appropriating of the name to one in a Church ceased to call him so And he might haue added with no lesse colour out of the words that the Bishops till then had been placed in a higher degree aboue other ministers but then good men misliking their aduancement aboue their fellow ministers brought them a peg lower To these conjectures the words would seeme to them that vnderstand not the right meaning thereof which heretofore I haue declared to giue some colour of likelyhood were it not that the practize of the Church did openly proclaime the contrarie Wherefore of all collectors my Refuter shal beare away the bell For he that can collect out of these words Euer vntill Heraclas and Dionysius the Bishop was placed in a higher degree that Heraclas and Dionysius were the first that aduanced the Bishops needs not doubt to collect quidlibet ex quolibet what himselfe will out of any thing whatsoeuer His third reason that Ierome in the same Epistle doth teach the contrarie is most false For Ierome plainly confesseth the Bishop to be superiour in the power of ordination and in the end concludeth that what Aaron and his sonnes and the Leuites were in the temple the same let Bishops Presbyters and Deacons challenge to themselues in the Church The Refuter hauing thus salued this testimonie of Ierome in the end rejects it For if this be true that vnlesse the Bishop haue a peerelesse power there will be as many Schismes in the Church as there be Priests then by the like reason Bellarmine may argue if there be not a peerelesse power giuen to the Pope there will be as many Schismes in the Churches as there ar Bishops but this latter consequence is naught so is the former Thus Ierome on whose only authoritie among the ancient the Disciplinarians in this cause relie when he speaketh any thing for the BB. his credit is no better with them then if he had spoken for the Popes supremacie But this is his desperate malice against the holy calling of Bishops whereby he seeketh euery where to parallele the Christian superioritie of BB. with the Antichristian supremacy of the Pope But all in vaine For though it be true in Ieromes conceit that if there were no Bishops there would be as many Schismes almost as Priests yet it doth not follow thâ—t if there were no Pope there would bee as many Schismes as Bishops For first experience teacheth how to judge of this matter for vntill the yeare 607. the Pope neuer attained to his supremacie and yet the Church was more free from Schismes before that time then since whereas contrariwise when there were no Bishops for a short season in the Apostles times in most of the Churches euery one of the Presbyters as Ierome speaketh sought to draw Disciples after him which he supposeth to haue been the occasion of instituting Bishops Secondly there is great oddes betweene BB. and the greatest number of Presbyters One Bishop say the Fathers of the Africane councill may ordaine many Presbyters but one man fit to be a Bishop is hard to be found Thirdly before there was one supreme or vniuersall Bishop there was vnitie and communion betweene all the Bishops in Christendome whose course to preserue vnitie in the Churches and to auoid Schisme was to communicate the confessions of their faith one with an other by their communicatorie pacificall or formed letters And if any were in error they sought first seuerally by their letters to reclaime them and if they preuailed not they assembled in Councils either to reduce them to vnitie or to depose them Cyprian saith that the Catholike Church is one not rent into Schismes nor diuided but euery where knit togither coharentium sibi inuicem Sacerdotum glutino copulata and coupled with the glew as it were of Bishops agreeing mutually among themselues And in another place which before hath beene alledged Therefore is the bodie of Bishops copious coupled together with the glew of mutuall concord and with the bond of vnitie that if any of our companie shall be authour of an Heresie shall endeuour to rend the flocke of Christ and to make hauocke thereof the rest may helpe c. Whereas contrariwise if there were one supreme and vniuersall Bishop whose authoritie were greater then of generall Councils as the Papists teach when he doth erre who should reclame him when he is exorbitant who should reduce him into the way when he shall draw with him innumerable troopes of soules into Hell who may say vnto him Domine cur ita facis Syr why do you so And as the Church is to be carefull for auoiding Schisme and preseruation of itselfe in the vnitie of truth which may be prouided for as it was wont yea better then it was wont where are Christian and Orthodoxall magistrates by the BB. singularitie of preeminence in euery seuerall Church and mutuall concord of them in the truth so must it be as carefull to auoid conspiring consenting in vntruth But where there is one supreme and vniuersall Bishop when he erreth and goeth astray he becommeth as we see in the Papacie the head of
question Perhaps his conscience told him that he knew of no testimony nor example of the Presbyters concurrence with the B. in ordination before that time and that in the foresaid Councell their assistance to the B. in ordaining was first ordained which if it did as worthily it might then had he no reason to vrge that canon to proue the practise of the Church in the first two hundred yeeres in a particular which by that canon was first appointed Hauing thus remoued their two maine obiections which stood in my way I proceeded in the proofe of my former assertion that the right of ordination was in the iudgement of the antient Church appropriated to BB. As first that the Councels and Fathers speake of the ordainer as of one and consequently presuppose the right of ordaining to bee in one which I proued by foure testimonies This reason because the Refuter did not well see how to answere he passeth by it as if hee had not seene it To make it therefore more conspicuous I will inlarge it affirming that both Scriptures Councels and Fathers speake of the ordainer as of one Timothy was ordained by the imposition of Pauls hands Paul left Titus in Creet that he should ordaine Presbyters and chargeth Timothy that he should not lay hands hastily on any man c. The Canon called the Apostles appointeth that a Presbyter and so a Deacon be ordained of one The Councell of Antioch acknowledgeth euery Bishop within his owne diocesse to haue authority to ordaine Presbyters and Deacons The Councell of Africke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one Bishop may ordaine many Presbyters The Councell of Hispalis or Ciuill A Bishop alone may giue to Priests and Deacons their honour Chrysostome describeth the Bishop by this property 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that is to ordaine vs. The people of Hippo wanting a Presbyter lay hold on Augustine and as it was wont to be done bring him to Valerius the Bishop desiring him to ordaine him To these adde the penaltie inflicted vpon the B. alone when any ordination was irregular Sozomen reporteth that Elpidius Eustathius Basilius of Ancyra Eleusius among other faults obiected against them were deposed because euery of them had ordained contrary to law The aforeâ—aid Councell of Carthage decreeth that if a B. wittingly ordain a penitent he shall be depriued of the power of his Bishoprick at least from the power of ordaining And to the like penalty doth it subiect a Bishop who shall ordaine such a one as hath married her that is diuorced c. But you shall neuer reade that the Presbyters were fouÌ„d fault with for vnlawfull ordinations vnlesse that any of them did encroach vpon the Bishops right in ordaining which is a plaine euidence that the power of ordaining was in the B. and not in the Presbyters When Epiphanius being at Constantinople ordained a Deacon he was blamed as offending against the Canons not because hee wanted the presence of his Presbytery but because hee did it in Chrysostomes diocesse Secondly that the power of ordination was peculiar to the Bishop in the iudgement of the Fathers J proue first by the authority of Councels then by the testimonies of Epiphanius and Ierome To the former he answereth It is to no purpose to meddle with these allegations out of the Councels which were well nigh three hundred yeeres after the Apostles times and some of them such as deserue neither imitation nor approbation Here let the Christian Reader iudge what credit he deserueth that so contemptuously shaketh off the authority of antient Councels euen the second among the foure antient generall Councels which are and haue been from time to time receiued in the Church as it were foure Gospels But let vs examine the particulars consider whether they deserued to be so lightly reiected The first testimony was taken out of an Epistle written by the Presbyters and Deacons of Mareot in the behalfe of Athanasius the Great their Bishop who was accused for that by his appointment Macarius had disturbed one Ischyras a pretended Presbyter in the administration of the Communion and had broken the sacred cup. They testifie these things to be false and among the rest they deny that Ischyras was a Presbyter because hee was ordained of Colluthus the Presbyter who was but an imaginary or phantasticall Bishop and afterwards by a generall Councell to wit by Osius and the BB. who were with him commanded to remaine a Presbyter as he had been before For which cause all that were ordained of Colluthus among whom was Ischyras returned to their former place and order The like is testified by the Synod of Alexandria which denieth that Ischyras could be ordained Presbyter by Colluthus seeing Colluthus himselfe died a Presbyter and all his ordinations were reuersed and all that were ordained by him were held as lay men Hereunto we may adde another most pregnant testimony expressed in the acts of the same generall Councell of Sardica wherein it was decreed that forsomuch as Musaeus and Eutychianus were not ordained Bishops that therfore such Clerks as they had ordained should be held as lay men My second testimony is out of the second generall Councell concerning Maximus who being by birth an Alexandrian by profession a Cynick Philosopher before hee was conuerted to Christianity and receiued into the Clergy by Gregory the Diuine against whom he ambitiously sought the Bishopricke of Constantinople bribing the BB. of Egypt Who being come to Constantinople and excluded out of the Church went into a certaine minstrels house and there vnlawfully chose Maximus the Cynick to be Bishop of Constantinople The generall Councell therefore assembled at Constantinople determineth thus concerning Maximus that he neither was nor is a Bishop neither they Clerks who had been ordained by him in what degree so euer of the Clergy And to this I will adioyne another testimony out of the fourth generall Councell where Bassianus who had been Bishop of Ephesus and now sought to recouer it alleaged for himselfe that if he were not Bishop then were not they clerks which had been ordained by him Neither were ordinary Presbyters alone forbidden to ordaine but Chorepiscopi also that is country BB. sometimes were restrained and sometimes forbidden altogether to ordaine Presbyters and Deacons Restrained whiles there were such as had receiued episcopall ordination that they might not ordaine without the leaue of the Bishop of the Citie whereunto both the Chorepiscopus himselfe and his Country is subiect Forbidden altogether when they ceased to haue episcopall ordination and were ordained as other Presbyters by the B. of the Citie alone It seeemeth to me that Chorepiscopi vntill the Councel of Antioch had sometimes episcopall ordination being ordained by two or three Bishops And therefore to the Councell of Neocaesaria and Nice they subscribed among other BB But forasmuch
as they being but for matters of lesse importance vicegerents in the Country to the Bishop of the diocesse whose seat was in the Citie being after the maner of the seuenty disciples Presbyters rather then BB. did incroach vpon the Bishoppes rights and prerogatiues not knowing their owne measure therefore they were restrained as in other matters of importance so in ordinations to doe nothing without the leaue of the Bishop Thus the ancient Councill of Ancyra determined That it was not lawfull that Countrie Bishops should ordaine Presbyters or Deacons vnlesse they had leaue granted vnto them by the Bishop with his letters for so Theod. Balsam expoundeth that Canon the Fathers of this Synode determine that the Countrie Bishop may not ordaine Presbyters or Deacons without the letters of the Bishop The Councill of Antioch thus It seemeth good to the holy Synode that those which are placed in villages and countrey Townes called Countrey-Bishops although they haue receiued the ordination of BB. should know their owne measures and administer the Churches subiect to them and content themselues with the charge and care of them and to ordaine Readers Subdeacons and Exorcists and to content themselues with preferring of them But that they should not presume to ordaine a Presbyter or a Deacon without the Bishop in the citie whereunto both himselfe and his countrey is subiect If any shall dare to transgresse this definition he shall be deposed from that honour which he hath and that the countrie Bishop should be made of the B. in the citie wherto he is subiect Which last clause as I suppose was added to take from them that colourable pretence whereupon they had presumed before to ordaine Presbyters and Deacons viz. because they had Episcopall ordination by the Metropolitane and two or three other BB. To preuent this the Councill decreeth that from that time forward they should be ordained not as other BB. by the Metropolitane and two or three other Bishops but as other Presbyters by the Bishop of the citie and so hauing not so much as an Episcopall ordination to make them as they were before titular Bishops they might acknowledge themselues to haue no right of ordination of Presbyters and Deacons Harmenopulus in his abridgement of the Canons setteth this downe as the summe of both these Canons 13. Ancyr and 10. Antioch Let not a Countrey Bishop ordaine a Presbyter or Deacon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the licence of the Bishop To the like purpose the Councill of Laodicea determined that Bishops may not be ordained in villages and Countrey townes but visiters and that those which were before ordained may do nothing without the consent of the Bishop in the citie By these two Councils therefore as Episcopall ordination for the time to come was denied to the Countrey Bishops so also power of ordaining Presbyters and Deacons To the same purpose I quoted Damasus and Leo who proue that Chorepiscopi were not indeed Bishops but Presbyters and therefore had no right to ordaine Presbyters and Deacons Chorepiscopi saith Leo according to the Canons of Neocaesaria and decrees of other Fathers are the same with Presbyters bearing the figure of the sonnes of Aaron and being after the maner of the 70. Disciples And although in respect of the ministerie they haue a common dispensation with Bishops notwithstanding some things are forbidden them by the authoritie of the old law some of the new and by Ecclesiasticall Canons as the consecration of Presbyters and Deacons c. And to his sentence the Councill of Hispalis subscribed Basil likewise plainely signified to the Chorepiscopi that if any without his appointment were receiued into the ministerie he should bee held for a lay man These testimonies plainely euince that in the primitiue Church the power of ordination was so in Bishops as that either themselues did ordaine or if this power were communicated to others it was by leaue and permission from them And little reason had the refuter so lightly to esteeme these testimonies as being vnder age For vnlesse he be able to shew that in the first 200. yeares the Presbyters either had de iure the power to ordaine or that de facto they did vse to ordaine which he will neuer be able to shew the worst of these testimonies for the Bishops is of more worth then all that he shall be able to say against them Let him produce if he can any one testimony of Scripture any one sentence out of Councils Histories or Fathers prouing that Presbyters without a Bishop had right to ordaine and I will yeeld to him But he doth not goe about by sound learning and euidence of truth to refell my assertions which indeed he cannot doe but by vnlearned shifts and sophistiall cauillations to elude them as he can either not doubting but such refutations would serue his turne to reteine the people in their preconceiued alienation from Bishops or else hoping that J would not vouchsafe him an answere But to returne to my proofes For one there remaineth yet out of the Councils shewing that in ancient times they were so far from permitting Presbyters without a Bishop to ordaine that when as a certaine Bishop in the ordination of one Presbyter and two Deacons vsed only the help of a Presbyter to reade the words of consecration and to blesse them himself laying on his hands but being not able for the paine of his eies to reade the Councill of Hispalis reuersed the ordination as vnlawfull This is the Councill which the refuter judged to deserue neither imitation nor approbation by which censure of this one though he durst not giue it of any of the forenamed Councils yet it being indefinitely propounded he discrediteth the rest with the vnlearned who are not able to distinguish But let vs heare more particularly his graue censure of this Councill What a toy was it for the Councill of Ciuill in Spaine to reuerse the ordination c. What a boy is this might these Fathers say that presumeth thus to censure vs was not Isidor the Archbishop of Ciuill the president of this Councill and author of these Canons one of the most learned writers which haue beene in the Church within this 1000. yeares with whom this Refuter for learning is not to be named the same day was not this Council held against the Heretickes called Acephali did it not learnedly and judiciously confute them did these graue fathers toy when by graue censures they sought to preserue the discipline and canons of the Church to maintaine the lawfull authoritie of BB. and to preuent the presumptuous vsurpation of Presbyters contrarie to the Canons of the Church had not the ancient councill of Orenge decreed That if any Bishop should by any infirmitie or weaknesse either fall into the dulnesse of his senses as this Bishop did or loose the facultie of speech he should not suffer
Presbyters as this Bishop also did vnder his presence to do those things which are not done but by Bishops but that he should call for a Bishop to whom he may commit that which is to be done in the Church But if we must talke of toyes what a toy was this that all these things which I haue alleaged being duely considered diuers of our disciplinarian Ministers haue renounced their ordination which they had receiued from a Bishop that they might be ordained by such as themselues And thus you haue heard how easilie he hath answered the Councils by vouchsafing them no answere Now let vs weigh his answeres to the testimonies of Ephiphanius and Ierome His common answere to both is such as vnlearned yet obstinate Papists vse to giue that though they cannot tell how to answere our arguments yet there be learned men which can There be Lectures of the parâ—â—ie of Ministers one day to be published which will shew the weaknesse of Epiphanius his reasons and there is another learned man that hath answered the allegation out of Ierome Why but hath the Refuter no answeres of his owne that he referreth vs thus to other men yes no doubt such answeres as his are neuer to seeke First he wrangleth with Ephiphanius and then with me for alledging him He telleth Epiphanius that he beggeth the question Alas good man he wanted the Refuters acumen in disputing And what was the question I pray you was it not the same which is now betweene you and vs whether Bishops and other Ministers be equall as Aërius held This assertion of Aërius Ephiphanius disproueth by two maine arguments as I do yours prouing that BB. are superiour to other Presbyters both in the power of ordination and iurisdiction His former argument may thus be concluded That order which hath power by ordination to beget Fathers to the Church is superiour to that which hath not that power The order of Bishops hath power by ordination to beget Fathers to the Church which the order of Presbyters is not able to doe Therefore the order of Bishops is superiour to the order of Presbyters Call you this begging of the question Yea but Aërius denied that Bishops had power more then Presbyters to beget Fathers How is this proued he said they were equall It followeth not Aerius being a giddie-headed fellow because he perceiued the Presbyters to doe the same things that the Bishops did in some particulars by an insufficient enumeration or induction concludeth that therfore there was no difference betweene them The parts of Aërius his induction concerne the superioritie and preeminence of the Ministerie in generall aboue the people noting those things whch be common to Bishops with other ministers as their imposing hands on the penitent their giuing of Baptisme their executing of Diuine seruice their sitting in the chaire or pulpit to instruct the people but considered not the respect which was between the Bishop and the Presbyters themselues Epiphanius therefore sheweth that although it were true that Bishops and Presbyters did the same things which argue their Preeminence in common aboue the Laity yet this hindreth not but that Bishops were superiour to the Presbyters and this Epiphanius proueth by two instances which Aërius himselfe could not denie because the Bishops were ordainers of the Presbyters hauing the power of ordination of Presbyters and Deacons which Presbyters had not the second because the Bishops were also gouernours and judges ouer Presbyters The Refuter therefore should rather haue suspected the shallownesse of his own judgement then haue laid such an imputation vpon Epiphanius What then doth he answere to Epiphanius his syllogisme He denieth in effect though perhaps he intend not so much both the proposition and the assumption and first the assumption For where Epiphanius saith that Presbyters were not able to beget Fathers he asketh What hindreth them but the vsurpation of Bishops In which words two things are implied The first that the power of ordination which the BB. haue is vsurped by them The second that Presbyters haue as good right to ordaine as they But you will say how are those things proued you must be intreated to take them vpon his word for prooâ—e he hath none and yet can he by no meanes abide begging of the question But such is the boldnesse of our new Disciplinarians that they doubt not to prefer their new-fangled opinions self-set assertions which haue no ground nor warrant in the word of God or true reason before the judgement and practize of all the ancient Fathers of all the approued Councils of all true Christian Churches of former times We proue that the Apostles had the right of ordaining that this right was from them deriued to their substitutes and to their successors to their substitutes as to Timothe in Ephesus and Titus in Creet to Mark at Alexandria to Polycarpus at Smyrna to Euodius at Antioch to Linus at Rome c. to their successors as to Simon the sonne of Cleophas the successor of Saint Iames at Ierusalem c. that from these substitutes and first successors of the Apostles the same was deriued to their successors which without all doubt were the BB. of the seuerall Churches And hereunto we adde the generall consent of the Fathers and Councils many of them affirming and confirming not one I say not one denying the superioritie of BB. in ordaining the perpetuall practize of all true Christian Churches not one approued instance to be giuen to the contrarie and yet he shameth not to auouch the Bishops right in ordaining to be but vsurpation As touching Presbyters that they haue right to ordaine we see no warrant in the word but rather the contrarie no testimonie of Fathers no decree of Councils for it but many testimonies and decrees against it no approued example to warrant it how then could he say the Presbyters haue as good right to ordain as BB But because he shal not cary the matter without proofes this I will offer him that if he can bring any one pregnant testimonie or example out of the Scriptures any approued authoritie or example out of the ancient Fathers Councils or Histories of the Church prouing that the Presbyters had by and of themselues an ordinarie power or right to ordaine ministers J meane Presbyters and Deacons I will promise to subscribe to his assertion But if he cannot do this as I know he cannot then let him for shame giue place vnto the truth Againe whereas Epiphanius in the assumption saith that BB. beget Fathers meaning that they haue power to ordaine ministers of the word and sacraments or as he expoundeth himselfe teachers he fondly cauilleth at Epiphanius words saying that ministers are no spirituall Fathers vntill they beget children vnto God Why but their calling is to be spirituall Fathers ordained of God to this end that they may by the lauer of regeneration ministery of the Gospell beget children vnto God when Stephen
said that Iacob begat the twelue Patriarches meaning those whom God appointed to bee the first Fathers of the twelue Tribes will the refuter wrangle with him because when they were begotten they were not Fathers euen so BB. are said to beget Fathers because by ordination they beget such as by the institution of their calling and ordinance of God are to be spirituall Fathers And thus much of the assumption The proposition also he denieth finding great fault with me saying that it is a strange and fearefull thing that I hauing so worth he set out in my former Sermon the excellencie of the ministers calling in regard of his labouring in the word doe now turne all topsey turâ—â—y and preferre making of ministers before begetting soules And to this purpose he alledgeth that to beget one childe vnto God is more pretious then to beget a thousand Fathers to the Church and of more comfort at the day of iudgement c. But be of good comfort this fault which he layeth to my charge is but as he saith in his poore vnderstanding For there be three things which shew the pouertie of his conceipt The first that he thinketh I do therefore preferre the ordaining of Ministers before preaching because I say that Bishops are superiour to other ministers in the power of ordination It seemeth he hath not learned the distinction of those three things wherein superioritie consisteth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is excellencie imperie and power The magistrate is superior to the minister in imperie and ciuill authoritie but the minister notwithstanding is superior to the magistrate in excellencie But the second thing doth much more shew the shallownesse of his conceipt he conceiueth of ministers as hauing alone the power of preaching and of Bishops as hauing onely the power of ordination whereas if he had but considered that the authoritie of preaching is common to the Bishop with other ministers and the Bishop in respect of his office superior in the exercise because he may licence and he may vpon just occasion suspend this power in others though perhaps in personall gifts the Presbyter may excell the Bishop he could not but haue discerned the superioritie of Bishops without any disparagement to the ministerie of the word for that they being at least equall in respect of their function to other ministers in the power of preaching are superior in the power of ordaining The third that he conceiueth Epiphanius to haue made a comparison betweene preaching and ordaining which he doth not but betweene baptizing and ordaining How is it possible saith Epiphanius that a Bishop and a Presbyter should be equall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the calling of Bishops is an order generatiue of Fathers begetting Fathers to the Church but the order of Presbyters being not able to beget Fathers doth by the lauer of regeneration that is baptisme beget children to the Church and not Fathers verily or teachers And you are to marke how he speaketh of begetting Fathers and children to the Church And who can denie but that it is a matter of greater consequence the begetting of a Father to the Church then of a child But Epiphanius his meaning was that the Bishop hauing power of baptizing common to them with Presbyters as Paul had though he did not greatly vse it whereby they might beget children to the Church hath also the power of ordaining which Presbyters haue not whereby he begetteth spirituall Fathers to the Church And so much of Epiphanius Now I come to Ierome For the Refuter thinketh it verie strange that I should bring him as a patron of the Bishops sole power in ordination It seemeth that the Refuter conceiueth nothing aright I bring in Ierome in this place not as a patron of BB. but as one who pleading for the superioritie of Presbyters aboue Deacons desiring to raise them as neare as he can to BB. doth notwithstanding confesse that Bishops are superiour in ordination What doth a Bishop saith he excepting ordination which a Presbyter may not do To which the Refuter hauing no answere of his owne intreateth another to answere for him which done he craketh as if he had layed me on my backe The answere is that Ierome speaketh of his owne time No doubt for speaking in the present tense whereby he signifieth actum continuum he doth not exclude his owne time But doth he speake therefore of his owne time onely or doth he signifie that there was a time since there were first Bishops which he confesseth was in the time of the Apostles when the Bishops had not this power if this could be shewed then Ierome might be thought not to speake of the Apostles times Nay doth not Ierome speake as well de iure as de facto when he saith What doth a Bishop c. that is what hath a Bishop right to doe by the power of his order which a Presbyter hath not right to doe by the power of his order onely except ordination that I confesse to be aboue the Presbyters power Well and to what end doth Ierome speak this of his owne time That hauing shewed before out of the Scriptures and the practise of the Church at Antioch that of old a Bishop and a Presbyter were all one he might see that in his time also there remained a proofe thereof because a Bishop then did nothing except ordination which a Presbyter could not doe Out of the Scriptures Ierome prooueth that in those times when the Scriptures were written the name Episcopus and Presbyter were confounded because as the name Episcopus was giuen to Presbyters Phil. 1. Act. 20. Tit. 1. So the name Presbyter to Apostles and Bishops as 1. Tim. 4.14 Where Ierome vnderstandeth as before by Presbyterium Episcopatus 1. Pet. 5.1 Ioan. Epist. 2. 3. And this is Ieromes first argument that Presbyters are superiour to Deacons But hence it doth not follow that therefore the offices of a Bishop and Presbyter are confounded especially after the institution of a Bishop Doth Ierome thinke that euerie Presbyter is equall in degree with Timothe because the office of Timothe in Ieromes vnderstanding is called Presbyterium or that they are equall with Peter and Iohn because they called themselues Presbyters His second argument to prooue the superioritie of Presbyters aboue Deacons is because Bishops were chosen out of Presbyters and by Presbyters whereas contrariwise he that is chosen from among Deacons by Deacons is but an Archdeacon The former part he first illustrateth by the end which was to auoid Schisme and then prooueth it by the Practise of the Church of Alexandria In his setting downe the end he lets fall one word which if it be not fauourablie expounded will make him contradict himselfe and the truth For vpon the allegation of Saint Iohns second and third epistle he saith Quòd autem posteâ— vnus electus that one afterwards was chosen who should be set ouer the rest it
was prouided as a remedie against Schisme lest euerie one drawing after him should rend the Church of Christ. What say you Ierome were Bishops first ordained after Saint Iohns time doe not your selfe testifie that Saint Iames a little after the ascension of Christ was by the Apostles made Bishop of Ierusalem that Marke was Bishop of Alexandria that euer since his time and he dyed almost 40. yeares before Saint Iohn there hath beene a Bishop in a degree superiour to other Presdyters that Timothe was Bishop of Ephesus c. That word afterwards therefore is not to be referred to Saint Iohns time but to those testimonies where he prooued the name Episcopus to be giuen to Presbyters which custome as he supposeth continued vntill one of the Presbyters beeing chosen from among the rest was called Bishop for indeed whiles Apostles or Apostolicke men were made BB. BB. were called the Apostles of the Churches But when out of the Presbyters one was chosen he began for difference sake to be called the Bishop the Angell of the Church Now that BB. were chosen out of Presbyters and by Presbyters he prooueth by the example of the Church at Alexandria For euen at Alexandria from Marke the Euangelist vnto Heraclas and Dionysius BB. who were not chosen from among the Presbyters the Presbyters haue alwaies called one chosen from among themselues and placed in a higher degree the Bishop euen as if an army doe choose their generall or Deacons choose from among themselues one whom they know to be industrious and call him the Archdeacon His fourth argument is this There be many things which a Bishop by the power of his order may doe which a Deacon cannot but there is nothing which a Bishop may doe by the power of order excepting ordination which a Presbyter may not doe A Presbyter is therefore by so much superior to a Deacon by how much he is nearer to the Bishop this is the verie scope of this place and to the same are all the arguments following referred c. the summe whereof is that the Presbyterie is a degree betweene the Bishops and Deacons You see then what Ierome prooueth out of the Scriptures not that the office but the name of Bishop and Presbyter were for a time confounded Now let vs see what he prooueth by the practise of the Church at Antioch he would say at Alexandria that of old a Bishop and a Presbyter were all one See you not how he prooueth it when he saith that euer since Marks time the Bishop hath beene placed in a higher degree aboue the Presbyters Was this to prooue that a Bishop and Presbyter are equall or all one or did Ierome intend any thing else but to prooue the Presbyters superiour to Deacons and that by such arguments as before I analysed We haue heard what Ierome prooueth out of the Scriptures and practise of the Church at Alexandria now at the last let vs heare the end of his speech That he I know not who might see that in his time also there remained a proofe thereof because a Bishop euen then did nothing except ordination which a Presbyter could not doe Toto coelo errat it was not Ieromes end to prooue the Presbyter equall with the Bishop but superiour to the Deacon For if the former had beene his intent this and the other from the practise of Alexandria had beene very vntoward arguments to prooue his purpose At Alexandria the Bishop euer since Marks time was superiour to Presbyters in degree therefore they were equall The Bishop is superiour in the power of ordination therefore Presbyters be his equals Hath not the Refuter now great cause thinke you to crake of this answere was this among all the testimonies which I alledged chosen as most misalledged by occasion whereof he might pay me mine owne and tell me that it was wherried in with â—areâ— by him that looked an other â—ay Blessed bee God that so guided me in the way of truth that among all my allegations the refuter hath not beene able to charge mee with misalledging any one As for this nothing could bee more pregnant and pertinent to proue that BB were superiour to Presbyters in ordination then as I said in the sermon that Ierome himselfe euen when and where he seeketh to aduance the Presbyters as high as hee can aboue the Deacons doth confesse ordinatioÌ„ to be peculiar to Bishops Now whereas Ierome saith a Presbyter may doe any thing which a Bishop doth excepting ordination I did easilie forsee it would bee obiected that if BB. bee superiour onely in the power of ordination then are they not superiour in iurisdiction This obiection I preuented in these words Where you are not to vnderstand him or other of the Fathers speaking somâ—time to the like purpose as though the B. were not superiour in any thing else but that potestate ordâ—nis as touching power of order â—e is superior only in ordination For that he is superior potestate iurisdictionis they euery where acknowledge I know some answere that in Ieromes iudgement BB. are iure diuinâ— superiour to other Ministers onely in the power of ordination but in the power of iurisdiction iure apostolico in that hee acknowledgeth that superiority of BB. was brought in by the Apostles necessarily for auoiding of schismes Which answere I refusing because Ierome saith the like of the superiority of the BB. in generall and of the power of ordination in particular that it was reserued to the B. ne a multis disciplina ecclesia vendicata concordiam sacerdotum solueret et scandala generaret made choice of this other as the more like to bee true Not that J absolutely was of this iudgement that the right of ordination doth belong to the power of Episcopall order as appeareth by that supposall which J made in the sermon page 44. l. 3. but that I supposed it to be the iudgment of Ierome and some other fathers who acknowledging the Bishop to bee superiour in iurisdiction and yet affirming that hee is superiour onely in the right of ordination or imposing hands must thus bee vnderstood as iudging the Bishop to bee superiour onely therein quoad ordinis potestatem as touching the power of order they holding other things belonging to the power of order as the ministry of the word and Sacraments of Baptisme and the Lords Supper to bee common to BB. with other ministers but the power of ordination to bee peculiar to the BB. and in their iudgements not communicable to Presbyters because as Thomas saith ea quae sunt ordinis non possunt committi nisi habenti ordinem Hereunto the Refuter after his malepert and saucy manner answereth that I vnderstand not this distinction For saith he potestas ordinis power of order is not potestas ordinationis power of ordination but power to doe all that which belongeth to the order of that ministery which hee hath receiued as Tolet sheweth But
whether of vs spake without vnderstanding let the iudicious Reader heereby iudge For he conceiueth me as no man would that is not of a very shallow conceipt as if I confounded the power of order with the power of ordination and as though the power of order contained nothing else but the power of ordaining whenas I plainely made it according to those Fathers iudgement but one part of the power of Order they supposing other parts of the power of order to bee common vnto Presbyters but that of ordaining to bee peculiar to the Bishop and in that sense say the Bishop in respect of the power of order is superiour onely in ordination Yea but Bellarmine for euen his authority when he saith any thing that may seeme to make for the Refuter must serue the turne saith that Potestas ordinis refertur ad sacramenta conficienda the power of order is referred to the ministery of the Sacraments Me thinks the Refuter should adde that it is also referred to the ministery of the Worde But what doth Bellarmine and all other Papists vnderstand by Sacraments Doe they not meane fiue others besides Baptisme and the Lords Supper the ministery of two whereof viz. of confirmation and of orders they make peculiar to BB. and of the other fiue common to them with all Priests and doth not Bellarmine therefore prooue that the order of Bishops is superiour to that of Presbyters and that Bishops are superiour in the power of order because the Bishop may conferre two Sacraments which the Presbyters may not viz. the Sacrament of confirmation and of orders Howbeit of the former Ierome saith that it was reserued as peculiar to BB. potiùs ad honorem sacer dotij quà m ad legis necessitatem It is true that some Popish writers make BB. and Presbyters to be but one order but you must withall take the reason of that Popish conceipt They hold that the Sacrament of the altar as they call it is the Sacrament of Sacraments whereunto the Sacrament of orders is subordinate all their orders of Clerks being ordained to the ministerie of the altar and that euery one of their 7. orders all which they call Sacraments is onely to be counted a Sacrament as it hath reference to the Eucharist to which purpose Thomas Aquinas doth somewhat ridiculously distinguish their 7. orders according to their diuers offices referred to that Sacrament And forasmuch as in the whole power of order this is the supreme act by pronouncing the words of consecration to make the very body of Christ which is as well performed by a Priest as a Bishop therefore they teach that Bishops and Priests are both of one order and that the order of Bishops as it is a Sacrament is not superior to that of Presbyters but only as it is an office in respect of certaine sacred actions in this sense saith Thomas that the Bishop hath power in sacred and Hierarchicall actions in respect of Christs mysticall body aboue the priest the office of a Bishop is an order For you must vnderstand that they make al Ecclesiasticall power to haue referrence to the body of Christ either verum his true bodie in the Sacrament of the altar which they call the power of order or mysticum mysticall that is the the Church and members thereof which they cal the power of iurisdiction This new Popish conceipt therefore of confounding Bishops and Presbyters into one order ariseth from their idol of the Masse their doctrine of transubstantiation wherby euery Priest is as able to make his maker as the Pope himselfe I call it newe because all the ancient writers doe confesse as before hath been shewed Bishops Presbyters and Deacons to be three distinct degrees and consequētly orders of the Ministery for what is an order but that degree which among things or persons which are subordinate one to another some being higher some lower any one hath obtained Wherefore laying aside these popish conceipts let vs consider what is to bee determined concerning this matter according to the truth 1. And first that ecclesiasticall power is to bee distinguished into the power of order and iurisdiction 2. That the power of order is a spirituall power whereby ecclesiasticall persons are qualified and enabled to doe sacred actions appertayning to the seruice of God and saluation of men which they who are not of the same order at the least may either not at all or not ordinarily performe 3. That this power is that which is granted to ecclesiastical persons in their ordination and appertaineth to them as they simply are of that order though they haue no iurisdiction or charge and therfore cannot be taken from them whiles they continue in that order 4. That of Ecclesiasticall order there are three degrees in Bishops Presbyters and Deacons and because neither of the two superiour orders may be granted to any per saltum therfore each superiour order includeth the inferiour so that a presbyter may doe that which belongeth to a Deacon and a Bishop that which belongeth to to a presbyter but not contrariwise 5. That the power of the order of Presbyters is besides the performance of the diuine liturgy and power to administer the sacrament of Baptisme and to preach common to them with Deacons who shall be thereunto authorized by the B. a power also to minister the holy communion and authority to remit and retaine the sinnes of men which last I doe not doubt to referre to the power of order First because it is giuen to the minister in his ordination and belongeth to him as he is simply a Presbyter without iurisdiction or relation to a charge And secondly because it continueth with him whiles he is of the order though his charge and iurisdiction should be taken from him Besides this power of remitting and retaining sinnes is called the key of order and according to the Popish doctrine belongeth to the conferring of the sacrament of penance 6. The power of order in B. B besides all this power which is in the Presbyters is power by imposition of hands to conuey grace as the ordinary instrument of the holy ghost either to parties baptized for their confirmation or to penitents for their reconciliation or to parties designed to the ministery for their ordination As touching the former the ancient writers gather it to bee peculiar to BB. because howsoeuer many in the primitiue Church were conuerted and baptized by men of inferiour order yet the Apostles alone and after them the BB. had authority to put their hands vpon them that they might receiue the holy Ghost Acts. 8. 19. And for the latter we read that both the Apostles themselues and such as they ordained Bishops did ordaine ministers by imposition of hands insomuch that whereas at Ephesus and in Creet where were diuers Presbyters before Timothy and Titus were appointed to ordaine ministers I hold this authority
â—â—daciousnes of wicked men be feared that what they cannot doe by right and equity they may â—ccomplish by rash and desperate courses actum est de episcopatus vigore de ecclesiae gubernandae sublimi ac diuina potestate then farewell the vigour of episcopall authority and that high and diuine power of gouerning the Church But more fully is this authority described in the Councels of Antioch and Constantinople and also in the writings of Ierome Euery Bishop saith the Councell of Antioch hath authoritie of his owne See both to gouerne it according to the feare of God which is before his eies and to haue a prouident care of the whole Countrey which is vnder his Citie as also to ordaine Presbyters and Deacons and to gouerne all things with iudgement The Councell held in Trullo decreed that forasmuch as some Cities being occupied by the Barbarians inuading Christian kingdomes the Bishops of the said Cities could not enioy their seat and performe such offices there as belong to the episcopall function that they should retaine their eminent dignitie and authoritie so that they may canonically exercise ordination of the diuers degrees of Clerkes and that they may vse within their bounds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the authoritie of their Prelacie and that all their administration be firme and lawfull But what saith Ierome He hauing intreated of the other degrees of the Clergie at the last commeth to intreat de praecipuo gradu Ecclesiae of the chiefe degree of the Church qui ordo episcopalis est which is the order of Bishops the power whereof he setteth downe in these words Hee ordaineth Priests and Leuites that is Presbyters and Deacons c. Hee gouerneth the Church of God he sheweth what euery one ought to do he condâ—mneth he receiueth he bindeth hee looseth that which was bound hee hath the keyes of the kingdome of heauen hee openeth and shutteth the throne of God meaning heauen hauing nothing meaning no ecclesiasticall order aboue him c. But the superioritie of Bishops ouer Presbyters I shewed in the sermon by comparing the iurisdiction of BB. with that which Presbyters haue both in regard of the greatnesse and largenesse and also in respect of the deriuation thereof The Presbyters iurisdiction is ouer the flocke of one parish the iurisdiction of the Bishop is ouer the whole Diocese The Presbyters is priuate in the court of conscience the Bishops publike and in the externall Court also The Presbyter gouerneth the people onely of one flocke the Bishop gouerneth not only the people of the whole Diocese but the Presbyters also themselues The Presbyters receiue institution vnto their iurisdiction from the Bishop and exercise it vnder the Bishop of the Diocese who hahauing as the Councell of Antioch and Ierome say the care of the whole Church or Diocese admit the Presbyters in partem solicitudinis into part of their care by giuing them institution to their seuerall parishes The Presbyters doe answer to the sonnes of Aaron and are the successours of the 70. Disciples as diuers of the Fathers doe teach but the Bishops answer to Aaron and are the successors of the Apostles as I proue by the testimonie of Ierome who saith that in the true Church Bishops doe hold the place of the Apostles and of Irenaeus that the Apostles left the Bishops their successors deliuering vnto them their owne place of gouernment To all this the Refuter maketh a dilatorie answer not purposing indeede to answer these allegations at all Of these points I purpose not saith he to say any thing in this place because the former concerning the difference of the Bishops and Presbyters iurisdiction must presently be disputed the latter is to be discussed in the last point of his fiue And thus hath he by a cleanly deuice auâ—ided these allegations which he knew not how to answer and very featly rid his hands of them But if the Reader shall vpon examination finde that hee speaketh nothing to these allegations and proofes in the places whereunto he is differred hee must needes thinke that their cause of sinceritie as they call it is not very sincerely handled Hauing thus in generall noted the superioritie of Bishops in the power of iurisdiction let vs now descend vnto particulars The authoritie therefore of the Bishop respecteth either the things of the Church or the persons Whatsoeuer things saith the Councell of Antioch appertaine to the Church are to be gouerned husbanded and disposed by the iudgement and authoritie of the Bishop to whose trust the whole people is committed and the soules of the congregation And againe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Bishop hath the power or authoritie of those things which belong to the Church And this authoritie the Bishops had from the beginning for as what was at the first giuen to the Church was laid at the Apostles feet so afterwards what was contributed was committed saith Iustine Martyr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Bishop Heereof you may reade more Conc. Gangr c. 7. 8. Concil Tol. 3. c. 19. 4 c. 32. Balsam in Concil Carth. Gr. c. 36. alias 33. As touching persons they were distinguished at the first into Clericos Laicos vnto whom afterward a third sort was added viz. Monachi monasticall persons who though they were sequestred from the companie and societie of secular men as they count them yet were they not exempted from the iurisdiction of the Bishop The great Councell of Chalcedon determined that no man should build a monastery any where or house of prayer without the consent of the Bishop of the Citie and that those which in euery Citie or Countrey did leade a monasticall life should bee subiect to the Bishop See more c. 8. Conc. Afric c. 47. Agath c. 27. 58. Theod. Balsam saith that Monkes were more subiect to the Bishop then to the Gouernour of the monasterie As touching the Laitie I said Serm. sect 10. pag. 46. to pag. 47. l. 6. I should not neede to prooue the Bishops authoritie ouer the people of their Diocese if I demonstrate their rule ouer the Presbyters thereof c. Not neede saith the Refuter Yeâ— you must prooue the power of censuring the people to be their only right vnlesse you yeeld that preeminence to be giuen them jure humano as indeede it must be seeing they haue it not potestate ordinis by the power of their order The Refuter is to be borne with if hee talke at randon seeing he is as it seemeth out of his element The thing which I was to prooue if it had beene needfull was that whereas Presbyters did gouerne each one the people of a parish and that priuately the Bishop gouerneth the people of the whole diocese and that publikelie the which I held needlesse to prooue because before it was prooued that they had the charge of the whole Diocese
odious and absurd assertions to me But why is not the maiority of rule in the Bishoppe hence proued and the subiection of Presbyters to him as to their ruler to bee guided and directed by him seeing they are charged to doe nothing without his direction and warrant what can bee more plaine forsooth the like Phrase is vsed Can. 35. and Conc. Antioch c. 9. where BB. are enioyned to doe nothing without the sentence of the Archbishoppe nor he in their Parishes without the sentence or appointment of them all If therefore the Maiority of rule in BB. may be proued from this Canon then in like manner from the other two Canons the maiority of rule not onely in Archbishops in those dayes ouer BB. but also of Bishops in their Parishes ouer the Archbishop But the consequent is false in both the parts of it the former for there were no Archbishops in those dayes the latter because BB. had not authority ouer Archbishoppes therefore the Antecedent also is vntrue Here the refuter vnder some shew of learning hath bewraied much ignorance For first as touching the proposition his reason is vnlike and his allegation out of the 34. Canon is vntrue The Bishoppe of euery natioÌ„ mâ—st agnize him that is the first or Primate among them and esteeme him as the chiefe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not said as in the Canon by me cited 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 simply as the refuter citeth it but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Is there no difference betweene these two speeches to doe nothing simply and to do nothing more or exceeding their own bounds For that this is the meaning of the Canon the words following doe plainely declare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that they doe onely those things which appertaine to their own See and the countries vnder it But more plainely in the Councel of Antioch that the rest of the Bishops doe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing more then those things onely which concerne euery mans owne Church and Countries which bee vnder it And that you should not vnderstand them as the Refuter doth without vnderstanding they adde for euery Bishoppe hath authority of his owne City both to gouern according to the feare of God which hee hath and to haue care of all the Country as also to ordaine Presbyters and Deacons and to administer euerything with iudgement And yet I doe not deny but that the Metropolitanes are superior to their Comprouinciall Bishoppes in the power of Iurisdiction although all Bishops whatsoeuer are equall in the power of order Neither should the Bishops by the like reason be superiour to the Archbishops in their parishes as he ignorantly addeth For the Canon doth not speake of the seuerall Bishops in their Dioceses which hee absurdly calleth Parishes but of the whole Company of them assembled in a Prouinciall Synode saying that he must doe nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the consent of them all Howsoeuer therefore either the Metropolitane or any other of the Bishoppes in their owne seuerall Dioceses might doe those things which concerned their owne proper charge yet prouinciall businesses which exceeded the bounds of any one mans charge were to be dispatched in Prouinciall Councels wherein the Metropolitane was to be acknowledged as the chiefe and President thereof who called them together and moderated the assembly but so as the Bishops might doe nothing without him seuerally so he might doe nothing without them all iointly and as hee was superiour to them seuerally so was hee inferiour to them all iointly that is to the Synode The Assumption likewise in the former part of it is false and the reason of it also For there were Metropolitanes in the first two hundred yeares and they were superiour in the power of iurisdiction to their Bishops But before he will let this testimony passe hee hath one point of ignorance more to shew and that is because Archbishoppes are mentioned c. 35 alias 34. therefore these Canons were none of the Apostles nor any others aboue an hundred he will not say whatsoeuer hee thinkes two hundred yeares after them For Archbishops were not hatched so reuerentlie he speaketh a long time after all men being iudge The antiquitie of these Canons I haue touched before shewing that within little more then two hundred yeares after the Apostles time they were then accounted auncient Canons But to the point If hee speake of the name Archbishoppe it is not mentioned in the Canons called the Apostles if of the office of a Metropolitane which is meant in the aforesaid Canon I haue proued before that it hath beene euer since the Apostles times Those learned men which hold Archbishops to be of a latter edition by that name vnderstand Patriarches and those of 2. sorts being either so called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Patriarches of Rome Constantinople Alexandria Antioch and Ierusalem or such as are more vsually called Archbishops or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gouernors of large prouinces beeing in a degree betweene Metropolitanes and Patriarches which seeme to haue beene ordained in the first Councell of Constantinople as Socrates witnesseth Hence it is that Isidor saith Ordo Episcoporum quadripartitus est i. in Patriarchis Archiepiscopis Metropolitis atque Episcopis and the same distinction is noted in the Councill of Chalcedon and in the Code and constitutions of Iustinian and in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made by Leo the Emperour c. To the same purpose I alledged the ancient Councell of Arles that Presbyters may doe nothing without the knowledge and consent of their BB. and of Ancyra the most ancient approued Councill that is extant Non licere Presbyteris ciuitatis sine Episcopi praecepto amplius aliquid imperare nec sine authoritate literarum eius in vnaquaque parochia aliquid agere That it is not lawfull for the Presbyters of the citie to doe any thing of importance without the Bishops appointment noâ— to do any thing in any parish without the authoritie of his letters To these J adde the first Councill of Toledo Sine conscientia Episcopi nihil pâ—nitâ—â— Presbyteri agere praesummunt Let the Presbyters presumâ— to doe nothing at all without the knowledge and consent of the Bishop And forasmuch as for a poore euasion he alledgeth that these Councils by me cited though the ancientest that are extant are vnder age which ill becommeth him to object who hath no witnesses to the contrarie before this present age I will therfore produce one or two more who liued in the Apostles times and conuersed with them Ignatius therefore in an Epistle which the Refuter hath before cited saith that neither Presbyter nor Deacon ought to doe any thing without the B. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither let any thing seeme reasonable vnto you which is done without his warrant To him I will adioyne a testimony of Clement wishing the Reader to credit it
no further then he seeth cause He therefore reporteth it as a doctrine of Peter that no Presbyter ought to doe any thing in any Bishoppes parish or diocesse without his permission and that all Presbyters ought without delay to be obedient to their BB. in all things § 14. But as I prooued that Presbyters might doe nothing without the Bishoppes appointment or consent so I noted especially those things which belong to their power of order as the actions of their ministery to baptize to celebrate the Communion to preach to say the publike Liturgy or diuine seruice As touching Baptisme I alleaged Tertullian testifying that the Bishoppe hath the right to giue Baptisme then the Presbyters and the Deaconâ— but yet not without the authority of the Bishoppe for the honour of the Church that is the honour due vnto him in the Church which being safe peace is safe Where note in Tertullians time within the first two hundred yeeres the Bishoppe was so greatly honoured that the peace of the Church was supposed to depend on the honour of the Bishoppe as Ierome also speaketh that the ordinary right of baptizing was primarily in the Bishop secondarily in the Presbyters Deacons but not to be exercised by them without his authority whereas extraordinarily and in case of necessitie lay men in his iudgement might baptize To this the Refuter giueth fiue answeres but neuer a good one As first that Tertullian speaketh not of their iuresdiction in the Apostles times or afâ—er by authority from them Hee speaketh nor de facto but de iure noting what right Bishops had and hee sheweth the ordinary right of baptizing which the Presbyters had was not without the Bishops authority 2. That the preeminence he giueth them was for the honor of the Church and preseruation of peace What then was this peculiar to his time Were they not as carefull of the honour of the Church and preseruation of peace in the Apostles times as after 3. Neither doth he speake of the authority of the Bishop in generall but of an honour giuen him in one particular And for one particular belonging to the power of order did I alleage it that hauing prooued this point in generall I might also shew it in the particulars which cannot otherwise be done but sigillation one by one Yea but this honour no one particular might well bee in a titular Bishoppe that had no such iurisdiction Titular Bishops in the primitue Church were such as had the name and title but not the authority of a Bishop granted to them Such a one was Meletius who by the censure of the Councell of Nice was not to haue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the authority but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the bars name of a Bishop And such were Nouatian Bishops returning to the Church permitted to be if the Catholike Bishop would gratifie them with the name and title of a Bishop I reade of Eustathius the Metropolitan B. of Pamphylia who being desirous to leade a more quiet and solitary life gaue vp his Bishopricke whereupon Theodorus was chosen in his roome For it was not meet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Church should continue a widow and that the flockes â—f our Sauiour should remaine without a gouernour But he afterwards repenting him of the abdication of his Bishopricke putteth vp a petition to the Councell of Ephesus that hee might at the least retaine the name and honour of a Bishop At his request the Councell writeth to the Synod of Pamphylia that he might haue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the name the honour and communion of a Bishop but yet so as that neither he doe ordaine nor taking vpon him the charge of the Church should performe sacred actions by his owne authority Thus we see who were titular Bishops in the primitiue Church such as were gratified with the name but wanted the office and authority of a Bishoppe As for those who had the office of a Bishoppe of whom Tertullian speaketh they had also vigorem episcopatus the vigor of the episcopall office whereof Cyprian so oft speaketh and the sway of authority ecclesiasticall was in their hands insomuch that Presbyters and Deacons who by the power of their order had right to baptitize might not euen in Tertullians time exercise that power but by authority from the Bishop In the fourth place the Refuter obiecteth that these Presbyters were not ordinary Ministers of the word and Sacraments but such as he and his fellowes dreame of because Tertullian in the very next words affirmeth alioquin etiamlaicis iut est otherwise lay men also might baptize That the Presbyters were Ministers I haue manifestly proued before and I haue noted already that Tertullian signifieth the ordinary right of baptizing to be in the Bishop Presbyters Deacons that yet extraordinarily and in the case of necessity lay men might baptize And so Ierome seemeth to exhound Tertullians meaning Hence it is that without Chrisme which the Presbyters of the seuerall parishes were to fetch from their B. and without the commandement of the Bishop neither Presbyter nor Deacon haue right to baptize Which notwithstanding wee know to be oft times lawfull for lay men to doe si tamen necessitas cogit but yet so if necessity doe compell But nothing is more euident then that the Presbyters were Ministers by that which hath heretofore been deliuered Whereunto this helpeth somewhat that Tertullian opposeth Presbyters and Deacons to laymen This obiection the Refuter thought to preuent by saying that the gouerning Elders and Deacons were accounted among the Clergy Which also is an vnlearned assertion For to omit the arguments which before were brought to prooue that the Presbyters and Deacons were degrees of the sacred Ministery it is plaine that the clergy of each diocesse was a company of such as were trained vp in learning it being the seminary of the whole diocesse And as they profited in yeeres learning and pietie so they were preferred to bee Readers then Exorcists then Acolythi then Sub-deacons after that Deacons then Presbyters out of whom ordinarily was chosen the Bishoppe And moreouer the Presbyters and Deacons with the rest of the Clergy had all their maintenance according to their place and degree in the Church And therefore our disciplinarians if they will haue such Presbyters and Deacons as were in the primitiue Church they must fetch them from the Vniuersitie and schooles of learning as we doe and maintaine them by the charges of the Church as well though not with so large allowance as the Bishop His last euasion for none of his answers is better is that the lower Tertullian speaketh of might well be and was on a parish Bishop the Presbyters being subiect to him as his assistants for that one Church But parish Bishoppes such as they speake of and lay elders be of one edition neuer heard of before our age For the more manifest proofe whereof I referre
you to that which before hath been by mee alleaged Jt is euident therefore by the testimonies of Tertullian and Ierome that such was the superioritie of Bishoppes in respect of iurisdiction that the Presbyters and Deacons though the right to baptize belonged to their power of order yet they might not exercise that power without iurisdiction and authority granted them from the Bishop The like I alleaged concerning the Lords Supper Ignatius saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let that Eucharist be allowed as firme and warrantable which is celebrated vnder the Bishop that is in his presence or by such namely in his absence or in those Congregations where he is not present as he should permit or appoint The words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 preuent the Refuters cauill who saith that the Church was but one Congregation whâ—rein no man had authoritie to minister the word or Sacraments but with the liking of the Pastor For that Eucharist which was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was in the congregation where the Bishop was present it being administred in other congregations by such as the Bishop did authorize But the idle conceit of one onely Congregation in the greatest Churches hath beene before sufficiently refuted Where I alleged Cyprian reproouing the Presbyters of Carthage for giuing the Communion to some which had fallen in time of persecution without warrant from him though he were absent therin not regarding as they ought praepositum sibi Episcopum the Bishop who was set ouer them nec Episcopo honorem Sacerdotij sui Cathedrae seruantes nor reseruing vnto the Bishop the honour of his Priesthood and Chaire the Refuter saith the same answer which he gaue to Tertullian will serue as a poore shift for Cyprians testimonie who had iust cause to complaine that the Presbyters who in his absence were to feede the Flocke had taken vpon them to admit to the Communion c. Doth not the Refuter see his former shift will not serue the turne Is it not plaine that the Presbyters which Cyprian speaketh of who as hee saith elsewhere were cum Episcopo sacerdotali honore coniuncti ioined to the Bishop in the honour of Priesthood who were to feed the people and whose office it was to deliuer the holy Communion to the people were Ministers of the word and Sacraments Againe will it serue the turne to say either that the Presbyters had authority only in this particular of the Sacrament or that Cyprian was either but a titular or a parish B. whom I haue proued before to haue beene a Metropolitan In the end he resteth in his first answer that Cyprian is vnder age Alas good Cyprian how hard was thy happe that thou wert not Bishop one fortie yeeres sooner that the Refuter and his consorts which now haue excluded thee without the compasse of their imagined Primitiue Church might haue esteemed thy testimonie as good as Tertullians or others who wrote in the first 200. yeeres The like I might haue added concerning other ministeriall functions The second Councell of Carthage decreed that if any Presbyter without the consent of the B. should in any place agenda celebrare celebrare diuine seruice and performe such actions as belong to the ministerie hee should be deposed The Councell of Gangra pronounceth him accursed who shal performe the actions of the church meaning those things which appertaine to Gods publike seruice and the ministerie of the word and sacraments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there being not present a Presbyter by the appointment of the Bishop The ancient Canon called the Apostles appointeth that such a Presbyter as will of his owne authoritie without the appointment of the B. hold assemblies for the seruice of God vse of the sacraments that he should be deposed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as ambitious The same hath the Councell of Antioch in the fifth Canon which Canon being recited in the Councell of Chalcedon all the BB. gaue it this acclamation This is a iust rule this is the rule of the Fathers This case being propounded in the Councell of Carthage if a Presbyter being condemned by his owne B. shall swell with pride against him and thinke he may apart celebrate the diuine seruice and offer the Communion c. the Councell determined if any Presbyter swelling with pride against his B. shall make a schisme withdrawing himselfe from the Communion of his B. c. let him be anathema For a conclusion I alleged the words of Ignatius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let no man without the B. that is without his leaue and authority doe any thing that belongeth to the Church To which the Refuter maketh this one only answer of one congregation which I haue confuted more then once To proue the Bishops power and authority in correcting Presbyters in the first place I alleged Cyprian who telleth Regatianuâ— a B. who had beene abused of his Deacon that pro Episcopatus vâ—gore Cathedrae authoritate for the vigour of his Bishopricke and authority of his chaire hee might himselfe haue censured him as he thought good counselleth him if the Deacon did persist hee should exercise the power of his honor towards him and either depose him or excommunicate him Secondly Ierome maruelling that the B. where Vigilantius was Presbyter did not virga apostolica with the apostolike and with an iron rodde breake that vnprofitable vessell and deliuer him vnto the destruction of the flesh Both these the refuter casteth off as vncompetent witnesses who speake but of the practise of their owne times as who should say it had beene otherwise before their times But it is plaine almost by innumerable testimonies some whereof I will cite anon that the ancientest Canons Councels and Fathers acknowledge and allow this correctiue power in the Bishops ouer the Presbyters and Deacons in the Primitiue Church As for the Apostles times I prooue the same out of the Apocalypse but more plainely out of the Epistles to Timothe and Titus The former reason if the Refuter will giue me leaue to frame it is this Those who either are commended for examining and not suffering such in their Church as called themselues Apostles and were not or were reprooued for suffering false Teachers had a correctiue power ouer other Ministers The Angell of the Church of Ephesus is commended for the former the Angell of the Church of Thyatira is reproued for the latter Therefore these Angels which before I haue proued to be BB. had a correctiue power ouer other Ministers His answer is friuolous that neither these Angels were diocesan Bishops which before hath been prooued nor these false Teachers diocesan Presbyters which word himselfe deuised for a shift Is it not against sense saith hee that the Presbyters which were subiect to the B. should call themselues Apostles If they were not subiect to him why is hee either commended for exercising
that Paul admonisheth his Disciple praelatum gregi being the Prelate of a flocke saying attend reading vntill I come 12. Isidor saith that Timothie was Bishop of Ephesus 13. Polycrates saith that Timothie trauailing with Paul to Ephesus was made the first B. there by him in the raigne of Nero. 14. Theophylact vnderstandeth by Pastors and Doctors Eph. 4. those to whose care the Church was committed that is to say BB. such as Timothie and Titus And for that cause he saith that Paul wrote to them two Againe Titus being ordayned Bishop is set ouer the great Island Creet 15. Oecumenius on those words I requested thee to remaine in Ephesus saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here hee had ordayned him B. And againe in Tim. 5. he speaketh of ordinations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for he wrote to a B. And of Titus he saith that Paul left him to ordaine BB. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hauing first made him a B. And of both on those words Pastors and Doctors he saith Paul meaneth such as to whose trust the Churches were committed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 BB. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as Timothie and Titus 16. Nicephorus saith that after Paul was first dismissed from Rome he wrote his former Epistle to Timothie whom he had ordayned before B. of Ephesus And another Epistle hee wrote vnto Titus whom hauing before ordayned B. of Creet he had left there To these I might adde the testimonies of diuers new writers but I will mention onely a few whose iudgements the Disciplinarians will not easily reiect First therefore Caluin in diuers places on the Epistles to Timothie doth note that he was the Pastor of the Church at Ephesus The authors of the Centuryes say it is euident that Paul appointed Timothie the Pastor to the Church of Ephesus D. Fulke saith among the Clergie for order and seemely gouernment there was alwayes one principall to whom by long vse of the Church the name of B. or superintendent hath beene applyed which roome Titus exercised in Creta Timothie in Ephesus and others in other places c. Finally Beza himselfe noteth that Timothie was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Iustine calleth him that is Antistes or President in the Presbytery at Ephesus that is to say according to Bezaes language a Bishop To the testimonies which I produced the refuter answereth three things first in effect this that though the Fathers call them BB. yet properly they were not Bishops which bare denyall of his if it be weighed with the testimonies of the ancient which I named will proue as light as vanity it selfe Secondly that the consent of the Fathers is not so generall as I would make men beleiue seeing both Ambrose and Ignatius doe make Timothie a Deacon And for proofe thereof he referreth vs to T.C. whose words are these all ancient writers are not of that iudgement for not to speak of Ambrose which calleth Timothie a Deacon where he opposeth a Deacon to a Bishop Ignatius an ancient writer saith that hee was a Deacon that where diuiding the ministeries of the Church into Bishops and Deacons c. doth openly oppose a Deacon to a Bishop little reason had T.C. to speake of Ambrose and therefore might well say not to speake of him For these are Ambrose his words with the BB. and Deacons that is with Paul and Timothie qui vtique Episcopi erant who verily were Bishops he also signified the Deacons which ministred vnto him For he writeth vnto the people For if he had written to the Bishops and Deacons he would haue written to their persons and it had beene fit that he should haue written to the Bishop of the place not to two or three as hee did to Titus and to Timothie Ignatius his words be these What be the Deacons but the imitators of the Euangelicall powers ministring vnto him that is the Bishop as the Angels doe to God a pure and blamelesse ministerie as holy Steuen to Iames the blessed and Timothie and Linus to Paul Anacletus and Clemens to Peter Distinguish the times and the answere is easie Timothie was such an Euangelist as first ministred to Paul as a Deacon afterwards was ordayned Presbyter as Ambrose saith and lastly a Bishop which is as the same Ambrose saith primus Presbyter But doth his seruing vnder Paul as a Deacon proue that afterwards he was not a Bishop nay rather his being a Deacon and afterwards a Presbyter doth proue he was not such an Euangelist as the Refuter imagineth And by as good reason he might proue that neither Linus nor Anacletus nor Clemens were Bishops of Rome because they had serued vnder Peter and Paul as Deacons Here is all that our Refuter can either by himselfe or with T. C. helpe obiect out of antiquity against Timothie his being a Bishop His third answere is that the Scripture calleth him an Euangelist 2 Tim. 4.5 and therefore he was no B. which is the same with the second obiection already answered I hope therefore I may be bold with the Readers consent to conclude that Timothie and Titus were ordayned BB. by the Apostle Paul the one of Ephesus the other of Creet Serm. sect 10. pag. 81. To these mentioned in in the Scriptures we adde others out of other the most auncient records of the Church wherof some were made BB. by Peter Paul some by Iohn the Euangelist and other the Apostles c. to pag. 87. l. 1. In this section I brought diuers most plaine and pregnant euidences to proue that the Apostles ordayned BB noting the Places where and the Persons whom they ordayned The which because the Refuter passeth ouer as it were in silence I will breifly recite that it may appeare to the Reader that the Refuter had cause to be silent because the euidence of truth did put him to silence First I shewed out of Eusebius that about the yeare fortie fiue Euodius was made Bishop of Antioch by the Apostles Peter and Paul as Ignatius who succeeded him in the Apostles times doth witnesse Secondly that Peter and Paul ordayned Linus Bishop of Rome about the yeare 56 whom Anacletus succeeded and after him Clemens testified by Irenaeus and Eusebius Thirdly that by the appointment of Peter Marke was the first B. of Alexandria whom Anianus succeeded in that Bishopricke after him Abilius and then Cerdo all in the Apostles times testified by Nicephorus Gregory Eusebius Ierome and Dorotheus Fourthly that after the death of Iames the iust Simon the sonne of Cleophas was by the Apostles which then were remayning made Bishop of Ierusalem testified by Hegesippus and Eusebius Fiftly that Iohn the Apostle ordayned Polycarpe Bishop of Smyrna testified by Irenaeus Eusebius Tertullian and Ierome Sixtly that Iohn after his returne from exile ordayned BB. in diuers places testified by Clemens
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
is to their Parish Bishop a Consistorie of Lay or onely gouerning Elders Out of which words they frame this proposition They which haue not onely supreme but also sole authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall are absolute Popelings hereto they adde an assumption of their owne All Diocesan Bishops haue not onely supreme but also sole authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall and from thence inferre their victorious triumphing conclusion therefore all Diocesan Bishops are absolute Popelings And this they say is mine owne reason whereby I make Diocesan Bishops absolute Popelings Mine owne reason in which there is nothing mine but the proposition which also is stretched beyond not onely my meaning but euen my words this proposition I denie not may bee framed out of my words they who giue to a Bishop not onely supreme but also sole authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall doe seeme to set vp an absolute Popeling From which words if they had bene retained this might haue bene concluded if I did giue to our Bishops both supreme and sole authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall as I doe not that then I might seeme to set vp absolute Popelings But it were well with my aduersaries if to seeme and to bee were all one And yet I doe not so much as seeme to anie that is wise and indifferent to make our Bishops as they say absolute Popelings The application of this to the BB. is made in the assumption which is both false and foolish and is not mine but theirs They say it is not onely impleyed and intended but is one of the chiefe and principall points I vndertake to proue throughout my Sermon But their saying is false and friuolous How doe they prooue it For the question beeing saith our refuter whether the Churches should bee gouerned by Pastors and Elders or by Diocesan Bishops whereas they say by Pastors and Elders adioyning the Elders to the Pastors and making them both subiect to the whole congregation c. M.D. taketh all from them all and putteth the reynes into his Diocesan alone so making him by his owne rule the absolute Popeling Here I intreate the Reader to keepe in store for future vse the state of the question as it is here propounded by the refuter In the meane time let vs after his owne manner examine his argument The question being whether the Churches should be gouerned by Pastors and Elders for I will for your credites sake leaue out that Brownisticall and Anabaptisticall dotage concerning the chiefe authoritie of the people or by Diocesan BB. whosoeuer taketh all from Pastors and Elders and shall I adde the people too and putteth the reynes into the hands of the Diocesan alone he giueth him not onely supreme but also sole authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall and so maketh him an absolute Popeling But the question being as I said M. D. taketh all authoritie from the Pastors Elders and people and putteth the reynes into the hands of the Diocesan Bishop alone Therefore M. D. giueth to the Diocesan not onely supreme but also sole authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall and so by his owne rule maketh him an absolute Popeling Sect. 10. To let you see how the refuter climbeth a ladder of vntruthes to seat our Bishops in the Papacy I will begin with his assumption wherein are two vntruthes First that I take all authoritie from the Pastors Elders and people The Elders indeed I reiect as a new deuise in the parishioners I acknowledge some authoritie in choosing or consenting to the choyse of some Church-officers but authoritie to gouerne much lesse to ordaine depose and depriue their Pastor I know not any They are the sheepe which must heare their pastors voyce and be obedient to their spirituall guides They are the flocke which must be ruled and taught not followed and obeyed As touching the pastors of parishes I leaue to them that pastorall power which euer was granted to them since the first distinguishing of parishes and allotting of seuerall Presbyters to them that is to say both poâ—â—statem ordinis the power of order as they are Ministers potestatem iurisdictionis spiritualis seu internae a power of spirituall and inward iurisdiction to rule their flocke after a priuate manner as it were in foro conscientiae in the court of conscience as they are pastors of that flocke By which power they rule and guide their flocke not onely in their publike Ministery but also in their priuate attendance or if yee will so call it superintendence as occasion shal be offered For as touching their publicke ministery they are the leaders and guides of the people in Gods seruice they preach the word therein teaching confuting instructing reprouing correcting their hearers they administer the sacraments as the stewards of Gods house by the one admitting into Gods family those which belong to his couenant by the other nourishing the houshold of Christ in due season and both by the word and sacraments exercising so much of the power of the keyes as of right belongeth to them as well binding the notoriously scandalous and impenitent by denouncing the threatnings of God against them in the word and by repelling them for the time from the sacrament as also loosing the penitent belieuers by applying to them the gracious promises of the Gospell and adding thereto the sacraments as seales So that all power is not taken from the pastors neither is all giuen to the Bishop alone For in the gouernement of the Church others are ioyned with him some vnder him some aboue him Vnder him in the mother Church or Cathedrall the Deane and Chapter which in the ancient Church as hereafter wee shall shewe were called Archpresbyters and presbyteri ciuitatis in the other Churches of the Diocesse diuided into seuerall precincts the Archdeacons and rurall Deanes gouerning them as the Chorepiscopi were wont in the primitiue Church Not to speake of the Chancellers and Officials the former being adioyned to the Bishops the latter to the Archdeacons by reason of their skill in the Ecclesiasticall lawes Aboue him not onely the Archbishop and his courts but also the prouinciall Synodes assembling chiefly for ordaining Ecclesiasticall Canons and constitutions by which the Bishops are to rule and to be ruled In making whereof though the Ecclesiasticall authoritie especially appeareth yet neither all the Bishops alone and much lesse any one Bishop concludeth any thing but with the consent of the Presbytery And therefore this may to the former authoritie of Ministers be added that in making Ecclesiasticall lawes they haue a voyce either by themselues if they be sent to the Synode or by such as themselues shall choose Sect. 11. In the proposition likewise are two vntruthes For first it is not generally true as it is necessarily intended in the proposition for otherwise the Syllogisme is a meere Paralogisme that whosoeuer doth giue to the Bishop alone the power which is taken from the seuerall pastors with their Elders and parishes doth straightwaies
vpon vs as the holy discipline of Christ. And now had wee done with this place of the Epistle to Timothie sauing that the refuter looking backe to the â—enth page of my Sermon as being loath thus to leaue wrangling with my exposition of that text noted three things to be cauilled at in this one speech where I say that Ministers are especially to be honoured for their paines in preaching of the word that being in Pauls estimation the chiefe worke of the ministerie For first he would faine know of me why â—adde in Pauls estimation I answere because it was necessarie to be added for in such comparatiue sentences where one part seemeh to be preferred before all the rest we are not alwaies to vnderstand that part simply to be the chiefe but in the estimation of the speaker who in some respect preferreth it to the rest As for example if that you should say all good Ministers or Preachers are greatly to be honoured especially they who goe before their people in the example of a godly life I would expound your meaning as I did the Apostles to be this that whereas double honour is due to all Ministers or Preachers for the performance of their dutie in generall 〈◊〉 they are especially to be honoured for their godly life that being in your estimation the chiefe commendation of a Minister Or to vse the refuters owne example which before I explaned all logicians that reason well are to be well accounted of especially they that iudge well or are iudicious In this speech are to be noted not two sorts but two duties of logicians the one generall to reason well the other speciall to iudge well disposed in a comparatiue sentence wherein the duties of a logician are thus compared that whereas logicians are to be esteemed for the performance of their dutie in generall yet especially they are to be honoured for iudging well that being in the estimation of him that shall so speake the chiefe worke of a Logician I say in the estimâ—iâ—â— of him that shall so speake for another perhaps would say thus All logicians that reason well are to be well esteemed especially those that analise well another perhaps thus All good Logicians are to be honoured especially those that are methodicall another thus especially those that inuent well In like manner I explane the Apostles speech as hath beene shewed before I but saith he if this be true that those Ministers are especially worthy of double honour that labour in the word and doctrine then some poore Ministers that continually preach or would doe if they might be suffered are more especially to be honoured then some great prelates that seldome or neuer preach and it was the enuy of this illation which by saying in Pauls estimation you would deriue from your selfe to the â—â—â—stle Answ. The Apostles comparison is to be vnderstood of them which be of the same degree being Presbyters and no more Neither was it Pauls meaning writing to Timothie the Bishop that any of the Presbyters should haue more maintenance then he for that is the honour whereof hee speaketh though perhaps they were more painefull in preaching as hauing better opportunitie It is well knowne that in the primitiue Church when the reuenewes of â—ach Church were diuided into foure parts the Bishop alone had one fourth part and that was as much as all the Presbyters and all the rest of the clergie though perhaps there were an hundred of them had amongst them For all of them had but another fourth part a third fourth part went to the buildings and reparations and the fourth to the poore His second cauill that in other places viz. pag. 42.45.53 I haue through flatterie contradicted this assertion making gouerning a labour of greater honour then preaching Answ. In none of those places doe I compare preaching with gouerning but Bishops with Presbyters saying and prouing that Bishops are superiour to Presbyters in the power of ordination and iurisdiction and that the Bishops are the Apostles successors in the gouernement of the Church But doth it follow because Bishops are superiour to Presbyters that therefore preaching is a worke inferiour to gouernement I trust Bishops are equall at the least with Presbyters in the power of order as it respecteth the ministerie of the word and sacraments so that what can be said in commendation of the order of Presbyters in respect of the ministerie belongeth also to Bishops If therefore BB. being at the least equall with Presbyters in the power of order respecting the ministerie of the word and sacraments be aboue them not onely in the exercise of that power but also in the power of ordination and iurisdiction they may without disparagement to the ministerie of the word be said to be superiour to other Ministers To your third cauill I might answere as to the first that the Apostle speaketh to the Bishop of Presbyters not to a Presbyter as you doe of Bishops But indeed our Bishops as they ought all so the most of them as I trust doe thinke themselues bound to preach when they haue opportunitie and leysure in respect of their other weightie imployments in regard whereof I haue alwaies thought that one good Bishop though hee haue not opportunitie to preach very oft may doe more good in the Church of God then a dozen good Preachers So that in these three cauilles the refuter hath gained nothing but the manifestation of his owne malice which I pray God to forgiue him CHAP. VII 〈◊〉 Ambrosâ— in 1. Tim. 5. â— doth not giue testimonie to the Lay 〈…〉 that their exposition of Ambrose is vntrue Sâ—rm Sect. 6. pag. 13. I come now to Ambrose writing on the first verse of the same chapter 1. Tim. 5. where the Apostle exhorting Timothie not to rebuke an Elder or aged man Ambrose giueth this reason For among all nations old age is honourable and then addeth vnde synagoga postea ecclesia seniores habuit quorum sine coÌ„silio nihil agebatur in ecclesia Quod qua negligentia obsoleuerit nescio nisi forte doctorum desidia aut magis superbia dum soli volunt aliquid videri Whence it is that both the Synagogue and afterwards the Church had Seniors Without whose counsell nothing was done in the Church Which by what negligence it is growne out of vse I knowe not vnlesse perhaps by the slouthfulnes of the learned or Teachers or rather pride whiles they alone will seeme to be something Which words whosoeuer vnderstand as giuing testimonie to Lay-Elders they wrong Ambrose c. 10. lines further IN this allegation the disciplinarians haue great confideÌ„ce For this testimonie of Ambrose saith T.C. is so cleare and open that he which doth not giue place vnto it must needs be thought as a Bat or an Owle or some other night-bird to delight in darkenesse And it is a world to see how the refuter thinking that his cause wil
before that time there were Bishops placed in country townes and thereupon conclude that therefore there had beene before that time parishionall Bishoppes To this obiection I answere by denying the consequence or the proposition which is vnderstood viz. that the country Bishops which had beene before ordained were parish Bishops For those Bishops because they were placed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Countries were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as you would say Countrie-Bishops to distinguish them from the other Bishops whose See was in the Citie Now these Chorepiscopi were not in all Dioceses much lesse in all parishes nor assigned where they were to one parish as they were Bishoppes but where the Diocesse was large were ordained in some places remote from the citie to supply the absence of the Bishop in some such circuits as our rurall Deanries are wherein diuers parishes were contained These Chorepicsopi at the first had Episcopall ordination by the imposition of the hands of three Bishops insomuch that of the three hundred and eighteene Bishoppes assembled at the Councill of Nice there were fifteeene Countrie-Bishoppes For which fifteene if all pastors of parishes had beene Countrie-Bishoppes there might haue beene I doubt not fifteene hundred if not fifteene thousand But when these Countrie-Bishoppes beeing but the Bishoppes suffraganes and substitutes placed in the Countrie to supplie the Bishoppes roome and to exercise some matters of lesse moment appertaining to the Episcopall function began to encroach vpon the Bishoppes right and to vsurpe Episcopall authoritie and jurisdiction beyond their commission they were by little and little restrained and when they would not be kept within their compasse their order at least as they were Bishops beeing but an humane-ordinance deuised for the ease of the Bishoppes in the citie was in most places abolished But forsomuch as that which is recorded concerning these countrie Bishops doth giue great light to this present controuersie it will not be vnprofitable nor I hope vnpleasing to the reader if I acquaint him with that which is written concerning them First therefore in the councel of Neocesaria wherunto among other BB. two Chorepiscopi subscribed we find this difference betweene country presbyters country Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presbyters or Ministers of the countrey may not offer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the cathedrall Church of the City the Bishop or Presbyters of the citty beeing present neither may they at the time of prayer deliuer the bread nor the cuppe but if they bee absent and one of them alone bee called to prayer then hee may because hee is of the same Church or Diocesse as some note 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but countrey Bishops who are indeede after the manner of the 70. yet beeing honoured as fellow Ministers they doe offer Vpon which words Balsamo noteth two things First where the councell saith they were as the Seuentie it seemeth to deny that they had power to ordain ministers and deacons Secondly that among other vses for which they were appointed they were ordained to distribute the money to the poore which appertained to them Besides we may obserue that both the country Bishops and country Presbyters belong to the diocesse of the Bishop in the city which heereafter wil more clearely appeare and that the countrey Bishop was in a degree of honour superiour to country Ministres and yet inferiour to the Bishops The councel of Ancyra which is more ancient thē the former and both of them elder then the councill of Nice perceiuing the country Bishops to encroch vpon the Bishops right determined it to be vnlawfull for contrey Bishops to ordaine Presbyters or Deacons The councell of Antioch though it gaue liberty to countrey Bishops which were blamelesse to send canonicall letters as the manner of Bishops among themselues in those times was which it denied to country presbyters yet for so much as the Chorepiscopi stil presumed to ordaine alleging that they might lawfully doe it because they had beene ordained as Bishops Jt therefore determined that Bishops placed in the Townes and Countries called Chorepiscopi although they had receiued the ordination of BB yet they should know their owne measure and gouerne the Churches subiect vnto them and content themselues with the care and ouersight thereof and hauing authoritie to ordaine Subdeacons and Exorcists should satisfie themselues with preferring of them and not presume to ordaine Presbyters or Deacons without the Bishop in the Citie whereunto both himselfe and the Country are subiect But if any shall presume to transgresse this decree hee shall be depriued of that honour which hee hath And whereas they pretended that they had episcopall ordination and therefore as BB might ordaine Ministers to take away that pretence it determined also that the Country B. should be ordained not of the Metropolitan and two or three other Bishops as a Bishop but as other Presbyters or Ministers of the Bishop of the City vnto which he is subiect So that whereas before Chorepiscopi were Suffragan Bishops afterwards according to this decree they were but Presbyters in deede though they had the title of Bishops neither were they acknowledged for any more by the Fathers and Councels of latter times There is an Epistle which goeth vnder the name of Damasus the Author whereof supposeth that Chorepiscopi are but Presbyters because they are found to haue beene ordained at the first after the example of the 70. But now because they are not necessarie in regard of their diligence towards the poore and because they presumed aboue that which was lawfull for them to doe therefore they are remooued from Episcopall offices Wee know saith hee there were but two orders among the Disciples of Christ that is to say of the 12. Apostles and 70. Disciples whence this third came we know not for neither are they Bishops because they be not ordained of three Bishops but only of one neither may Bishops by the Canons bee placed in Country townes neither may they be in the Citie because in one Citie there may be but one Bishop Neither will they bee called Presbyters but will be accounted more then Presbyters Whether Damasus were Author of that Epistle I know not but this I am sure that Leo the great in his Epistle to the BB. of Germanie and France doth shew himselfe to bee of the same iudgement a good part of his Epistle differing little from the aforesaid Epistle which beareth the name of Damasus And this iudgement of Leo was so approued of the Councell of Ciuill whereof Isidore was President that it followeth the same almost word for word Now because my Aduersarie shall not say that what I haue alleged concerning Country Bishops is impertinent hee shall vnderstand that as the maine question concerning dioceses in the primitiue Church is from hence most manifestly prooued as you shall heare in due place so this present
question which wee haue in hand concerning parish Bishops For surely if there were any parishionall Bishops in the Countrey then the Countrey Bishops were such but they were not such for they were set ouer diuers parishes Againe if the Chorepiscopi were subiect to the Bishop of the Citie and the Countrey whereof they were Bishops was part of the diocesse belonging to the Bishop of the Citie then much more the Presbyters of parishes who were inferiour and in some things subiect to the Chorepiscopi as the Bishops substitutes were subiect to the Bishop and their parishes being but a part of the Country whereof the Chorepiscopi were called Bishops were but a part of the diocesse So farre were either the parish Presbyters from being Bishops or their parishes from being entire Churches endued with the power of ecclesiasticall gouernement But the former is true as hath beene proued therefore the latter That the Chorepiscopi were superiour to them it is apparant because not onely they had some iurisdiction ouer diuers parishes but for a time had episcopall ordination and had authoritie to ordaine Subdeacons and to place Readers in parishes as also they might send Formatas or Canonicall Epistles which the Presbyters might not doe Likewise when Bishops were at any time conuerted from heresie though they were not permitted to be Bishops of the City yet they were gratified with the name and authoritie of Chorepiscopi In the time of Theodosius and Valentinian a certaine Bishop had beene ordained by two Bishops only but this ordination the Councell of Rhegium pronounced void and censured the ordainers As for the partie ordained because hee had of himselfe renounced the Bishopricke they thought good to follow the example of the Councell of Nice and to gratifie him with the name and title of a Chorepiscopus but so as that hee should not ordaine nor exercise any other episcopall function but only confirme Nouices and consecrate Virgins and in all things behaue himselfe as inferiour to a Bishop and as superiour to a Presbyter And this was my second argument whereby I haue prooued that Countrey parishes had no Bishops Neither had each of them a Presbyterie but seuerall Presbyters assigned to them as sufficient for such a charge as was determined by the Councell of Sardica and by the iudgement of Leo Yea not Presbyters only did seuerallie gouerne parishes as with vs but sometimes Deacons also were by themselues set ouer charges You heard before diuers testimonies of the Presbyters of parishes as namely that of the Councel of Carthage Presbyter qui Paroeciae praest c. the Presbyter which gouerneth the parish The like is presupposed of Deacons in the Councell of Eliberis which is supposed to be as ancient as the Councell of Nice If any Deacon ruling a people shall without a Bishop or Presbyter baptize any c. Againe if parishes besides their Presbyter or Pastor had a presbytery then was it either of the Ministery or of the Laitie But Presbyteries of Ministers were only in Cities and Cathedrall Churches and not any examples can bee alleged of Presbyteries in the Country no not to assist the Chorepiscopi much lesse to assist the Presbyters of parishes and Presbyteries of Lay men were neuer heard of till this last age Therefore the seuerall parishes had not Presbyteries Moreouer Churches endued with power ecclesiasticall sufficient for the gouernment of themselues hauing also a Bishop and Presbyterie had the power of ordination as themselues also teach But Countrey parishes had not the power of ordination Therefore Countrey parishes were not indued with power ecclesiasticall neither had they a Bishop or Presbyterie of their owne For the Assumption let the Refuter consider with mee what course was taken in Countrey parishes when their Minister was departed Among themselues they had ordinarily none or if by chance they had they could not ordaine him but were as sometimes it happened in Cities to offer him to the Bishop to be ordained Vniuersities they had none from whence to fetch a learned Minister out of other dioceses they were not to bee supplied vnlesse first it did appeare that their owne Bishop was not able out of his Clergie to furnish them To the Bishop of the Citie therefore they did resort who out of the Clergie belonging to the Cathedrall Church wherein as the Nurserie of the diocesse diuers were brought vp in the studie of diuinitie did supply their want assigning some one of his Clergie vnto them But if there were none fit as sometimes their store was drawne drie by supplying the wants of many they might not ordaine a Minister of another diocesse whom they called another Bishops Clerke without his leaue and dimissorie letters for that in the Canons was condemned as a great wrong and such ordinations were to be disanulled If therefore the Bishop neither had of his owne nor knew not readily where to be supplied out of a neighbour diocesse with the consent of his neighbour Bishop he sent to the Metropolitan who either out of his owne Clergie or some other in the Prouince was to supplie them And this as it is euident to them who haue read any thing concerning the state of the ancient Churches so is it confessed by Caluin Each City saith he had a College of Presbyters who were Pastors and Teachers for both did they all discharge the office of teaching c. to the people and also that they might leaue seede behinde them they were diligently imploied in instructing the younger sort of the Clergie To euery Citie a certaine region was attributed which should receiue their Ministers from thence and be accounted of the body of that Church It is therefore euident that Countrey parishes had not each of them a Bishop and Presbyterie nor that power of ecclesiasticall gouernment which they talke of And much lesse had the parishes in the Cities For it was neuer almost heard of that there were at any time more Bishops so properly called then one in a City where notwithstanding were many Presbyters when schisme or heresie was not the cause of setting vp a second or third against the one only lawfull Bishop excepting that in the same Church sometimes a second either hath beene permitted the title of a Bishop without episcopall authoritie or else ordained as a coadiutor to the first And when there haue beene more then one by schisme or heresie yet neither the orthodoxall and Catholike Bishop nor yet the schismaticall or hereticall Bishop was a parishionall Bishop but each of them was Bishop of all that were of the same faith with them in the Citie and Countrey adioining there hauing beene diuers times in the Cities onely more parishes then one not onely of the true Christians but also of the heretikes and schismatickes as before was noted concerning Antioch I shall haue occasion to speake more of this point when I shall intreat of the singularitie of preheminence which
shew they had then can it not be doubted but that diocesan Bishops much more were in the Apostles times for euery Metropolitā was originally B. of his peculiar diocesse being not actually a Metropolitan vntill diuers Churches in the same prouince being constituted there was a consociation among themselues and subordination of them to him as their primate There was therefore no such difference betweene the first two ages of the Churches and those which followed as that either H. I. or the Refuter should restraine the times of the primitiue Church either to the end of the second century or of the first with hope to escape that way Wherefore what proofes I bring from the third or fourth yea or fifth century for the superiority of Bishops they are to be esteemed such as doe directly and sufficiently proue the question vnlesse they shall be able to shew not onely that no such thing was in vse but also that it was not intended in the Apostles time and the age following for what was receiued and practised by generall consent in all Christendome so soone as God gaue peace vnto his Church was vndoubtedly desired and intended from the beginning The second corner of his first starting hole wherewith the second also meeteth is that the question is of the seuen Angels And what of no other Is it not lawfull to ascend from the hypothesis to the thesis especially when it is confessed by the Refuter that the primitiue Churches were all of the like constitution And therefore what may be said either of the seuen Angels in respect of the substance of their calling may be concluded of other Bishops and what may be said of the office of other Bishoppes in the primitiue Church may be verified of these Angels The third that I must proue these Angels to haue had sole power of ordination and iurisdiction which also is repeated in his second euasion But where doe I say in all the sermon that the Bishops had the sole power of ordination and iurisdiction Where doe I deny either that the BB. did or might vse the assistance of their Presbyters for either of both or that in the defect of Bishops both the one and the other might be performed by Presbyters In a word where doe I deny all power either of ordination or iurisdiction to Presbyters But let the Reader vnderstand that there are two maine calumniations whereby this Resuter and his consorts doe vse to disgrace my Sermon with their followers The one that I hold the tenure of our episcopal function so to be iure diuino as though no other manner of gouernment were any way or any where lawfull The other that J ascribe so the sole power of of ordination and iurisdiction to BB. as though the Presbyters had no iurisdiction or as though those Churches had no lawful Ministers which haue not such BB. to ordaine them His other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or starting hole is that which hee hath already foure times runne into and making vse of it now the fifth time in the beginning of the next section desireth the Reader that it may not be tedious to him that now the fifth time he doth finde fault with me for not concluding what hee according to his forced analysis would haue concluded though all men see I doe directly prooue what before was propounded for the proof of my first assertion viz. that the Angels or BB. of the primitiue Church were diocesan Bishops and for the substance of their calling such as ours be Hauing therefore prooued that their Churches were dioceses and themselues diocesan it remained that J should proue that they were as well as ours superior to other Ministers in degree c which if I did not endeuor to proue directly he might haue had some quarrell against me CHAP. II. That Bishops were superior to other Ministers in degree Serm. sect 2. pag. 29. That Bishoppes were superiour to other Ministers in degree all antiquitie with one consent if you except Aërius c. to the end of pag. 31. MY reason hee frameth thus If all antiquitie except Aërius who for dissenting in this point was counted an heretike by Epiphanius and Augustine with one consent doe acknowledge that Bishops were superior to other Ministers in degree then Bishops were superior to other Ministers in degree But the former is true therefore the latter First hee cauilleth with the consequence which no man bearing the face of a Diuine I had almost said of a Christian would doe calling it sore poore feeble and insufficient vnlesse the consent of the Apostles and Euangelists be added Where let the Reader consider what is the question which is here concluded viz. That the Bishops of the primitiue Church were superiour to other Ministers in degree This question plainly is de facto of what was for de iure that is of the quality lawfulnes I intreat in the second assertion Now for a man to deny credit to all antiquitie in a matter of fact not gainsaid by scripture it is a plain euidence that he is addicted to nouelty and singularity rather then the truth Doth all antiquity testifie with one consent that the Bishops in the primitiue Church were superior to other Ministers in degree and hath any of vs the forehead to deny it Neither is the consent of the Apostles wanting as ◠proue in the sermon both in the particulars of the superiority in respect of the fact as also in respect of the right in the demonstration of the second assertion Where I doe with such euidence demonstrate that the Bishops described in the first assertion are of Apostolicall institution as I am well assured that this Refuter with all his partakers will neuer be able soundly and substantially to confute For there is nothing written with such euidence of truth but that captious persons may easily cauill with it And although it had been sufficient for the demonstration of the first assertion to haue produced such euidence as doth testifie onely de facto yet many of the allegations which I bring doe also giue testimony to the right Thus much of the authoritie of antiquitie whereon the consequence is grounded Now to the thing testified which is the assumption which I proue by fiue arguments The first If Epiphanius and Augustine doe reckon Aërius among the heretikes condemned by the antient Catholike Church for denying the superiority of Bishops then the antient Church doth giue testimony to the superiority of Bishops not onely de facto but also de iure But the first is true therefore the second Against the argument it selfe he hath nothing to say but where I said all antiquity besides Aërius did acknowledge the superiority of Bishops against this he obiecteth that either Ierome is against Bishops as well as Aërius or Aërius is brought in by me to no purpose For de facto Aërius denied the superiority of Bishops no more then Ierome did And de iure
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
antecedent I prooue by Pauls substituting Timothe at Ephesus and Titus in Creet to that end that they might ordaine elders notwithstanding that there were diuerse Presbyters in both those Churches before Whereto he answereth that it had been lawfull for the Presbyters and people to haue ordained but at the first they were lesse fit for the purpose then an Euangelist That the people sometimes haue had some stroake in election of their Bishops I do not denie but that they euer had any right to ordaine can neuer be proued That the Presbyters had right to haue done it he should haue declared But what Presbyters doth he speake of ministers they I trust if the new conceit be true were confined ech man to his own parish neither might they intermeddle in other parishes euerie parish hauing sufficient authoritie within it selfe neither can it be thought that the Presbyters of latter times should be fit and that they which were ordained by the Apostles themselues were not fit for the execution of their power assuredly if it were not fit for them to ordaine but for Timothe and Titus by the same reason neither is it fit for Presbyters afterwards but for Bishops who succeeded Timothe and Titus Jf he say the lay Presbyters and the people had right to ordaine he must first proue which he will neuer be able to doe that euer there were such Presbyters and then he must proue that they and the people had right to ordaine ministers which when he hath performed he may hope to proue any thing The latter part of the antecedent I proue thus Who were the successors of Timothe and Titus for the gouernment of Ephesus and Creet to them after their decease was their power of ordination deriued The Bishops of Ephesus and Creet were the successessours of Timothe and Titus for the gouernment of those Churches and not Presbyters Therefore to the BB. and not to the Presbyters was the power of Ordination deriued Hereto he answereth that Timothe and Titus were Euangelists and not Bishops and therefore that which followeth of deriuing their authoritie to their successors is meerely idle Thus no part of my syllogisme is answeared vnlesse it be the conclusion But to answeare his reason whereby he goeth about 〈◊〉 clâ—â—â— pelâ—ere their being Euangelists whiles they attended the Apostle in his peregrinations and were not deputed to any one place doth not hinder but that they might be and were Bishops as all antiquitie with one consent testifieth when they were assigned to certaine Churches Neither is it greatly materiall as touching the force of this argument whether they were Euangelists or Bishops seeing the power which they had of ordination and jurisdiction was not to dye with them but to be transmitted to them who should succeed them in the gouernment of the Church Now that the Bishops of Ephesus and Creet and so of all other Churches did succeed Timothe and Titus and other Apostolicall men who were the first gouernors of the Churches is a most certaine truth as the singular succession of Bishops in those Churches from the Apostles times doth ineuitably euince But hereof I shall haue better occasion hereafter to speake Now that the Presbyters were not their successors it is euident for they had the selfesame authoritie and no greater vnder the Bishops who were successors to Timothe and Titus which before they had vnder them For they which had no other authoritie after them then they had vnder them could not be their successors Serm Sect. 7. p. 37. They obiect 1. Tim. 4.14 Neglect not the gift which is in thee which was giuen thee by imposition of hands of the Presbytery c. to ex authoritate pag. 39. MY answere to this testimony out of 1. Tim. 4. is That howsoeuer the Presbyterians doe vpon this place especially build the authoritie of their pretended Presbyteries yet this text maketh not for them That it maketh not for them I proue by this reason If there be but two expositions which are giuen of the word Presbyterie neither whereof doth fauour their presbyteries then the authoritie of their Presbyteries cannot be concluded out of this place But neither of the two expositions do fauour their Presbyteries Therefore their authoritie cannot be concluded hence The exceptions which he taketh against this answere are very friuolous As first that how many expositions soeuer any text in the conceit of men may admit the holy ghost except by way of allegorie intendeth but one Be it so but yet there may be question which of the diuerse expositions which be giuen is the sense of the holy Ghost vnlesse that must needs be alwaies the meaning of the holy Ghost which the refuter fancieth For my part I did not take vpon me to determine whether sense is the more likely Jt was sufficient for me that whereas there be but these two expositions which are or can be giuen neither of both maketh for the pretended Presbyteries His first exception therefore is to no purpose Now that the former exposition vnderstanding by Presbyterium the Priest-hood or office of a Presbyter maketh nothing for their Presbyteries it is more then euident And that this exposition which so plainly defeateth their Presbyteries is very probable I shewe first because the word is in that sense oft vsed though not in the new testament yet in greeke writers of the Church It suffiseth the Refuter that it is not vsed in that sense in any other place of Scripture and yet himselfe saying that the word is no wheres else vsed in all the Scriptures doth as much prejudge his own exposition as this How be it I do not deny but the worde is else where vsed in the Scriptures onely this I say that there is no other place wherein it can be drawne to signifie the Christian Presbyterie meaning either the company of Presbyters or the office of a Presbyter This then being the onely place where it is so vsed we must not expect parallele places in the Scripture to confirme either sense Secondly I shew that this may be the sense because not onely diuerse in former times as Ierome Primasius Anselmus Haymo Lyra but Caluin also doe so expound it To this his answere is worse then friuolous that though these writers doe so expound it yet Doctor Bilson doth not say that therefore it may be so vnderstood And why so I pray you because he confesseth that Chrysostome Theodoret and other Graecians expound it of the persons which did ordaine not of the function whereto Timothe was ordained Doth not Doctor Bilson say it may be so vnderstood when more then once he mentioneth it as one of the receiued expositions of that place approued by Caluin himselfe the chiefe patron for I must not say founder of the Presbyterian Discipline neither doth his relating of Chrysostomes exposition proue that he rejecteth the other no more then his alledging of Ieromes interpretation doth argue that he refuseth that of Chrysostomes but
to impose hands to belong to the power of order First because imposition of hands is a sacred action of spirituall efficacy indeed a sacrament not onely by the doctrine of the scholemen and Papists but also by the confession of Calum though not such a sacrament as Baptisme and the Lords supper which are seales and pledges of our vnion and communion with Christ yet in a more generall sense as a sacrament is defined a visible signe of inuisible grace I say it is a sacred action of spirituall efficacie consecrating a man to the seruice of God in the Ministery conueiing vnto him the power of that order whereunto hee is ordained whereby he is qualified to performe sacred actions of spirituall and supernaturall efficacie Wherefore I doe not see why the power of begetting spirituall Fathers to the Church by ordination as Epiphanius speaketh should not be thought to belong to the power of order in BB. euen as the begetting of sonnes to the Church by baptisme to the power of order in all Ministers Secondly because this power is conferred vpon each Bishop in their consecration and belongeth to him as being a Bishop simply and cannot be taken from him whiles he remaines a Bishop though his Bishopricke be taken from him and may be exercised by him where he hath no iurisdiction Whereof examples might be produced of Athanasius Eusebius Vercellensis and other godly Fathers who when they were turned out of their Bishoprickes and others placed in their roomes not onely retained their power but also exercised the same as occasion was offered in other Churches Thirdly because all ecclesiasticall power being referred either to the power of order or of iurisdiction this must therefore be referred to the power of order because it cannot be referred truly to the power of iurisdiction and that for these two reasons both because the Bishop cannot communicate this power to others as he may iurisdiction and also because he doth not lose it with his iurisdiction but retaineth it when his Bishopricke is taken from him and may as well exercise it without his diocesse where he hath no iurisdiction as another Minister may preach or baptize out of his owne parish Whenas therefore I expounded Ierome and some others who say the B. is superior to the Presbyters onely in ordination as not meaning that he is not superiour also in the power of iurisdiction but that in respect of the power of order he was superior onely in the right of ordaining because whereas other parts of the power of order be common to him with Presbyters that of ordaining is his peculiar right and prerogatiue I did not speake without vnderstanding Contrariwise the Refuter as in laying to my charge that I confound the power of order with ordination he spake he knew not what so in the inference which he bringeth vpon his former words hee pratleth without vnderstanding Now if the power of ordination did belong properly to the office of BB. then were the BB. superior to the other Ministers potestate ordinis but the former I haue manifestly proued therefore the latter must be granted but that is the question saith he as who should say he were resolued to deny the conclusion But heare him I pray you Notwithstanding to let him inioy his owne distinction of BB. differ onely in ordination from Presbyters quoad ordinis potestatem then in the power of iurisdiction Presbyters are equall with them potestate ordinis by the power of their order Wherefore where afterwards he draweth vnto BB. the whole power of censuring vnder the name of potestas iurisdictionis he maketh that to be adiuine which is but an humane preeminence by his owne distinction All which is meere babling without sense or vnderstanding what he saith as the Reader who vnderstandeth what I haue deliuered concerning this distinction will easily iudge There remaineth the third part of this section wherein out of a Christian and charitable desire to preserue the credit of such reformed Churches as haue no BB. I endeuoured to preuent the obiections of Papists who reason thus against them The right of ordination being peculiar to BB. it followeth that where is no B. there is no ordination where is no ordination there are no Ministers where are no Ministers there is no Church I answered that although the ordinary right of ordination belongeth to BB. in the iudgement of the antient Church that yet it was not to be vnderstood as so appropriating it to them as that extraordinarily and in the case of necessitie it might not be lawfull for Presbyters to ordaine and much lesse teaching absolutely a nullity of the ordination which is performed without a B. Which answer I confirmed by diuers reasons Whereunto I now adde that there seemeth to be the like reason for imposition of hands in confirmation of the baptized in the reconciliation of publike penitents as in the ordination of Ministers But although the two former were reserued as well as the third to the B. yet extraordinarily in the case of necessity and in the want or absence of the B. the antient Church held it lawfull for Ministers to impose hands either for the confirming of parties baptized or for reconciliation of the penitents The former is testified by Ambrose and Augustine the latter by Cyprian and diuers Councels And moreouer the Popish Writers themselues doe teach that the Pope may giue licence to him that is not a Bishop to ordaine so that hee to whom such licence is giuen haue those orders himselfe which he would giue to another If therefore by the Popes licence a Presbyter may ordaine Presbyters much better may a company of Presbyters to whom in the want of a Bishop the charge of the Church is deuolued be authorised thereto by necessity which as they say hath no law To this passage inserted by me onely in fauour of the Churches where the presbyterian discipline is established which I would not lay open to popish cauils the Refuter if he had been led with a good spirit would rather haue answered with thanks then haue set himselfe to wrangle and cauill therewith as if he cared not so he may haue something to speake against what becommeth of those Churches which notwithstanding he would seeme to fauor more then my selfe The which vngracious course he taketh againe in answering the 95. page of my Sermon where I forced my selfe as in this place to speake as much as the truth would permit in fauour of the aforesaid Churches But if my answers for them either here or there do not please the Refuter and his consorts I will hereafter giue them leaue to answer what they please Neither will I any more disaduentage the truth which I defend in a desire to gratifie them seeing my indeuor is so vngratefully taken Which I speake not as though I thought his exceptions against my defence any thing worth For where he obiecteth that if
the Fathers had thought the power of ordination to haue bin peculiar to BB. by any ordinance of God they would not haue allowed any such ordination as I speake of without a B it followes not For though they held the right of Baptizing to beloÌ„g to the Ministers of the Church by Gods ordinance though they held the right of imposing hands to be peculiar to the Apostles and their successors yet in a case of necessity they held baptisme without a Minister and confirmation without a B. to be lawfull In like maner though they held that the right of ordination was peculiar to Bishops by Apostolical institution therefore taught that none but Bishops could regularly and ordinarily ordaine notwithstanding in a case of necessity we may well thinke they would haue allowed of such an ordination as J spake of though as I said not as regular according to the rules of ordinary Church gouernment yet as effectuall and iustifiable in the want of a B. If he still say they wouâ—d not then must he confesse that the practise of the Disciplinarians is such as the Fathers of the Primitiue Church would in no case haue allowed and that is all the inconuenience that can come to our cause if my defence of them be not sufficient As for his cauill at my supposall of the right of ordination to belong to the power of order in BB. I haue answered before To such obiections one answer is enough two is too many And thus much of the Bishops right in ordaining CHAP. V. That Bishops were superior to other Ministers in the power of iurisdiction Serm. sect 9. pag. 45. Now I am to shew that the B. is superiour also in the power of iurisdiction The Presbyters indeede c. to the end of the page HEre the Reader is to obserue what is by me propounded to be proued not that the BB. had or haue the sole power of iurisdiction the defence whereof the Refuter euery where would faine force vpon me but that they are and were superiour in the power of iurisdiction or gouernment I deny not the Presbyters which haue charge of soules to haue iurisdiction both seuerally in their parishes and iointly in prouinciall synods And I haue confessed before that Presbyters haue with and vnder the Bishops exercised some iurisdiction I grant that godly BB. before they had the countenance and assistance of Christian Magistrates and direction of Christian lawes vsed in all matters of moment to consult with their clergy imitating therein as Ierome speaketh the example of Moses Quâ— cùm haberet in potestate solus praesse populo who when it was in his power to gouerne the people alone hee chose seuenty with whom to iudge the people This was practised by Cyprian who resolued from the beginning of his Bishopricke to doe nothing of importance alone because he would preuent dissension and scandals Ambrose also teacheth that there was a time when nothing was done without the aduice of the Presbyters who therefore by Ignatius are called the counsellours and coassessours of the B. Which course if it were vsed still as it would ease the Bishops burden very much so would it nothing detract from their superiority in gouerning the sway of their authority being no lesse when they vsed the aduice of their Presbyters then when they vsed it not For the assistance of the Presbyters was to helpe and aduice but neuer to ouerrule the Bishop Neither will any man say that the authority of a Prince who vseth the aduice of his counsell is the lesse for it but the moâ—e aduised But what the authority of BB. was in the primitiue Church in respect of gouernment I will first shew absolutely and then by way of comparison with Presbyters What the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Councell of Carthage calleth the authority of BB. was may first appeare by this that they were accounted the gouernours and rulers of the Churches meaning thereby dioceses For though there were many ministers who were Angels Pastors Bishops yâ—t there was but one in euery Church who was the Angel the Pastor the Bishop the gouernour of the Church bearing as Ignatius saith the sway of authority aboue and ouer them all But I delight to heare Ierome the onely pretended patron of the Disiplinarians who confesseth as wee haue heard that of necessity a peerelesse power and eminent aboue all is to bee attributed to Bishoppes and that the safety of the Church dependeth thereon Hee therefore in his Commentary vpon Esay chap. 60. verse 17. reading according to the Septuag I will giue thy Princes in peace and thy Bishops in righteousnesse saith Herein the Maiestie of the holy Scriptures is to bee admired which calleth principes futuros ecclesiae episcopos the Princes or Rulers which should bee of the Church Bishoppes whose visitation is all in peace and the name of their dignitie meaning their superintendencie in righteousnesse And on those words of the 45. Psalme In stead of fathers children shall be borne vnto thee O Church saith he the Apostles were thy fathers for they begate thee Now forasmuch as they are gone out of the world thou hast BB. who were borne of thee For these also are thy fathers because thou art gouerned of them And on the words following whom thou shalt make Princes in all the earth for saith he in the name of God the gospell is spread in all ends of the world in which Principes ecclesiae i. episcopi the princes of the Church that is to say the Bishops are placed On which words Augustine also doth comment to the like purpose In stead of the Apostles sonnes are borne to thee BB. are ordained thinke not thy selfe forsaken because thou seest not Peter and Paul who beg at thee of thine owne issue is sprung a fatherhood Agnoscant qui prâ—cisi sunt veniant ad vnitatem c. Let them which are precise or cut off by schisme acknowledge it and come vnto vnity The Church hath borne sonnes and in steed of her fathers hath made them princes ouer all the earth Optatus likewise calleth the BB apices principes omnium The Councell of Carthage decreed that when the Donatists returned to the Church they should be receiued each one in their degrees according to the will and pleasure of the B. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who gouerneth the Church in the same place if he shall thinke it expedient for the peace of the Church Cyprian though he had approued Cornelius his courage in that Felicissimus a wicked schismaticke attended with a troope of desperate fellowes was by him vigore pleno quo episcopum agere oportet pulsus de ecclesia with full vigour of auâ—hority and courage wherewith it behoueth a B to deale driuen out of the Church yet perceiuing him to be somwhat daunted with the threatnings of those lewd companions if this be so saith he that the
and were Pastors thereof And secondly because if I prooue they gouerned the Presbyters who were the gouernours of the seuerall flockes then much more their iurisdiction did extend to the flockes themselues Where he saith J must prooue that the censuring the people is their onely right I answer it is sufficient to prooue their superioritie in iurisdiction which I intended and that none in the Diocese doth exercise externall iurisdiction but from the B. and vnder him A notable euidence whereof wee haue in Siluanus the famous Bishop of Troas who perceiuing those of his Clergie to make gaine of mens suits appointed others whom he thought good to bee the Judges of mens causes whereby he got himselfe great renowne And as for the power of binding and loosing in the court of conscience it is common to Bishops with all Presbyters howsoeuer in respect of the vse and exercise thereof they are subiect to the Bishop Where hee saith that Bishops haue their iurisdiction jure humano because they haue it not potestate ordinis by the power of their order he seemeth to harpe vpon something which hee doth not well vnderstand For although the Schoolemen and Papists teach that to the power of order belongeth a character and grace which God alone doth giue in their ordination yet they grant also that the jurisdiction which is conferred to them by the will of man doth also mediately proceede from God And howsoeuer it be true that Bishops with vs are assisted iure humano to exercise their publike and externall iurisdiction and to iudge in causes ecclesiasticall by the Kings ecclesiasticall Law yet this doth not hinder but that they are authorized thereunto iure Apostolico as is manifest by the Apostles themselues by Timothie and Titus and all the ancient Bishops of the Primitiue Church who by authoritie deriued to them from the Apostles did exercise the ecclesiasticall censures ouer the people and clergy before there were any lawes of Christian Magistrates to authorise or assist them thereunto But he is pleased to see how I proue the BB. to haue been superior to the Presbyters in iurisdiction though not pleased that I speake in generall of BB. for here his Coccysme againe hath place that I should haue proued the Angels of the seauen Churches to haue had iurisdiction ouer ministers vnder them Which is a miserable poore shift indeed Was not this the thing propounded to be proued that the BB. of the primitiue Church were superior in iurisdiction doth not himselfe confesse that the ancient Churches were all of one Constitution And is not the proofe of the generall a proofe of the particular also If I should say these seauen Angels had this iurisdiction some such exception of singularity in them would with as great reason be taken as against Timothy and Titus But when I proue that BB. in generall had this superiority I doe more then proue that these seauen Bishops had it The reason which I vse is an induction The Bishop had superiority in iurisdiction both to the Presbyters that were parts of the Presbytery assisting him and to the Pastors assigned to seuerall cures Therefore he had superior iurisdiction to all the Presbyters in the diocesse But the Refuter maketh me reason thus If the Bishoppes had maiority of rule both ouer the Presbyters that assisted them and also ouer the Pastors allotted to their seuerall charges then had they power of iurisdiction But they had maiority of rule ouer the Presbyters assisting them and the Pastors c. Therefore they had power of iurisdiction Why Needes this to be proued that Bishops had power of iurisdiction which euery parish Minister hath Or doth the Refuter deny that Bishops had power of iurisdiction Or if he cannot but grant the conclusion what a folly is it to wrangle with the premises And yet for feare of granting the conclusion first hee pickes a quarrell with the proposition For though they had maiority of rule c. yet wâ—ll it not follow they had sole power of iurisdiction Whence commeth this sole I pray you that hath so oft been foisted in I feare greatly from an euill conscience resolued to oppugne and deface the truth Cannot the B. be superior to Presbyters in the power of iurisdiction vnlesse they haue as none haue the sole power of iurisdiction Then hee flatly denieth the assumption But what reason doth he giue of his deniall what euidence of truth doth he bring to proue the contrary Alas he troubleth not himselfe that way all his care and endeuour is to find out starting holes and euasions to elude the truth I proue first in generall that BB. had maiority of rule or superiority of iurisdiction ouer the Presbyters euen those of the City who were the chiefe Then in particular in the next section The former I proue first by the testimony of Ierome who confesseth that of necessity a power eminent aboue all and admitting no partner at least no compeere is to be granted to the B. To this besides the poore euasion of Ieromes minority and being vnder age before answered he saith Ierome speaketh of such BB. as hee acknowledgeth to 〈◊〉 no warrant in the scriptures and to haue beene brought into the Câ—â—rch by occasâ—â—â— of schisme after the Apostles times Both which I haue before proued and shall againe proue to be manifestly false Doth Ierome deny BB. to haue warrant in the scriptures besides the places of the new testament often alledged call to mind those two on Psalme 45. and Esay 60. Where he calleth them principes ecclesia by warrant of those scriptures Doth Ierome say they were not brought into the Church vntill after the Apostles times doth not he confesse Iames Markâ— Timothy Titus and diuers others to haue been BB. in the Apostles times and that euer since S. Marke there haue beene BB. at Alexandria Secondly I alledge Ignatius whom themselues oft alledge for their Presbyteries But see what hard hap some men haue he whose authority is so good when he is alleaged by them is but a counterfeit when he is produced by me And yet those who suspect fiue of his epistles because Eusebius and Ierome mention but seauen acknowledge this ad Trallianos to be none of the fiue which are suspected but one of the seauen which are receiued This â—uasion should not haue bin vsed if he could tell how to answer his testimony otherwise Yes that he can For though Ignatius doe say that a B. is such an one as holdeth or manageth the whole power and authority aboue all yet that proueth not the sole iurisdiction of BB. God amend that soule that so oft foisteth in that sole besides my meaning and my words And yet truely Ignatius saith faire for the sole power For if the B. haue the whole power and authority aboue all why may he not be said to haue the sole power and authority ouer all what saith the refuter he alone
May not a man say as much of the Duke of Venice or of the King of Polonia yet are neither of these soueraignes no more had the B. for all these words any supreme and sole authority Do I any where say that the BB. haue or ought to haue supreme and sole authority which here againe he obiecteth to make the BB. according to my iudgement forsooth absolute Popelings will these odious slanders wilfully deuised to disgrace the truth which I taught neuer bee left and yet that is vntrue which he saith of the Duke of Venice and that is more then we desire that the B. in his diocese should be like the King of Polonia in his kingdome For though the Duke of Venice bee aboue any other in Venice yet hee hath not the whole power and authority aboue al neither doe we make the B. to haue supreme power in his diocese as the King of Poland hath in his realme though in respect of the election of him to his kingdome and of BB. to their sees there be somelikenes In the third place I alleage another testimony of Ignatius where hee exhorteth the Presbyters of Antioch where himselfe was Bishop to feed the flocke which was among them vsing the words which Peter doth 1. Epist. 5. Vntill God should declare who should bee their Gouernour meaning the Bishop Where the B. in plaine termes is called the gouernor of the Presbyters There can be no question but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a maiority of rule And yet he saith this testimony doth not proue any such maiority of rule and that for foure worthy reasons First because this is one of those places which the disciplinarians absurdly alledge for the proofe of onely-gouerning elders which neuer were the duty inioined them being pastorall Secondly because the Church whereof he was B. was but one congregation at that time And yet he expressely calleth himselfe the Bishop of Syria which plainely proueth that he was not onely a diocesan but a Metropolitan B. Yea but in his epistle to Ierome he calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I wil not vrge the error in the name Ierome for Heron perhaps it was not our Ieremies but his Barucks fault The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which hee absurdly translateth Synagogue and parish signifieth congregation and is the same with ecclesia or Church For Ignatius hauing signified to him that he should be his successour in the Bishopricke he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the congregation of the Lord shall not be as sheepe without a pastor But hereof I haue spoken heretofore Howbeit both this and the former answere here are meere euasions For suppose that which I haue proued to be most false that there were onely-gouerning elders in Antioch and that the Church had been but one parish can he be so absurde asto say that none of the Presbyters in Antioch were ministers If any were as indeed they were all as I haue abundantly proued before is not the B. here plainely noted to be their gouernour and if he were their gouernour was he not aboue them in the power of iurisdiction or gouernment Or what is this to the present question whether the Church of Antioch contained one congregation or more if it cannot be denied that the B. was superiour in the power of iurisdiction to the Presbyters of that Church how great or how little soeuer it was His third reason of all others is most impertinent For what is this to the purpose if it were true that the duty which Ignatius inioineth them of feeding that is of instructing and guiding the people was not perpetually belonging to their office but onely in the time of the vacancie till they had another gouernour seeing he noteth that himselfe had been and his successour should bee their gouernour But it is vntrue which he saith concerning the perpetuity of the duty For Ignatius his meaning was that as they were at all times to feed the people so especially in the absence or want of the Bishop the care and attendance of the flocke in the defect of a B. being deuolued to them Fourthly If M. D. doe vrge saith he that Ignatius was and so also his successor their gouernour which was indeed the onely thing for which the place was alleaged and to which point alone hee ought to haue directed his speech the answere is easie that he might be so and yet the Church but a parish and those Presbyters gouerning Elders An easie answere indeed as who should say though the allegation doe proue that for which you bring it yet it doth not disprooue some other of our absurdities for the disproofe whereof you do not bring it as that the Church was a parish and the Presbyters onely gouerning elders Was the disproofe of those points to be expected from this place and at this time do you not say it is one of the places which is ordinarily brought out of Ignatius for proofe of onely-gouerning Elders And must this be your shift to auoid my argument proouing out of this place the superiority of Bishops in the power of iurisdiction that for any thing can hence be alleaged the Presbyters might be onely gouerning Elders Js not the Refuter neere driuen thinke you when he would beare his Reader in hand that his lay Presbyters be sufficiently proued if the place which themselues bring for them doth not disproue them but especially when he is driuen to alleage this as a poore shift to auoid another thing in question Yea but if the Church were a parish and they onely gouerning Elders then was Ignatius but as a Parson of a parish and Parsons though they be called rectores ecclesiarum gouernours of the parish Churches are farre enough from the maiority of rule in question Whereto J answere that if he would need◠make Ignatius but the Parson of a parish assisted with a Presbytery of lay Elders hee should haue conceiued him to be such a one as themselues fancie and not as ours are For he should not haue been subordinate and subiect as ours are and as all Presbyters of parishes euer were to the Bishops but as they fancy indued with a power vnsubordinate and independent and therefore had a supremacy rather then superiority as being the supreme ecclesiasticall officer in all that Church But how I beseech you is it proued that Ignatius was but a parish Bishop Because forsooth the Church of Antioch might be a parish and the Presbyters thereof onely-gouerning Elders for any thing that I haue here said to the contrary which indeed I intended not in this place But now I discerne a worthy stratageme of this Refuter in chusing rather to answere the places out of Ignatius being brought for superiority of Bishops then himselfe to vrge them for the lay-elders hoping to perswade some kind of Readers both that their Elders are sufficiently proued if they be not disprooued out of the places
authoritie ouer them or reprooued for suffering them And if they were not Presbyters because they called themselues Apostles be like they were better men Js it not then against sense to deny that Presbyters were subiect to the ceÌ„sure of the Bishop because he imagineth these who were subiect to their censure were better men Whatsoeuer they were whether Presbyters or in a higher degree whether of the Bishops presbytery or not whether of his diocese originally or come from other places it is plaine that they were Teachers and that being in their diocese the Bishops had authoritie either to suffer them to preach or to inhibit them to retaine them in the Communion of their Church or to expell them My other reason that BB. had correctiue power ouer the Presbyters is because Timothe and Titus had such power ouer the Presbyters of Ephesus and Creet as I proue by most euident testimonies out of Pauls epistles written to them and Epiphanius his inference on these words to Timothe Against a Presbyter receiue not thou an accusation but vnder two or three witnesses c. Therefore saith he Presbyters are subiect to the B. as to their Iudge To my inference out of S. Paul he answereth that Timothe and Titus were not BB. and that I shall neuer prooue they were I desire therefore the Reader to suspend his iudgement vntill hee come to the proofes on both sides and if he shall not find my proofes for their being BB. to be better then his to the contrarie let him beleeue me in nothing In the meane time let him know that if the generall consent of the ancient Fathers deserue any credit for a matter of fact then must it be granted that Timothe and Titus were Bishops Against Epiphanius hee obiecteth that hee tooke for granted that which Aerius constantly denied But this is one of his presumptuous and malapeit conceits for when Epiphanius prooueth against Aerius that Bishops were superiour to other Presbyters because Timothe was taking it for granted that Timothe was a Bishoppe what moderate or reasonable man would think otherwise but that this assertion that Timothe was a Bishoppe was such a receiued truth as hee knew Aërius himselfe would not deny it Serm. sect 12. pag. 50. But consider also the Presbyters as seuered in place from the Bishop and affixed to their seuerall Cures c. to offenders pag. 52. My first Argument to proue the iurisdiction of Bishops ouer Presbyters assigned to their seuerall cures is that when any place in the country was voide the Bishoppe assigned a Presbyter to them out of his Presbytery which as hath beene said before Caluin confesseth and is an euident argument as to proue the iurisdiction of the Bishop ouer the country parishes and Presbyters thereof so to demonstrate that the Bishops were Diocesan This reason because hee could not answere he would as his maner is perswade the Reader that it is needlesse Secondly I alledge that these Presbyters might doe nothing but by authority from the Bishoppe from whome they had their iurisdiction and therefore were subiect to him as their ruler Thirdly that they were subiect to his iudgement and censures These two points with their proofes hee passeth ouer as if hee made hast to the reason following which he supposeth to be the weakest For this is his maner to passe by in breuity or in silence the best proofes and if he meet with any thing which seemeth to him weaker then the rest there he resteth like aâ—lie in a raw place But by his leaue I will insist a little on these two points And first for the former point in generall the ancient Councell of Laodicea hauing ordained that Country Bishops might do nothing without the consent of the B. in the City in like maner commaundeth the Presbyters to doe nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the consent of the B. The same hath Damasus who hauing spoken of Country Bishops in like manner saith this must be held concerning Presbyters vt sine iussu proprij Episcopi nihilagant that they do nothing without the commaundement of their owne B. To omit those actions that belonged to the power of order which I haue already proued they could not performe without licence and authority from the Bishop consider how in respect of their persons those of the Clergy were subiect to the Bishop to be disposed by him First hee had authority to promote theÌ„ from one degree to another as he saw cause insomuch that if they refused to bee promoted by him they were to loose that degree from which they would not be remoued Secondly they might not remoue from one Diocese to another without his consent If they did he had authority to call them backe Or if any other Bishop should ordaine any of his Clerks without his coÌ„sent or letters dimissory and in that Church preferre him to a higher degree his own B. might reuerse that ordination bring him again to his own Church Con. Nic. c. 16. Arel 2. c. 13. Sard. c 15. Constant. in Trullo c. 17. Venet. c. 10 Epaun. c. 5. Thirdly they might not so much as trauel from one City to another without the B. licence his commendatory letters This was decreed by the councell of Laodicea and diuers others as Con. Agath c. 38. Epaunens c. 6. Aurelian 3. c. 15. Venet. c. 5. Turon c. 11.12 Hereby the Reader will easily discerne that the whole Clergy of euery Diocese was subiect to the B. as to their Ruler And that he was their iudge it is euident Cyprian testifieth that heresies and schismes arise hence that the Bishop is not obeied nec vâ—us in Ecclesia ad tempus sacerdos ad tempus index vice Christi cogitatur neither is one B. in the Church and one iudge for the time in the stead of Christ acknowledged First in their controuersies for when Clerks are at variance the B shal bring them to concord either by reason or by his power If there be a controuersie betweene Clerks saith the Councel of Chalcedon they shal not forsake their owne B. but first their cause shall be tried before him And if in their sutes they thought themselues wronged in their Bishoppes court then were they either to seâ—ke to the next BB if the matter could not be differred to the next Synode or else they might appeale to the Metropolitane or Prouinciall Synode But that the B. should be ouerruled controlled or censured by his owne Presbytery it was neuer heard of vnlesse it were by way of insurrection or rebellion Secondly in causes criminall that the Presbyters and others of the Clergy were subiect to the BB. censures it is euery where almost in the ancient Canons and Councels either expressed or presupposed If any Presbyter or Deacon saith the ancient Canon be excommunicated by the B. he may not be receiued by another
into the Communion then by him who did excommunicate him whiles he liueth Which Canon is ratified in the Councell of Nice in these words as touching those which be excommunicate whether they be of the Clergy or Laity by the BB. in euery Prouince let that CanoÌ„ be obserued that those that are excommunicated of one should not goe to another c. The Councell of Antioch decreed that if any B. being deposed by a Synode or a Presbyter or Deacon by his owne B. shall presume before they be restored by a Synod to exercise their ministery their degree should be vnrecouerable and that they which communicate with them should be cast out of the church Again If any of the Laitie or Clergy whether Presbyters or Deacons c. shal be excommunicated by his own B. he may not bee receiued of another And yet againe If any Presbyter or Deacon being deposed by their owne Bishop c. The Councell of Sardica forbiddeth a Bishop to receiue a Presbyter or Deacon c. whom hee knoweth to haue beene excommunicated by his owne Bishop Againe If any B. through choler shall rashly excommunicate a Presbyter or Deacon it shall bee lawfull for them to appeale to the Metropolitane Exuperantius a Presbyter being excommunicated by Triferius his Bishop for some misdeamenour towards him the Councill of Taurin left his restitution to the arbitrement of the Bishop by whom he had beene excommunicated The Councill of Carthage decreed that they which receiued those which be excommunicated shall be guiltie of the same fault with them who doe flie from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the canonicall sentence of their owne B. Out of the same Councel I cited before a decree coÌ„cerning Presbyters which were condemned of their owne Bishoppe And in the African Councel there is another decree concerning Clergy men of what degree soeuer that haue beene condemned by the iudgement of their Bishop In the 4. Councell of Carthage it was decreed that the Bishop should excommunicate the accusers of their brethren and that if they did repent hee should receiue them vnto the communion but not into the Clergie The councell of Ephesus that if any for their misdeedes being condemned either by a Synode or their own Bishop should be restored by Nestorius or his complices either to the communion or to their degree that they should notwithstanding remaine excommunicated or deposed The Councell of Agatha appointed that disobedient Clerks should bee corrected of their Bishop In the Councell of Chalcedon there is a Canon concerning such Clerks as being excommunicated by their own Bishops got themselues to the City of Constantinople c. In the same Councell Carosus vseth these words They are Bishops they haue power to excommunicate and to condemn These testimonies for councels may suffice For I will not descend to those of latter times the latest which I haue cited being the 4. generall Councell For examples the like plenty might bee shewen of them who haue been excommunicated or deposed by the B. Thus Alexander deposed Arius and Chrysostome diuers of his Clergie Euryches was canonically deposed by his owne Bishop and diuers Presbyters excommunicated by Ibus the Bishop c. To conclude Bishops saith Balsamâ— haue authority eyther to excommunicate their Clergy or to depose them Thus haue I proued by euident testimonies that al sorts of Presbyters and other clergy men in euery diocesse were subiect to the Bishop Whereunto this I adde that since the first institution of Bishops which was in the Apostles times vntill our age it was neuer otherwise but all clergy men if either they withdrew themselues from their subiection to their orthodoxall B. they were counted schismatickes or if they liued vnder no Bishop they were wont to be called headlesse Clerks By no meanes saith the councill of Paris are they to be accounted Clerks or Priests who do not liue vnder the gouernment and discipline of some Bishop for such the custome of the ancient Church called acephalos that is headlesse To these testimonies in the end I added a reason wherein the refuter because he hoped to finde some aduantage is pleased to insist The reason standeth thus The pastors of seueral parishes in the primitiue church were either subiect to the authority and iurisdiction of the Bishop or they had associates in the parishes ioyned with them in the gouernment thereof or ruled alone without controleâ—â—â—t beeing neither restrained by associates nor subiect to BB. But neither had they associates in the parishes ioined with them neither did they rule alone without controlement beeing neither restrained by associates nor subiect to the Bishop Therefore the pastors of seuerall parishes in the primitiue Church were subiect to the authority and iurisdiction of the bishop First he taketh exception against the conclusion saying that I doe not conclude that which he looked for What he looked for I know not nor care not the thing which I propounded to proue was that the Bishops in the primitiue Church were superior to the Presbyters in the power of iurisdiction or gouernment Which is most euidently proued by this argument a relatis If the Presbyters were inferiour and subiect to the iurisdiction and gouernement of the Bishops then were the Bishops superiour to them in the power of iurisdiction and gouernement What can bee more plaine or how could they bee as he absurdly imagineth subiect to the iurisdiction and gouernement of the B. if he neither had power to rule and direct them nor authority and iurisdiction to censure and correct them His exception therefore against the conclusion is a very friuolous cauill like all the rest of his answers To the proposition hee answereth by denying the distruction as insufficient because a fourth thing might bee added and that is the authority of the congregation But though this might be added according to the phantasticall conceit of some fanaticall spirits in our time who make the gouernement of the Church to be neither monarchiall nor aristocraticall but democraticall or rather ochlocraticall yet was it not to be added because there could bee no question thereof according to the iudgement and practise of the primitiue Church whereof I spake But let him adde it if the please for it may as easily be denied in the assumptioÌ„ as added in the proposition The proposition will perhaps seeme somwhat the better and the assumption wil be neuer the worse Therfore this also was a meere cauill As touching the assumption that part which denieth them to haue ruled alone as being neither restrained by associates nor subiect to Bishops he saith hee would haue granted but that I proued it See the spirit of contradiction What then will he deny it No but heereby he wil take aduantage to inferre his triumphing conclusion that Bishopsforsooth he Popes then say it is my conclusion But to this their conclusion which they
to a higher degree aboue the rest of the Apostles because the Apostleship being the highest degree of the Ministerie this was the greatest honour to haue a priority and precedence in that degree Yea but I denie him to haue beene B. when I say that whereas before the Apostles had ioyntly gouerned the Church of Ierusalem that charge which before they had in cōmon they being now to depart cōmitted to him in particular but their charge was of Apostles not of Bishops As though the charge of Apostles is not by the holy Ghost called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Bishopricke and as though Iames who before was an Apostle absolutely did not by this designement become the Apostle of the Iewes Neither was this a clipping of his wings as it pleaseth the Refuter to speake more then of the rest of the Apostles when by mutual consent euery mans Prouince as it were circuit and charge was assigned to him But I spake not without booke deliuering mine owne conceipts as the Refuter euery where doth but what I said I receiued from their owne and almost onely Author Ierome which he receiued also from Hegesippus Hegesippus saith he who was neare the Apostles times in the fift booke of his Commentaries speaking of Iames saith Iames the brother of our Lord sirnamed the iust receiued the Church of Ierusalem post Apostolos after the Apostles As touching the other point though the Refuter would scarsely vouchsafe to touch it as being impertinent notwithstanding it not onely confuteth the conceipt of those who hold Bishops were but for a short time and not for terme of life but also proueth plainly that Iames was B. of Ierusalem I therefore shewed that he continued at Ierusalem as the superintendent of that Church vntil his death ruling the same by the space of thirtie yeares after that manner as his successor after him ruled it eight and thirty yeares Yea but this doth not proue that he was B. Neither was it so much alledged to that end as to shew the preheminence which he had was not as Beza saith of all the ancient Bishops which hee acknowledgeth to be diuine for a short time or by course but for terme of life And yet it proueth the maine point also that he was B. and as the Geneua translators confesse superintendent of that Church For if he were not the Apostle of that Church that is to say the B. why did not he after the example of other Apostles trauaile into other parts but continued there ruling that Church by the space of thirty yeares vntill his death Forsooth hee did not stay so much to rule that Church for that might haue beene otherwise performed as to conuert the multitudes of Iewes which should resort thither Where hee saith the Church might otherwise haue beene gouerned it is nothing to the purpose vnlesse he can shew that it was otherwise gouerned There is no doubt but that Church had a Pastor assigned to them by the Apostles who would not leaue that mother Church as a flocke without a shepheard But what Pastor had it if Iames who continued there and ruled it for thirtie yeares were not the Pastor thereof There is no doubt to be made but the cause and end of his staying there thirtie yeares was the same of his successour Simons staying there thirtie eight yeares and of his successours euery one vntill their death Wherefore was it not great pitie that the Refuter did forget himselfe to spend so much time in things that were so impertinent Serm. Sect. 6. pag. 69. As touching other Churches wee are to obserue that the Apostles did not at the very first planting of them appoint BB. vnto them c. to pag. 72. li. 17. The difference in respect of the time which before I noted betwixt Ierusalem and other Churches I doe in this section explane shewing that the Apostles did not at the first planting of them appoint Bishops to them as presently after the ascension of Christ they appointed a Bishop ouer the Church of Ierusalem yeelding these reasons because as yet there was neither that choise nor yet that vse of them among a people which was to be conuerted before it needed to be gouerned and shewing what course they did take before they appointed Bishops namely that first they ordayned Presbyters to labour the conuersion of the people to feed them being conuerted and to attend them in common gouerning them after a priuate manner and as it were in foro conscientiae And this is that which Ierome saith that the Churches at the first before Bishops were appointed ouer them were gouerned by the common counsell of the Presbyters But the Episcopall power which consisteth specially in the right of ordination and in the sway of Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction committed to one I said the Apostles each of them retayned in their owne hands as was manifest whiles eyther they continued neare them or meant not to be long from them All which while Bishops were not so needfull the Apostles prouiding for the necessitie of those Churches either by their presence or by their letters and messengers And this I noted to be the cause why in the writings of the Apostles Bishops are so seldome though not so seldome as some imagine mentioned and the name with Presbyter confounded But when as they were to leaue the Churches altogether either by departure from them or by death that the Churches should not be left fatherlesse they fulfilled that in Psal. 45. according to Augustines and Ieromes exposition in steed of Fathers that is the Apostles there shall be children borne vnto thee whom thou shall make Princes ouer all the earth that is Bishops succeeding the Apostles in the regiment of the Church At their departure they left substitutes and at their death appointed successours to whom they committed the gouernment of the Churches furnishing them by a singularitie of preheminence both with the right of Ordination and with the power of Iurisdiction as vvell ouer the Presbyters as the people of each Citie with the Countrey adioyning And these I saide at the first vvere called sometimes the Angels of the Churches sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Praepositi Rulers Heb. 13.17 vvhich text in the auncient canons called the Apostles and in the second Epistle of Ignatius as also the name praepositi in Latine Fathers from thence is appropriated to BB. sometimes the Apostles of the Churches c. To all this the Refuter answereth by snatches as he doth to the residue of the Sermon for which cause I thinke it expedient to repeate the points deliuered in the Sermon that his dealing may the better appeare And first hee snatcheth at those wordes where I said that vntill the Apostles were to leaue the Churches altogether Bishops were not so needfull as after their departure and death which is most manifest Belike saith he they were needfull before but
doctrine 1 Tim. 1.3 2 Tim. 2.16 Tit. 1.10.11 and 3.9 and iudges of their persons and conuersation 1 Tim. 5.19.20.21 Tit. 3.10 to which proofes he answereth nothing Wherevnto might be added the authority of Gregorie Nazianzene of Chrysostome of Oecumenius and Gregory testifying that these Epistles doe teach Bishops how to behaue themselues in the Church of God Now because the Refuters supposition is the same in efâ—ect with his assumption I will examine first what he obiecteth against the assumption vnder the name of that supposition and so proceed to his answere which he directed against the assumption The summe of that which he obiecteth against the supposition is this that though Timothie and Titus were by Paules direction to doe those things which Bishops arrogate to themselues yet they were to doe them by an higher power and therefore not as Bishops Whereto I answere that they were to be done by a power vvhich vvas to continue in the Church vntill the end and therefore not by a higher power then Episcopal And secondly that the power Episcopal whereby Bishops doe these things which Timothie and Titus had in commission is so much of the Apostolicall power as was to continue in the Church vnto the end The assumption it selfe hee denyeth saying these Epistles are not precedents of the Episcopall function c. The reason of his deniall is this What though Bishops haue now gotten that power into their hands yet were not those instructions giuen to Timothie and Titus as Bishops the Apostles dreaming of no such soueraigntie but particularly to Timothie and Titus as Euangelists and in generall to the Presbyters to whom the charge of those affaires belongeth To the Euangelists to administer in all the Churches of those Regions whither the Apostles sent or where they left them to the Presbyters to administer in their seuerall congregations or Churches Hee said euen now that Timothie and Titus did those things which BB. doe by a higher power now he saith he Apostle dreamed not of any such soueraignty as the BB. haue Where he saith these instructions were not giuen to BB. but particularly to these Euangelists to performe them in all Churches and Regions where he should place them and generally to Presbyters c. both parts are false For these directions Paul gaue to Timothie and Titus to be obserued of them as they were particularly assigned gouernours of the Churches of Ephesus and Creet and are such as are to be obserued to the end Neither are these instructions giuen in generall to Presbyters neither doth the charge of these affaires belong to them And that these things belong to the BB. I haue sufficiently proued before To make the matter plaine he bringeth in an example which is worth the hearing Suppose saith he a Democraty where the common-wealth is gouerned by the people it must needs be that in such a place there are lawes for the choosing and ordering of Officers What if this gouernment fall into the hands of the Nobilitie which continue the same lawes still in the same cases What if some mightier then the rest at the last make himselfe sole Gouernour still obseruing those fundamentall lawes which were at the first established is it to be saide that those lawes are the verie patternes and precedents of the Aristocraticall or Monarchicall gouernement whereby the first maker of those lawes would enforme in the one the Nobilitie in the other the Monarchie and in them all other how to exercise that function The administration of Church matters touching ordination and iurisdiction was first in the seuerall Churches or congregations which by their Presbyteries had the menaging of all Church businesse in processe of time it came to be restrayned to the Clergie onely the B. and his Presbyterie of Ministers onely at last as things grew worse and worse the B. like a Monarch got the reynes into his owne hands Now though the lawes of Ordination and Iurisdiction remaine the same and the practise also in some sort yet are they not patternes and presidents either of the second or third kinde of gouernment neither were they giuen to instruct the Bishop alone or the Bishop and his Clergie together Which comparison I desire may be well considered especially by the vnlearneder sort for hereby they shall discerne what manner of guides they haue desired to follow For not to contend with him about his politicke proposition not well agreeing with the rules of policy wherein we are taught that the appointment of chiefe Officers being reckoned inter iura maiestatis doth alwayes belong to them who haue the soueraigntie in the whole comparison but especially in the reddition we may behold the trim Idea of discipline which the fancie of our Refuter and his fellow-challengers hath forged For he conceiueth as if he were a Brownist or an Anabaptist that the ancient state of the Church was Democraticall that the right of Ordination and Iurisdiction was in the whole congregation of euery Parish which by their Presbyteries consisting for the greatest part of the laity had the menaging of all Church-businesse that the lawes and Canons for Church-gouernment set downe in the Epistles to Timothie and Titus were first prouided for this popular state of the Church Howbeit by the vsurpation of the B. and his Clergie the popular state was turned into an Aristocraty the B. and his Presbyterie of Ministers onely menaging the Church affaires Lastly in processe of time this Aristocraty was turned into a Monarchie the B. like a Monarch hauing got the reynes into his owne hands Now the lawes concerning Ordination and iurisdiction are still in force yet were they not patternes neither for the Monarchicall gouernment of the B. alone nor for the Aristocraticall gouernment of the Bishop and his Presbytery of ministers but for the popular and golden state of euery Parish which within it selfe had authoritie immediately deriued from Christ sufficient for the gouernment of it selfe in all causes Ecclesiasticall This forme is propounded also in the modest and Christian offer of disputation Haue not our forwarder sort of people bin well aduised thinke you to doate vpon such leaders as these who broach such a sort of dreames and dotages for which they haue not so much as the shew of any sound proofe Our refuter hath often times obiected against me though most vniustly that Pythagoras-like I looke to be creditted vpon my bare word but what proofes I pray you doth hee bring for these schismaticall nouelties First it is here presupposed that euery Church indued with power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment was a Parish all Church officers Parishionall Which dotage I haue before refuted Secondly that the forme of Church-gouernment was Democraticall or popular the cheife authority being in the people Which hath authority to be exercised partly by themselues partly by their Presbytery to elect ordayne depriue depose their Pastor or B. for the proofe whereof the
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
A DEFENCE OF THE SERMON Preached at the Consecration of the L. Bishop of Bath and VVelles against a confutation thereof by a namelesse Author Diuided into 4 Bookes The first prouing chiefly that the lay or onely-gouerning Elders haue no warrant either in the Scriptures or other monuments of Antiquity The second shewing that the primitiue Churches indued with power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment were not Parishes properly but Dioceses and consequently that the Angels of the Churches or ancient Bishops were not parishionall but Diocesan Bishops The third defending the superioritie of Bishops aboue other Ministers and prouing that Bishops alwayes had a prioritie not onely in order but also in degree and a maioritie of power both for ordination and iurisdiction The fourth maintayning that the Episcopall function is of Apostolicall and diuine institution By GEORGE DOWNAME Doctor of Diuinitie LONDON Printed by Thomas Creed William Hall and Thomas Snodham 1611. TO THE MOST High and mighty Monarch Iames by the grace of God King of great Britayne France and Ireland defender of the faith c. All true happinesse and prosperitie in this life and eternall felicitie in the life to come THE prudent speech of the politicke Historiographer most gracious and dread Soueraigne is in some sort verified of vs in this Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those which be in the middest are slaine or at the least wise assayled on both sides The Romanists on the one side blaming vs for departing too farre from the Church of Rome our innouatours accusing vs on the other side for comming too neare the same Which contrarie accusations of men being in contrarie extreames are a good euidence for vs that wee hold the meane For neither are wee departed further from the now-Roman church then it hath swarued by Apostasie from the auncient Church of Christ to which in departing from them wee are returned neither haue wee retayned eyther for the substance of Doctrine or for the forme of Discipline any thing almost agreeing with them which with them wee haue not receiued eyther from the doctrine or institution of the Apostles or from the approued practise of the Primitiue Church The which as it is to be acknowledged to the high praise of God and to the singular commendation of your Maiestie so also to the contentation and ioy of all your louing subiects God hauing vouchsafed vnto vs this especiall fauour for which his name is euer to be praised and magnified among vs that there is not a Church vnder the Sunne which both for the substance of Doctrine and forme of Discipline doth come so neare the patterne of the Prime and Apostolicall Churches as these vnder your gracious gouernment Your Maiestie also hauing beene a blessed instrument of God not onely for the retayning of the truely Catholike and Apostolicke doctrine and religion in all your Dominions but also for the establishing of the auncient and Apostolicall gouernment where it was in vse before and likewise for renewing and restoring the same though to your great cost and charges where it was formerly abolished These vnestimable benefits if wee in this land doe not acknowledge and professe our selues to haue receiued from God by your Maiestie wee must confesse our selues to be not onely vnthankefull both to God who is the gracious Authour and to your Highnesse who are the happie meanes of these benefits but also vnworthy to enioy them If we doe according to our bounden duetie acknowledge so much it remayneth that wee should testifie our thankefulnes to GOD Almightie as in respect of his true Doctrine and sound religion continued among vs by walking worthy our calling and by adorning the doctrine of God our Sauiour in all things so also in regard of the Apostolicall forme of gouernment established among vs by a due and respectiue countenancing of it on all hands For howsoeuer a great number in these dayes haue thought so much the better of themselues by how much they haue thought the worse of Bishops yet is it most certaine that the contempt of Bishops is the cause if not of all euill which notwithstanding Chrysostome seemeth to affirme yet of very much euill among vs. This contempt therefore is diligently to be preuented and auoided as by the godly and religious care both of your Highnes in preferring worthy men to this high and sacred function and of the reuerend Bishops in shewing themselues worthy of that honour whereof they would and indeed should be accounted worthy so also by instructing the people to conceiue a right of this holy and honourable calling And for as much as the pernicious schisme and diuision which is among vs proceedeth from an erroneous conceipt eyther that the Presbyterian Discipline is the holy ordinance of Christ or that the gouernment by Bishops is vnlawfull and Antichristian I was perswaded for my part that I could not performe a seruice eyther more acceptable vnto God or more profitable to his Church then to publish those arguments for the satisfaction of others which had perswaded mine owne soule not onely that the Presbyterian Discipline is a meere humane inuention and new deuise hauing no ground eyther in the Scriptures or other monuments of Antiquitie but also that the Episcopall function is of Apostolicall and Diuine institution And whereas my Sermon published in defence of the holy and honourable calling of Bishops hath been eagerly oppugned by a namelesse refuter I thought my selfe bound in conscience to deliuer the truth which I had defended from his sophisticall cauillations The which through Gods good blessing vpon my labours I haue so performed that there is scarce any one sentence of the Sermon if any at all oppugned by the aduersarie which I haue not defended by plaine euidence of truth These my labours I haue presumed to dedicate to your Maiestie as the principall Patrone vnder Christ of that truth which I defend not onely intreating your Highnes to accept in good part my poore endeauours but also commending my selfe and them to your most gracious Patronage and Royall protection The King of Kings blesse prosper and preserue your excellent Maiestie to his glorie the good of his Church and your owne euerlasting comfort Amen Your Maiesties most dutifull and loyall subiect GEORGE DOVVNAME The Contents of this Booke The first booke treateth chiefly of Lay-elders CHap. 1. Answering the Refuters Preamble concerning the Authour and matter of the Sermon and the Text. Chap. 2. Deuiding the Sermon and defending the first part thereof which he calleth the Preface Chap. 3. Defending the two first sections concerning Elders and prouing that there were no Presbyters in the primitiue Church but Ministers Chap. 4. Contayning the first reason why Lay-elders are not proued out of the 1 Tim. 5.17 Chap. 5. Maintayning the second reason Chap. 6. Mayntaining the third reason Chap. 7. That Ambrose on 1 Tim. 5.1 doth not giue testimonie to Lay-elders and that their exposition of Ambrose is vntrue Chap. 8.
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
the Pope and his consistorie of Cardinals are set as gouernours of the vniuersall Church in whom the Popish Hierarchy so farre forth as it is properly Antichristian consisteth For seeing it is proper to Christ alone to be the head and gouernour of the vniuersall Church he is said properly to be Antichrist who taketh vpon him to be head and gouernour of the whole Church And their gouernement is iustly called Antichristian who are his assistants in this vniuersall gouernement As for the gouernours of Prouinciall and Diocesan Churches that is to say Archbishops and Bishops in the Church of Rome they are not Antichristian in respect of the large extent of their iurisdiction but in regard of their subordination to the Pope and dependance from him as being members of that body whereof they acknowledge him to be the head And therefore are no more Antichristian then their parish Priests And as well might the refuter call the Persons or Pastors of parishes among vs Antichristian because the Popish parish-Priests are Antichristian as our BB. Antichristian because the Popish BB. are such Neither is the function of Bishops more or yet so much to be ascribed to the institutiō of the B. of Rome as that of parish Ministers For Bishops as we shall shew were ordained by the Apostles and set ouer Dioceses but the parishes were first distinguished in the westerne Churches and Presbyters peculiarly assigned to them by the ancient Bishops of Rome whose example other Churches did imitate as diuerse Authors report Againe vnder the Deacons the Papists reckon fiue other orders which they esteeme so many Sacraments whereas we with the primitiue Church and in the same sense with it doe reckon onely 3. orders or degrees of Ministers or Clergy men Bishops Presbyters and Deacons It is strange therefore that the doctrine of my Sermon concerning Bishops alone should vphold the Popish Hierarchy from the highest to the lowest or as they vse to speake frō the Pope to the Apparitor as well as our owne This therefore was a shamelesse vntruth Besides howsoeuer the same three orders or degrees in name are still retained in the Church of Rome as well as in ours yet with great difference For their Priests be Sacerdotes sacrificing Priests ordained to offer a proper externall reall sacrifice Ours are not Sacerdotes that is Sacrificing Priests but as the Scriptures and ancient writers call them Presbyters that is Priests or Ministers ordained to preach the word and administer the Sacraments Their Bishops are subordinate to the Pope and haue their iurisdiction as they teach from him as the Vicar of Christ succeeding Peter not as he was an Apostle as all other Bishops suceed other Apostles but as the head and chiefe gouernour of the whole Church from whom as the head and fountaine of all Ecclesiastical iurisdiction the iurisdiction of other Bishops is deriued and doth depend Our Bishops are not subordinate to the Pope neither haue any depēdāce or deriuatiō of their iurisdiction from him but from God partly as it is spirituall by the ordinance of the Apostles who ordained the first Bishops leauing them as their substitutes or successors in the gouernement of the seuerall Churches and partly as it is corporall or coactiue by the Kings Ecclesiasticall lawes furnishing them with plenary power to enquire after disorders in the estate Ecclesiasticall all manner errours Heresies schismes abuses offences and enormities and to punish them Which differences being cōsidered betweene vs and the Papists it were more then a wonder if the very same reasons which are brought to proue the Apostolicall gouernement of our Church should also serue to proue their Antichristian Hierarchy But as the young man that Crassus speakes of in Tully hauing found in the strand a smal piece of a Galley would straightway build a ship thereof so out of one small agreement with the Romane Church concerning the superioritie of Bishops ouer Prebyters wherein they retaine the doctrine of the primitiue Church he would build a total consent and conformitie to their Antichristian gouernement Thus we haue heard what aduantage the Papists haue by my Sermon Now let vs see what harme was like to redound to others thereby Others saith he would be much scandalized those that were in loue with their owne ease would easily crouch downe like Isachars asse c as for others it would remoras obijcere ardentiorib Cast blocks in their waies that ran well or retardare zelum make them slacke their pace at least Sāctorum spiritus inquietare disquiet the minds of all the Saints to see a Sermō of that consequence preached published by a man of that name note in the Church That is to say if I vnderstād him aright the Sermō if it might be let alone were not vnlike to haue these effects in those that are accounted the forwarder sort First they that were more moderate then others desired the peace of the Church hauing yet some scruples in their mindes and somewhat doubting of the lawfulnes of our Church gouernement were like enough to haue their doubts satisfied and their consciences setled Others that were more ardent whose zeale ouerranne their knowledge censuring and condemning they knewe not what would be brought to suspend their iudgement or at least to moderate their zeale others who are factious and of the diuided brotherhood whom he calleth all the Saints would be grieued at the heart to see such likelihood of peace and vnion which is so contrarie to their humour to be established in the Church But as hee had a strong opinion that my Sermon was needfull to be refuted so had he as strong a desire it might be answered after some fashion that the Schisme or rent which is in our Church being so beneficiall as it is to some might not be healed but that people might be retained in the former tearmes of a factious and Schismaticall alienation from the state of our Church and the gouernours thereof Which his desire was much inflamed when he vnderstood that this worke hauing beene vndertaken and committed to the presse the answere and presse were taken the Printer and concealer of the Author imprisoned For then good man his soule was cast downe within him to see a truth so profitable and necessarie as is the doctrine of their pretended discipline hauing no ground neither in the Scripture nor antiquitie obtruded as the ordinance of Christ the onely lawful forme of Church gouernement suppressed Being therefore thus possessed with so strong an opinion and transported with so earnest and vnquiet desires he grewe vnto his most valiant resolution Which in effect though he guild it ouer with glorious words was nothing else but this to publish and disperse a malicious diffamatorie libell and hauing so done after the manner of other malefactors to hide his head You haue heard the weightie causes mouing him to vndertake this busines and his valiant resolution to vndertake it now
points which I purposed to handle for the proofe of either And first for the former which is the explication of my Text viz that the Angells or Pastors of the primitiue Church were Diocesan Bishops and such for the substance of their function as ours bee I endeuoured to prooue it both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by disproouing the presbyterian discipline wherein I intended a disiunctiue argumentation that the question beeing whether the Churches were gouerned by presbyteries as they say consisting for the greater part of Lay-men or by BB as wee holde the disproofe of their presbyteries might bee a proofe for our Bishops and also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by shewing what the authoritie of the Angels or ancient Bishops was as well extensiuè against our newe disciplinarians viz that the Churches whereof they were Byshops were Dioceses and themselues Diocesan Bishops as intensiuè against the Elder and more learned disciplinarians that BB. were superiour to other Ministers not onely in order but in degree also c. And for the proofe of the 2 Assertion which is a doctrine arising out of the Text before explaned concerning the lawfulnesse of the Bishops calling this is proposed to bee proued that the fanction of Byshops is of Apostolicall and diuine institution and this as in the ende of the Section is signified was the thing chiefely intended by mee These points I did not thus propound in Dichotomies which the greatest part doth not so well conceiue and remember but for more easinesse was content to make a bare enumeration of them And this is the frame of that which hee calleth the bodie of my Sermon the which our refuter endeuoreth heere to put out of frame For hauing first of the fiue points which I propound referred the first foure to the former part of my maine distribution as he calleth it where I enquire what manner of Bishops the Angels were and the last to the latter which respecteth the qualitie of their function in the next words as if presently he had forgotten himselfe after hee hath shewed his scornefull and disdainefull spirit hee setteth vp a frame of his owne to worke vpon The mansion saith hee that hee buildeth is a Princely and pleasant Palace for our Bishops Lordships vnder the roofe whereof their Honours may dwell safely as in a Sanctuary without danger of the aduersarie and much delight Looke we vpon the bare frame as it standeth without glasing painting c it is of this forme The function of the Bishops of the 7. Churches is lawfull and good The function of the Bishops of the Church of England is the function of the Bishops of the seuen Churches Therefore the function of the Byshops of the Church of England is lawfull and good The proposition of this syllogisme is laid downe pag 2. and 55. where hee saith that the office and function of Bishops heere meant by Angels is in this Text approoued as lawfull and commended as excellent That is is lawfull and good hauing diuine both Institution being Angels and approbation being starres The assumption is in the same second page propounded thus The Bishops of the 7. Churches for the substance of their calling were such as the reuerend fathers of our Church are The which hee saith by the grace of God hee will plainely prooue and that in the foure first points of the fiue for to them he there referreth vs for that purpose pag. 61. Wee are therefore in the next place to see out of which of those foure points it is concluded and how Which to my vnderstanding must be out of the second third and 4. points after this manner The function of those Bishops whose Churches are Dioceses and themselues Diocesan Bishops superiour to other Ministers in degree hauing sole power of Ordination and Iurisdiction is the function of the Bishops of the 7. Churches The function of the Bishops of the Church of England is the function of those Bishops whose Churches are Dioceses and themselues Diocesan Bishops superiour to other Ministers in degree hauing sole power of Ordination and Iurisdiction Therefore the function of the Bishops of the Church of England is the function of the Bishops of the seuen Churches In lieue of the proposition of this Syllogisme wee haue the prosyllogisme or proofe of it in the 2.3 and 4. points before named c. Beholde to how great trouble too much Learning will put a man Nimia est miseria doctum esse hominem nimis If his skill in the Analysis of a Treatise had not bene extraordinarie all this stirre had bene needlesse But if you marke the ende of his ouerbusying himselfe in resoluing my Sermon and then putting the endes together to make vp his owne frame perphaps he will not seeme so skilfull in resoluing as wilfull in dissoluing the same The end of his double dealing appeareth in the sequele to haue bene double For first whereas there are of the fiue points which I propounded two of principall vse seruing directly the one to disproue their Presbyterian discipline the other to approue the gouernement by Bishops both which hee could wish that I had spared hee would faine make his Reader belieue that of these two the former is impertinent and the latter superfluous or as else-where hee speaketh the former bootlesse the other needlesse 2. When hee could not tell how to wrangle with the other 3. points hee bringeth them to his frame as it were to the racke first finding fault that they doe not directly prooue that which hee would haue them and then by torture making them to say what hee pleaseth that he may the more easily contradict them To countenance these sophisticall shifts he hath brought my Sermon to the Smiths forge and hauing hammered it well hee hath reduced the whole body of it into one syllogisme with the proofs thereof Vsing this syllogisme for the parts of my Sermō as the tyrant vsed his bed for his ghests cutting off those parts which seeme to reach ouer and retching out those which seeme to come short But let vs examine his Syllogisme which with the prosyllogisme of the assumption hee propoundeth as the Analysis of the whole body of my Sermon The function of the Bishops of the seauen Churches is lawfull and good c. I doe not deny but that out of diuerse places of my Sermon patched together some such Syllogisme as this may be framed But in Analysing we must respect not what we can deuise or collect but what the writer did intend and our Analysis must be answerable to his Genesis It is apparant that I propounded two things to be distinctly proued the one as the explication of the text shewing what manner of Bishops the Angels were the other as a doctrine collected out of the text concerning the qualitie of their function viz. that the calling of Diocesan Bishops is lawfull and good This which I propounded as a doctrine to be collected out of the text pag. 2. and
as a conclusion to be proued in the last part pag. 55. and is indeed not the proposition but the conclusion of the Syllogisme which himselfe frameth he would against sense make the Reader belieue was by me propounded as the proposition of his Syllogisme As for the proposition which he assigneth to me I did not expresse but tooke it for granted in the collection of the doctrine out of the text which may be collected after this manner Bishops are such as are here meant by the Angels of the Churches therefore their function is lawfull and good Of which collection if any man should make doubt the consequence would be proued by the addition of the proposition The calling of such as are here meant by the Angels of the Churches is lawfull and good c. Wherefore as there were two distinct parts propounded by me so if he had drawne the same into two distinct Syllogismes concluding the same question and not confounded the parts of the Sermon to make the principall branches thereof to seeme heterogeneall or superfluous he had not much missed of my proiect The former Syllogisme as I haue said might be this The calling of such as are here meant by the Angels is lawfull and good Diocesan BB. are such as are here meant by the Angels therefore the calling of Diocesan BB. is lawfull and good The proposition I tooke for granted and therefore did not expresse it The assumption is the same with the former assertion and is proued by the foure first points The conclusion I did not expresse being implyed in the collection of the doctrine out of the text The latter Syllogisme is this That calling which is of appostolicall and diuine institution is lawfull and good The calling of Diocesan BB. is of apostolical diuine institution Therefore it is lawfull and good of this Syllogisme the assumption is the same with the fift point here propounded So that of the fiue points which I propounded not any one is either impertinent or superfluous the foure former seruing to proue the former assertion which is the assumption of the former Syllogisme the fift and last being the assumption of the second Syllogisme As for the second Syllogisme which he assigneth to me I vtterly disclaime it because as no one part thereof is propounded by me so both the premisses are false and contrarie to my meaning For neither to the Angels of the Churches nor to the Bishops doe I ascribe that sole power of ordination and iurisdiction which he speaketh of as after shall appeare But that his Analysis of my Sermon was meerely forced against the light of his owne conscience appeareth first by the quarrels which thereout he hath raised seeing by his Analysis of the fiue parts the first seemeth impertinent the last superfluous the three in the middes not prouing that for which as he saith they are brought For could he perswade himselfe that his Analysis or resolution was answerable to my Genesis or composition of the Sermon when he saw two parts of the fiue could not be brought to his frame and the other three not to be sutable vnto it Secondly by the distribution of my Sermon and the transitions which I vse wholy disagreeing from his Analysis Thirdly by the Analysis propounded here by my selfe and by the defence of the seuerall parts here ensuing wherein I shall by the helpe of God manifestly proue that neither the first of the fiue was impertinent nor the last superfluous nor the other three concluding besides the purpose But now we are to intreate of them seuerally hauing first giuen you to vnderstand that he diuideth the body of my Sermon as he calleth it into fiue parts euery part into diuerse sections as namely the first which concerneth the Eldership into eight sections in all which the summe of that which I maintaine is this that there were no other Presbyters in the primitiue Church but Ministers CHAP. III. Defending the two first Sections concerning Elders Serm. Sect. 1. pag. 8. And first I am to shew that there were no other Presbyters in the primitiue Church but Ministers A sufficient proofe whereof may be this c to obtrude vpon vs in the end of the 8. pag. AS touching this first point the refuter endeuoureth two things First as hee saith he wardeth and repelleth my blowes and then that we may see what a man he is of his hands he sheweth that he also can strike if need be His former act is a reproofe of my treatise the latter a proofe of his owne assertion And first in grosse he reiecteth the whole discourse of Elders as impertinent and after descendeth to the particulars For the first Reason would saith he that M. D. had shewed vs how this first point pertaineth to the proofe of the matter in question Whatsoeuer he conceiue of it I discerne not what affinitie it can haue with any member of his former assumption c. I might answere that common sense would that what he seem done he should conceiue and acknowledge to be done And charitie would which selfe loue would not that if he discerned not the affinitie of this point with his pretended assumption he should rather haue suspected his owne Analysis to be forced then haue blamed me for his owne want of iudgement But that he may discerne this passage concerning Elders to be pertinent to the matter in question I would but intreat him to take notice what is in question betweene vs. The question discussed in the Sermon is twofold The first de facto whether the primitiue Church were gouerned by Diocesan Bishops as we say or by Presbyteries of such Elders as they spake of The second de iure whether the Church may lawfully be gouerned by Bishops as we hold or must needs be gouerned by their Presbyteries as they affirme The first questiō is handled in the former part of the Sermon the second in the latter The question debated in the former part of the Sermon I say againe is this whether the primitiue Churches were gouerned by Diocesan Bishops such as for the substance of their calling ours be or by such Presbyteries as the Presbyterians stand for And those either parishionall consisting of the Parish-Bishop and a company of lay or onely gouerning Elders as the new and shallow sort of disciplinarians doe boldly though ignorantly affirme or Presbyteries in the cities consisting of the president and other Presbyters whereof some are Ministers but the greater some lay or onely gouerning Elders as the Elder and more learned sort of disciplinarians doe teach In this question as the refuter will confesse vnlesse he will confesse himselfe to be ignorant in logicke this disiunction is implyed either the Church was gouerned by Diocesan Bishops as we say or by such Presbyteries as they speake of And this disiunction though it be not absolutely necessarie yet is it necessarie ex hypothesi and so presupposed on both sides For this being the
Patriarch of the Diocesse but first according to the sacred constitutions before the Bishop of the City in which the Clergy man liueth then if he be suspected as partiall let him bring the party accused before the Metropolitane Bishop But if he also shall not allow of the accusation let him bring him before the Synode of that prouince but if still hee thinke himselfe wronged let him appeale to the Patriarch of the Diocesse from whose sentence there lieth no appeale c. Afterwards he addeth this exception that wheras there are two sorts of Patriarches some who in the Prouinces wherein they are beare the office of Metropolitanes their See being of ancient time the Metropolis of the Prouince such were the Bishops of Antioch Rome and Alexandria others per totam Diocesin throughout the whole Diocesse doe ordaine the Metropolitanes and other Bishops who are vnder them as the Bishop of Constantinople and perhaps Ierusalem therefore the causes which happen in the Prouinces of the former sort are immediately from the Bishops to be brought to them as to Metropolitanes In the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or disposition of the Churches subiect to the Patriarch of Constantinople made by the Emperour Leo the Philosopher it is noted that seuen Metropolitane Churches were withdrawn from the Romane Diocesse with the Bishops vnder them one also viz. Seleâ—cia in Pamphylia from the Diocesse of the East meaning of the Bishop of Antioch for he as Theodoret saith was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the ruler or chiefe of the Bishops in the East together with 26. Bishopricks subiect thereto Epiphanius as you heard before testifieth this to haue beene the custome that the Bishop of Alexandria should haue the Ecclesiastical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Diocesse or Administration of all Egypt Thebais Mareot Libya Ammoniace Maraeotis and Pentapolis It is said of Gregory the Great that vnto the Bishopricks of his Diocesse hee inuited Bishops of another Diocesse vacantes being voided of their Bishoprickes as the Bishop of Smyrna hee inuited to a Bishopricke in Sicilia The circuit also of an Archbishops iurisdiction is sometimes called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Dioecesis and the Archbishop himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in the Councell of Chalcedon where Archbishops are reckoned as a middle degree betweene Metropolitanes and Patriarches the name of Patriarch being also giuen sometimes vnto them If any haue a controuersie with the Metropolitane of the Prouince let him goe vnto either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Primate of the Diocesse or to the patriarch of Constantinople The same Councell appointeth the Metropolitanes of the Dioceses of Pontus Asia and Thracia to bee ordained by the Patriarch of Constantinople and the BB. of euery prouince in those Dioceses to bee as they were wont according to the Canons to bee ordained of their Metropolitans So that according to this sense a prouince is but part of a Diocesse Socrates speaking of the first Councell of Constantinople saith that they established Patriarches meaning Archbishops diuiding vnto them prouinces Thus of the Diocesse of Pontus Helladius the Bishoppe of Cesarea Gregorius the Bishoppe of Nyssa Otreius the B. of Metileno obtained the Patriarchship The Patriarchship of the Diocesse of Asia was assigned to Amphilochius of Iconium and Optimus of Antioch in Pisidia and Gregory writing to Constantius the Archbishop of Millaine mentioneth diuers BB. of his Diocesse as you heard before But we are briefly also to shew that a Bishops charge is called Dioecesis The first Councell of Constantinople decreeth as it is commonly vnderstood that BB. should not goe out of their Diocesse vnto Churches without their bounds and that they should not confound the Churches Where a Diocesse is attributed to a Bishop as the circuit and bounds of his iurisdiction and Churches which the Councell forbiddeth to be confounded are confounded with Dioceses Againe that BB. being not called may not goe without their Diocesse to ordaine Ministers or to exercise other ecclesiasticall administrations In the Councell of Africke it was decreed that those people which neuer had a Bishop of their owne should not haue a Bishop but by the decree of the whole Synode of the prouince and the Primate and by the consent of him in whose Diocesse the said Church is Againe that one Bishop doe not inuade the Diocesse of another Thus Dioecesis signifieth the whole Diocesse But where we find it opposed to the City or to the Cathedral church then doth it signifie the rest of the Diocesse as in the Africane Councell it was ordained that the Churches in the Diocesse conuerted from Donatisme should belong to the Cathedra or See of the Catholicke B. Againe the BB are forbidden to leaue their chiefe seat or See to remoue themselues to another church in their Diocesse Thus in the plural number it signifieth sometimes al the churches in the Diocesse meaning the couÌ„try somtimes any of theÌ„ seuerally It was concluded vpon in the Councel of Carthage that the BB. which liue in the vnity coÌ„munion of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that hee should not onely iustly retaine his owne See but also possesse such Dioeceses that is parts of the Diocesse as had gotten to themselues a a schismaticall Bishop of their owne Againe it was decreed that Dioceses that is parts of the Diocesse in the country which neuer had a Bishop should not haue any and that Diocesse which sometimes had should haue their owne B. And if in processe of time the faith increasing the people of God being multiplied shall desire to haue a peculiar gouernour with the consent or liking of him in whose power the Diocesse is let them haue a Bishop Wee haue heard it ordained saith Honoratus and Vrbanus in the 3. Councell of Carthage that Dioceses meaning but parts of the Diocesse in the Country should not obtaine a Bishop but with the consent of him vnder whom they are placed But perhaps some in our Prouince when they haue beene ordained Bishops in such a Diocesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the grant of the B. who originally holdeth the Dioceses haue challenged other Dioceses this ought to be amended Epigonius answered that which is meet is reserued to euery Bishoppe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that out of the company or combination of Parishes iointly possessed no part should bee taken to haue a Bishoppe of her owne but by the consent of him who hath authority meaning the Bishoppe of the City vnto which the Country belongeth But if he shall grant that the Diocesse meaning part of his owne Diocesse permitted shall enioy a Bishop of their owne hee that is so preferred may not encroch vpon other Dioceses that is other parts of the Diocesse because that one being taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the body of many was vouchsafed alone to receiue a Bishopricke of their owne
The which sentence when Aurelius the Bishop of Carthage and president of that Councell had consented vnto was decreed by the whole Councell And that wee may know the Parishes in the Country together with the seuerall Presbyters set ouer them belong to the Diocesan Bishop euen they also sometimes are called by the name of Diocesse In the councell of Toledo Bishops are required per cunctas Dioeceses parochiasque suas to goe yearely through all their Dioceses and Parishes And againe so to rule their Dioceses that is Parishes that they doe not presume to take any thing from their right but according to the authority of former Councels they take onely a third part of the offerings and tithes But in an other Councell it was determined that no B. walking per suas Dioeceses through his Dioceses shall take any thing besides the honour of his chaire that is 2◠shillings or require the third part of the oblations in the parish churches Sometimes it is vsed for a parish Church In which sense a parish Presbyter is said in the Councell of Agatha Dioecesin tenere In the Councell of Orleans dioecesis Basilica are vsed promiscuously as Synonyma To which purpose it is said that if any man hath or desireth to haue Dioecesin that is a Church in his ground he must assign sufficient land vnto it prouide a Clerke for it CHAP. IJ. Prouing by other Arguments that the ancient Churches which had Bishops were not Parishes but Dioceses ANd thus much may suffice to haue spoken of the names about which the testimonies which I haue brought haue beene almost so many euidences for the Diocesan and against the parishionall Bishops Now I proceede to other arguments desiring the Reader to remember that the question is concerning such Churches as were endued with power of Ecclesiastical gouernment and iurisdiction to wit whether in the Apostles times and the ages following they were Parishes as we cal them or Dioceses And first I will shew they were not Parishes and after that they were Dioceses For if Parishes then the Parishes either in the Countries or Cities were such but neyther the parishes in the Country nor in the Citie had a Bishop of their owne and a Presbytery Which is so euident a truth to them that haue read the Councels Histories and Fathers of the antient Church that it is to be wondred how men of learning and reading being also men of conscience can deny it But seeing it is denied I must be content to proue it viz. that regularly lawfully ordinarily Bishops and Presbyteries were not placed in the seuerall parishes For these words I hope may be added with the Refuters leaue seeing neither it can be preiudicious to mee what was at any time vnlawfully done nor aduantagious to him vnlesse hee will vrge a reformation according to the paterne of the Churches if there were any such which were irregularly extraordinarily and vnlawfully gouerned First therefore for Country parishes because I maintaine the negatiue and the proofe of the affirmatiue lieth vpon my aduersary I challenge him to produce some proofe if he bee able within 400. yeeres after Christ of Country parishes lawfully regularly ordinarily furnished with power of ecclesiasticall gouernment and gouerned by their owne Bishoppes such as they speake of assisted with their Presbyteries Which if hee bee not able to performe as I am well assured hee is not hee must acknowledge his parish Bishoppe to bee of the same stampe with his lay-presbyters that is to say a meere counterfet But not expecting his proofe J will prooue that neither they had Bishoppe of their owne nor yet Presbyteries As touching the former it cannot be denied but in some places the Presbyters of parishes growing ambitious haue desired to bee Bishoppes of their parish and their people vaine glorious haue seconded their desire But in all well ordered Churches their presumption hath been resisted and their vaine desires frustrated I doe confesse that in Africke which alwaies bringeth forth some noueltie and from whence all T. C. his newes in this cause doe come some parts of the diocesse being very populous haue obtained a Bishoppe of their owne But when when the charge was so great as that by it selfe it seemed to deserue a Bishop And how First with the leaue of the Bishop of the city in whose diocesse it was Secondly with the approbation of the Metropolitane and the prouinciall Synode Thirdly hee which obtained the honour of beeing a bishoppe was aduanced to a higher degree then himselfe had before or other country pastors haue and was ordained a Bishop by the Metropolitan and two other Bishops at the least But it shall not bee amisse both to recite the decrees of the Africane councels in this behalfe though touched before and also to acquaint you with the determinations of godly Bishoppes and canons of holy Councels elsewhere In the second councell of Carthage it was decreed that the Dioceses meaning as I haue said parts of any diocesse in the Country which neuer receiued Bishoppes of their owne may haue none and that diocesse which sometimes had may still haue a Bishoppe of their owne And if in processe of time the faith increasing the people of God being multiplied shall desire to haue a gouernour of their owne that then they may haue a Bishoppe with his leaue in whose power the diocesse is In the third Councell of Carthage it is said that it had beeen determined in many Councels that the people which be in the parishes or diocesses held by the Bishoppes which neuer had a Bishop of their owne should not receiue gouernours of their owne that is to say Bishoppes but with the consent of the Bishoppe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by whom from the beginning they haue been inioied But forasmuch as some hauing obtained this honor abused it tyrannically and withdrew themselues schismatically from the communion of other Bishops and forasmuch as also certaine Presbyters lifting vp their neckes against their BB. vsed indirect meanes to allure their people that themselues might be made Bishoppes therefore it was ordained that such a people in the paroecia or diocesse which is subiect to the antient Bishoppe and neuer had a Bishoppe of their owne should not obtaine a proper Doctor meaning Bishoppe And as touching those which had attained to this honour vnlawfully and withdrew themselues from the synods of Bishoppes it was determined that they should not onely lose their diocesse but also their owne Church For it is fit the Bishops which are vnited to all their brethren and to the whole synod should iustly retaine not onely their owne Cathedra or See but also that they should possesse such dioceses And whereas some being made Bishops in part of other mens dioceses with their leaue and consent did incroach vpon parts of the diocesse not granted vnto them it was concluded that he which in the diocesse is preferred to be
neither was the iurisdiction ouer the parishes in the Countrey by vsurpation of the latter Bishops but a right from the beginning belonging to the very first Bishoppes of the Citie For euidence whereof call to mind what before was prooued that dioceses were not wont to be enlarged or the number of Bishoppes lessened but contrariwise those parts of the Country which euer had a Bishop were still to retaine him and those which neuer had if they were so populous as that they seemed to deserue a Bishopricke a Bishop was with the consent of the ancient Bishoppe of the Citie and the authority of the prouinciall synod and the Metropolitane set ouer them This is sure that all Countries were vnder their seuerall Cities and whosoeuer were from the beginning Bishopps of the Cities were Bishops also of the Countries belonging vnto them Neither might the Bishop of one Citie encroach vpon the Country or parishes subiect to another Citie but they were to bee gouerned by them to whom they had belonged from the beginning Jn the generall Councell of Ephesus when complaint was made that the Bishop of Antioch had encroached vpon them of Cyprus for the ordination of their Metropolitan who euer from the Apostles times were in that and other matters of greatest moment ordered by their owne prouinciciall synods his attempt was censured as an innouation contrary to the ecclesiasticall lawes and Canons of the holy Apostles And therefore this generall decree was made by the Councell for all dioceses and prouinces that no Bishop shall take vpon him any other prouince or countrey 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which for the time past and from the beginning hath not been vnder him or his Predecessors And againe that to euery prouince or countrey their right should be kept pure and vnuiâ—lable which had belonged to them for the time past and from the beginning according to the custome antiently receiued Likewise in the Councell of Carthage that the people in the Country which neuer had a Bishop of their owne should not receiue a Bishop but by the consent of the Bishop by whom and his antecestors they haue bin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the begâ—nning possessed And where some had schismatically seized vpon some part of a diocesse and being guilty of their wrong would sequester themselues from the meetings and synods of the Bishops it was decreed that the lawfull Bishop should inioy not only his See but also such dioceses And againe it was demanded what course should be taken if a Bishopricke being erected in a part of the diocesse by the consent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Bishop who hath held the dioceses from the beginning the new Bishop should encroach vpon other parts of the diocesse which were not intended to him Answer was made that as that part which he had was taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the company of parishes ioyntly possessed and as a member 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the body of many by the consent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Bishop who had authority or power so the new Bishop should not encroach vpon any other The great councel of Chalcedon determined that countrey parishes should vnremoueably remaine to the Bishops which held them Which Canon was renewed in the councell of Constantinople with this addition if the said Bishops held them quietly and without contradiction for the space of thirty yeeres But nothing doth more euidently proue that in the primitiue Church dioceses were subiect to Bishops then the antient institution of country Bishops called châ—repiscopi Who where the country seemed larger then that the Bishop by himselfe could performe all episcopall offices were for the more ease of the Bishops and commodity of the country Churches appointed in certaine places as their suffragans or vicegerents and to performe vnder them and for them some episcopall duties of lesse moment but yet so as the chorepiscopâ—â— might doe nothing of weight without the appointment of the Bishop neither might he ordaine without the Bishop of the citie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnto which both himselfe and his Country is subiect Fourthly this truth is also demonstrated partly by the perpetuall successions of Bishoppes in all the Apostolicall Churches singularly succeeding from the Apostles times to the latter ages plainly euincing that euen in the greatest Cities and Churches where there hath alwaies been a great multitude of Presbyters there hath been but one only lawfull Bishoppe at once successiuely and partly by the vniuersall consent of all Churches not onely in former ages both catholike and hereticall for euen the Nouatians the Donatists the Arians c. retained the gouernment of the true Church by Bishops but also of all almost at this day being established in peace retaining for the most part the antient distinction of Churches according to dioceses and prouinces which hath continued euer from the first conuersion of them not any one example being to be produced in the whole world neither in nor since the Apostles times vntill our age of any Church gouerned according to the new-found parish discipline Yea the Church of Geneua it selfe which hath been a paterne to others though it hath abolished the episcopall gouernment notwithstanding it remaineth a diocesse vnder their one onely Presbytery as well as it was wont vnder their one onely Bishoppe the authoritie and iurisdiction of their Presbyterie beeing not confined to any one parish nor any one parish allowed a Presbytery but is extended to all the parishes both in the citie and territory thereto belonging hauing the same circuit that the Bishop was wont to haue Finally it may be alleaged that as with vs Bathe and Wels Couentry and Lichfield London and Coâ—chester so in the primitiue Church more cities then one with the countries thereto belonging haue sometimes made but one diocesse For when to the general Councell of Ephesus petiton was made by certaine Bishops that whereas it had bin an antient custome in the prouinces of Europe that diuers Bishops should haue each of them two cities vnder them as the Bishop of Heraclea had both Heraclea and Panion the Bishop of â—yze had also Arcadiopolis the Bishop of Câ—â—la Callipolis the Bishop of Sabsadia A phrodiâ—ias and the latter of these Cities neuer had a proper Bishop of their owne but euer from the beginning were subiect to the aforesaid Bishops and whereas now they feared some innouation they referred the cause to the Councell The Councell therefore determined that there should not then nor afterwards bee any innouation but the aforesaid Bishops should according to the antient custome which hath the force of a law retaine the said Cities And likewise it may be added that some whole nations in the primitiue Church were subiect to one Bishop not as the primate or Patriarch for that was ordinary so was Ignatius Bishop of Syria Liberius of Italy Cyprius of Africke Diodorus
of Cilicia Basil the Great of Cappadocia c. but as hauing one onely Bishop as the nation of the Scythyans hauing many cities townes and castels had all of them by antient custome one only Bishop which was the Bishop of their chiefe citie Tomis CHAP. III. Maintaining the first Argument in the Sermon prouing that the seuen Churches of Asia c. were Dioceses THese testimonies and proofes hitherto produced are so euident demoÌ„stratiue for dioceses and diocesans as that if no more could be said they are sufficient if not to perswade yet at the least to conuince the gainsaiers But if besides these the arguments which the Refuter hath in chase shall be made to returne vpon him and to driue him and his consorts like the men of Ai vpon these new forces and if the forces which hee bringeth to maintaine his quarell shall bee found to bee of no force and altogether vnable to endure the least encounter then doe I hope that our Disciplinarians themselues will be perswaded to speake no more for the new found parish Discipline But before I enter into this second conflict I am to take a suruey of his forces which I perceiue are diuided into 2. troopes the one encountering with my forces the other fortifying their hold of the parish discipline In his encounter or refutations first he findeth fault that I doe not conclude in this second part what he would haue me to conclude according to his forced Analysis For answere whereof let my words be considered Serm. s. 1 pag. 17. I come now to the second which is to shew that in the Apostles time and in the ages following the Churches wherof the Bishops are called Angels or to vse their own words the visible Churches indued with power of Ecclesiastical gouernment were Dioceses properly and not parishes This is prooued out of this place c. The assertion which I indeuour to prooue in the foure first points of my Sermon was this that the Angels or gouernors of the primitiue Church were Diocesan Bishops and for the substance of their calling such as ours be This assertion after I had prooued it in the first point 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by disproouing their Presbyteries in the three next points I indeuour to prooue it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shewing that they were such as ours are both in respect of the largenesse of their authoritie to which end I shew that their Churches were Dioceses in the second point and themselues Diocesans in the third and in respect of the height of their authoritie and Preheminence that they were superiour in degree to other ministers c. which I prooue in the fourth In this second point therefore if I indeauour to prooue that the primitiue Churches which had Bishops and Presbyteries and were indued with power of Ecclesiastical gouernment were not parishes properly but Dioceses nothing could be more directly and pertinently deliuered But the onely thing which I seeke to prooue and maintaine in this part as euery man seeth is that the Churches which had Bishops and Presbyteries c. were not parishes properly but Dioceses And this I first prooue by mine owne arguments and secondly maintaine against theirs My arguments were two The former grounded on the text and is thus to be framed Churches whose circuit contained not onely cities but also countries adioyning were Dioceses The circuit of the 7. churches wherof the 7. Angels were Bishops and whereto other Churches hauing Bishops and Presbyteries indued with power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment were like contained the cities and Countries adjoyning Therefore the 7. Churches c. were Dioceses The proposition I did not expresse but did presuppose it and take it for granted Likewise that part of the assumption inclosed in the parenthesis affirming that to the 7. Churches all others which had Bishops and Presbyteries and consequently were indued with the power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment were like I also presupposed because it is not to be doubted but that the primitiue Churches indued with the power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment were of the like nature and constitution And vpon this hypothesis the onely argument which this great disputer bringeth to make good his cause is grounded affirming that it is clear by all learned I know not what that the constitution of the visible Churches was at the first one the same in al places Now that the 7. Churches within their circuit contained both the cities and Countries thereto adjoyning it is proued first ioyntly For if the 7. Churches within their circuit comprised all the Churches in Asia then all both in cities and countries but the first is true for our Sauiour Christ writing to the churches in Asia compriseth all vnder these 7. as being the principall and containing within their circuit all the rest Then seuerally The church of Ephesus contained a great and ample citie indeed a Metropolis or mother city and the country subiect to it the church of Smyrna a mother city the country beloÌ„ging to it the church of Sardes a mother city and the country adioyning the church of Laoidcea a mother city and the country vnder it the Church of Pergamus or PergamuÌ„ a famous city which had beene the fear of the Kings of Asia and the countrey belonging to it the churches also of Thyatira and Philadelphia contained a cities with their territories Now let vs see how our refuâ—er cauilleth with these arguments The first he frameth thus If the churches of Asia to which our sauiour Christ writ were great and ample cities and not the cities alone but also the couÌ„tries adioyning then they were dioceses properly and not parishes But the churches of Asia were such Therefore they were Dioceses c. Of this syllogisme saith hee the assumption is on the eighteenth page and the conclusion on the seuenteenth The proposition is of necessity so to be supplied To which I answere that the consequence thereof is naught Euen so in your conceit bee almost all that you make for me But â—s your necessity or need such that you caÌ„not frame a syllogisme with hope to answer it vnlesse the propositioÌ„ haue coÌ„sequence which you may deny Let me intreat you that the proposition may be simple as euen now I propounded it theÌ„ deny it if you can Churches whose circuit contained not on the cities but also the coâ—ntries adioyning were Dioceses This proposition will stand vnmooueable when the foâ—â—dation of your discipline wil be raced And so wil the coÌ„sequeÌ„ce which your self propouÌ„d being grouÌ„ded on this propositioÌ„ as the hypothesis therof But why is the consequeÌ„ce naught for it will not be amisse to take a breef view how he playeth with it 2. reasoÌ„s he rendreth 1. Because it presupposeth that al Churches in the world at that time were â—mple and great Cities Which as it appeareth to bee manifestly false to all that are of any vnderstanding so it and some other places in
were not appointed to parishes but to dioceses From whence the principall question of this part is thus to be inferred The Presbyteries ordained by the Apostles were appointed not to parishes but Dioceses therefore the churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall gouernement were not parishes but dioceses This consequeÌ„ce the refuter graÌ„teth in graÌ„ting the connexiue propositioÌ„ of the syllogisme which he frameth p. 58. l. 1. If he did not it might easily be confirmed by adding the assumption viz. to visible Churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall gouernement the Presbyters ordained by the Apostles were appointed The antecedeÌ„t which is also the propositioÌ„ of the syllogism if the assumption bee added I proue by 2. arguments The first concluding thus They who were appointed to whole cities and countreys to labor so far as they were able the conuersion of al that belonged to God were appointed to dioceses and not to parishes This propositioÌ„ I omitted also as taking it for granted As for his cauils against his owne proposition which he framed for the nonce to cauill withall they are not worth the refuting For besides that he absurdly cauilleth with me as thogh I had said that al in the city country were in S. Iâ—bus time conuerted he alleadgeth that there is no necessity that they which were conuerted should be of the same church with theÌ„ who did conuert them As for example they of Ceuchrea receiued the gospel from Corinth and yet were a distinct Church For it is called the church of Câ—nchrea RoÌ„ 16. 1. But I spake of them which did accidentally conuert others but of such as by whose meanes the conuersion of the city and country was originally intended And I say that they whose ministery was intended for the conuersion of the city and countrey to their care or charge both for the first conuerting of theÌ„ gouernment of theÌ„ being conuerted the city country beloÌ„ged As for Cenchreae though it be called a church as euery company of christians may so be termed yet it was not such a church as they speak of indued with power of ecclesiastical gouernement but subiect to the iurisdiction of the Church of Corinth Now followeth the assumption But the Presbyteries ordained by the Apostles were appointed for whole cities countries therto belonging to labour so farre as they were able the conuersion of al that belonged to God This assumption confirmed with 2. arguments is set down p. 18. the one the end inteÌ„ded by the Apostles in appointing presbyters in cities which was the conuersion of the nation for which themselues first preached in the chiefe cities the other is the 〈◊〉 or as they call it causa 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their hope by the ministery of the Presbyters placed in the city to conuert them which belonged to God both in city country grounded on the force of the gospell restified by our Sauior The words are these for it is euident that the Apostles when they inteÌ„ded to conuert any 〈◊〉 they first preached to the chiefe cities therof Wherin when through Gods blessing they had conuerted some their manner was to ordaine Presbyters hoping by their ministery to conuert not only the rest of the city but also in the countries adioyning so many as did belong to God The Kingdom of heaven being like a little leauen which being put into any part of the 〈◊〉 seasoneth all These words thus set downe at large be the assumption of the syllogisme which he hath framed for what cannot he bring within the compasse of his syllogisms and therof he maketh 3. parts About the first he saith hee will not striue viz. the Apostles beginning to pâ—each in the chiefe cities of euery nation which though he think I caÌ„not proue is most easie to bee proued because it was the most wise and likely course to be taken for the conuersion of nations as also because it is manifest both by the scriptures other ancieÌ„t records that they took that course As Paul inteÌ„ding the conuersion of Asia where hee staied three yeares continued in Ephesâ—s all the time intending the conuersion of Macedonia went to Thessalonica Philippi of Achaia to Corinth c. The second also he franckly yeeldeth that the Apostles ordained Presbyters in cities where they had conuerted some to the truth But the 3 which is indeed the assumption it selfe and which is inferred on the former as I set them downe that if the Apostles intending the conuersion of the nation as they began themselues to preach in the cheefe cities so they placed Presbyters to the same intent hoping by them to conuert both city and countrey then were they appointed and it was their duty to labour the conuersion of all belonging to God both in city and country the assumption I say it selfe he doth deny saying it was the office of those Presbyters to attend vpon the flock that is the company already conuerted but that it can neuer be shewed nor may reasonably be thought that it was any part of their proper duty to labour the conuersion of the residue either in citie or country By which few words the deepe wisedom of the parish-disciplinarians may easily be sounded 1. They conceiue that churches in the first constitution of theÌ„ when there were but a few conuerted and before parishes were distinguished were in the same estate that now they are being fully constituted al being conuerted to the profession of the faith parishes distinguished pastors being seuerally assigned to certain particular ordinary set coÌ„gregatioÌ„s 2. That the flocke ouer which they were set was onely that number of christians already conuerted and not the whole number which in those parts pertained to God But our Sauiour calleth the elect not conuerted his sheepe And the Lord in Corinth had much people when but a few were as yet conuerted 3. That their proper office was to attend them onely which were already conuerted not to labor the conuersioÌ„ of the rest As thogh the Apostles intended by their ministry the conuersion and saluation of no more then of those few which at the first were conuerted But for the better manifestation of their wisedome they shall giue mee leaue to appose them with a few questions The Presbyters which the Apostles ordained were they not ministers of the word Caluin confesseth it and if you should deny it I haue manifestly proued that they were not lay nay that there were not any lay presbyters Were not the presbyters many in some places more in some fewer according to the proportion of the cities or countreys where they were placed were these many Presbyters who at the first were sometimes as many as those who were besides conuerted the Apostles conueying by imposition of hands the gifts of the spirit on them whom they had first conuerted who thereby were inabled for the ministry as Acts 19.6 Were they I say being many intended onely to attend that smal number which
contrary which order Beza misliketh not but sometimes wisheth it were restored then should they come neerer the practise of the Apostolicall Churches then now they doe In the meane time as their Church is a diocesse and their Presbytery seruing for the whole diocesse so the President for the time being is diocesan But whether that be so or not once Caluins iudgement agreeth with mine in these three points It may be saith he for the latter end of the first two hundred yeeres But the conscience must ground it selfe vpon the commandement and example of the Apostles in the word of God As though we were destitute thereof and they contrariwise for their discipline had the precept and practise of the Apostles Which well may they take for granted but neuer will bee able to prooue and as though the vniuersall and perpetuall practise of all the Churches in Christendome and consent of all the Fathers in the first three hundred yeeres were not a sufficient demonstration to perswade a man that hath a sound iudgement ioined with a good conscience what was the doctrine and practise of the Apostles For if any man shall say that all the Apostolicall Churches and all the godly Fathers and glorious Martyrs did euer from the Apostles times obserue a discipline and gouernement of the Church repugnant to that which the Apostles had prescribed I doubt not to say of such a man that as hee is void of modesty so hath he no great store either of iudgement or honesty But how farre forth Caluin agreeth with vs will appeare by that chapter which I alleaged the title whereof is this Concerning the state of the ancient Church and the maner of gouerning which was in vse before the papacy The which as he saith in the beginning will represent vnto our eies a certaine image of the diuine institution For although the Bishops of those times made many canons whereby they might seeme to expresse more then was expressed in the holy scriptures notwithstanding with so good caution they framed their whole administration according to that only rule of Gods word that you may easily perceiue that they had almost nothing in this behalfe dissâ—nant froÌ„ the word of God This is a good testimony you will say giuen to the discipline of the primitiue Church but doth hee testifie that the three points you speake of are agreeable thereunto that shall you now heare And first concerning the Presbyteries hee saith as before I alleaged euerie Citie had their Colledge of Presbyters who were Pastors and Teachers c. The Refuter repeateth the words which I cited out of Caluin thus that the Presbyteries consisted of Ministers Thereof giuing this censure Crafâ—ily or carelesly is this spoken The former if wittingly hee left out onely the latter if he did not heed it Who denieth that the Presbyteries consisted of ministers Wil it follow thence that therefore there were no other gouerning-Elders No man can be so ignorant or so shamelesse as to say that Caluin was of opinion that the Presbyteries consisted of Ministers onely either in the Apostles times or in the age following What shall become of mâ—â— now no man being so ignorant and shamelesse I hope to salue both presentlie I confesse good sir that Caluin collecteth two sorts of Elders out of 1. Tim. 5.17 I confesse also that speaking in generall of the practise of the Church he saith coldly and in few words the rest of the Presbyters were set ouer the censure of maners and corrections But when he commeth more particularly to relate the practise of the antient Church he giueth full testimony to the truth For can any man vnderstand Caluin as saying they had any other Presbyery besides the colledge of Presbyters in euery Church Doth not Caluin plainly say euery citie had their colledge of Presbyters who were Pastors and Teachers Yes that he doth but the word only was either craftily or carelesly omitted Heare then the words of Caluin Habebant ergo singulae ciuitates Presbyterorum collegium qui pastores erant ac Doctores Nam apud populuÌ„ munus docendi exhortandi corrigendi quod Paulus episcopis iniungit omnes obibant quo semen post se relinquerent iunioribus qui sacra militae nomen dederant crudiendis nanabant operam Euery citie therefore had a colledge of Presbyters who were Pastors and Teachers For both they exercised all of them the function of teaching exhorting and correcting which Paul enioyneth to Bishoppes and also that they might leaue a seed behind them they imploied their labour in teaching the younger sort who had giuen their names to serue in the sacred warfare that is the younger sort of the Clergy Thus therefore J reason The Colledge of Presbyters according to Caluins iudgement consisted onelie of Ministers The Presbytery of each Citie was the colledge of the Presbyters Therefore the Presbyterie of each City according to Caluins iudgement consisted onely of Ministers The assumption is euident The proposition himselfe proueth when hee saith omnes all of them exercised the officâ— of teaching c. which Paul prescribeth to BB. c. What can be more plaine For where there are none but Ministers there are Ministers only where all exercise the function of teaching and preaching to the people which Paul inioyned Bishops and instructing the younger sort of the clergy there are none but Ministers Therefore where all exercise the function of teaching and preaching c. there are Ministers only As touching the second Caluin most plainly giueth testimony to it in the next words following Vnicuique ciuitaâ—i erat attributa certa regio qua Presbyteros iude sumeret velut corpori ecclesiae illius accenseretur To euery Citie was attributed a certaine region or country which from thence should receiue their Presbyters and be reckoned as being of the body of that Church What can be more plaine that each Church contained the citie and country adioyning that both citie and country made but one Church as it were one body whereof the head was the citie the other members the parishes in the country that the Presbyteries were only in cities and that the country parishes receiued each of them their Presbyter when they wanted from thence Who therefore to vse his owne words could be either so ignorant as not to see or so shamelesse as not to acknowledge that the Churches in Caluins iudgement were dioceses How doth he auoid this Forsooth Caluin doth not name dioceses But doth he not meane dioceses when he speaketh of Churches containing each of them a citie and country adioyning Yea but he doth not tie the power of ecclesiasticall gouernment to the Bishops Church No doth he acknowledgeth no Presbytery but in the cities of which the Bishops were Presidents As for country parishes they had not Presbyteries but seuerall Presbyters and those they had as Caluin saith from the Presbytery of the citie Besides when he maketh the citie and country to be
but one body it cannot be doubted but that he meant the Church in the citie was the head of this body and the rest of the parts subiect vnto it Whereto you may adde that which after he saith of chorepiscopi placed in the diocesse where it was large as the Bishops deputy in the country subiect to him But what Caluins iudgement was in this behalfe let the Church of Geneua framed thereby testâ—fie Which is as much a diocesse now as when it was vnder a Bishop there being but one Presbytery vnto which all the parishes are subiect But let vs heare what this Refuter doth confesse Caluin to haue acknowledged in this behalfe He neither nameth dioceses nortieth power of ecclesiasticall gouernment to the Bishops Church but onely acknowledgeth that for orders sake some one Minister was chosen to be not a diocesan but a titular Bishop Thus it fareth with men that wrangle against the light of their Conscience being conuicted with euidence of truth but desirous to make a shew of opposition when they know not what to say against it Doth not Caluin plainly say that to each cittâ— was attributed a certaine region and that both were one Church as it were one body To what purpose doth he then say that he only acknowledgeth that for orders sake c. Is not his answere in effect this Caluin doth confesse that the Churches indeed were dioceses and that the Bishops had vnder their charge both the citie and country adioyning for that also he confesseth in the next point but they were not Bishops hauing such authority as you speake of that is I confesse he 〈◊〉 with you in the second and third point as you say but yet in the fourth which also you confesse he dissenteth from you Howbeit hee expresseth his mind absurdly when he saith not a diocesan but a titular Bishop For was not the Bishop a diocesan if his Church was a diocesse if he had vnder his charge both the city and country adioyning Yea but he was not a diocesan but a titular Bishop Though Caluin acknowledgeth the Bishop to haue been only President of the Presbytery like to the Consull in the senate of Rome which you call a titular B. wherein being the fourth point he dissenteth from vs yet doth he acknowledge that vnder his Bishopricke was contained both the citie and country and consequently that he was a diocesan Bishop vnlesse he that is Bishop of a diocesse be not a diocesan Bishop His testimony therefore to the third is cleere especially if you adde that which followeth concerning the Châ—repiscopi or country Bishops For Caluin saith If the country which was vnder his Bishopricke were larger then he could sufficiently discharge all the offices of a Bishop in euery place rurall Bishops were substituted here and there to supply his place Which is a most pregnant testimony both against the parish discipline and also for the diocesan For if euery parish had sufficient authority within themselues what needed rurall Bishops to ouerlooke them If the Bishop of the City had been Bishop but of one parish why doth Caluin say the Countrey was vnder his Bishopricke Why doth he say that the Bishopricke was sometimes so large that there was need of Countrey Bishops as his deputies to represent the Bishop in the prouince or countrey But what saith the Refuter to this he confesseth not ingenuously but as it were 〈◊〉 Minerua as if it stuck in his teeth that Caluin saith somewhat to that purpose But that somewhat is as good as nothing for hee doth not say they were diocesan Bishops O impudency neither doth he speake of the Apostles 〈◊〉 of which all the question is for the feeling of a Christian conscience in the 〈◊〉 of gouernment All the question concerning the Apostles times doe not your selues extend your assertion to 200. yeares And if nothing will settle the coÌ„science but what is alledged from the Apostles times what haue you to settle your conscience for your opinion who can alledge no sound proofe neither from the Apostles times nor afterwards But to what purpose should I spend more words in this matter seeing I haue heretofore proued that the circuit of euery Bishops charge was from the beginning as great if not greater then afterwards And if nothing may be in the Church but as it was in the Apostles times then ought not the whole people of any country be conuerted to the profession of Christianity because none was then and as well might they alleage that no whole country ought to bee conuerted to the profession of the faith because none was in the Apostles times as to deny the people of a whole country to be a Church because it was not so in the Apostles times Thus haue I manifestly proued that Caluâ—â— giueth testimony to the first point and in the two latter that he wholly agreeth with vs. So doth â—eza as I haue shewed before testifying the Churches were dioceseâ— and that in the chiefe towne of euery diocesse the first Presbyter who afterwards began to be called a Bishop hee speaketh therefore of the Apostles times was set ouer his fellow Presbyters both of the Citie and countrey that is the whole diocesse And because sometimes the countrey was of larger extent then that all vpon euery occasion could conueniently meete in the Citie and forasmuch as all other small Cities and townes did need common inspection or ouer sight they had also their Chorepiscopi that is countrey or vice-Bishops Yea but saith he being guilty to himselfe of vntruth in denying Caluins consent with vs it had been nothing to the purpose if Caluin had agreed with him in all seeing he affiâ—meth withall that they were but humane ordinances and aberrations from the word of God That which Caluin speaketh of the superiority of Bishops in degree which is the fourth point wherein I confesse he dissenteth from vs and from the truth supposing it to be of custome and humane constitution that the â—â—futer extendeth to all his reports concerning the ancient Church gouernment when as he plainely testifies that with so great 〈◊〉 they had composed the gouernment that there 〈…〉 it almost dissâ—nant from the word of God Doâ—◠〈◊〉 where say or insinuate that it is an aberration from the word of God either that their colledge of Presbyters did consist wholy of Pastors and Teachers Or that to each Citie was attributed a certaine region being portion of the same Church Or that the Bishop had the superintendency ouer the Citie and countrey It will neuer be shewed And now are we come to his conclusion containing a most vaine braâ—ge proceeding either from pitifull ignorance or extreme vnconscionablenes That hauing answeared my arguments in such sort as you haue heard and wanting indeed proofs worth the producing he shal not need the vntruth of this third point is so euident to bring any proofe for the maintenance of the contrary assertion And so I leaue him
vniuersall to be Aristocraticall because as our Sauiour Christ ascending into Heauen left his twelue Apostles as it were twelue Patriarches aunswerable to the Princes of the twelue tribes furnished with equall authority and power whose colledge was the supreme Senate of the vniuersall church so they committed the Churches to Bishops as their successours being equall in degree who as they gouerne the Churches seuerally so ioyntly with other gouernors are the highest Senate of the vniuersall Church But it was neuer practised in the Church of God that any presbyters or pastors of parishes should be called to generall councils to haue right of suffrage and authority to judge and determine those matters which were debated in those councils but both they and Deacons I meane some of them were to attend their Bishop to assist him with their priuate counsell and aduice which one argument by the way doth notably set forth the superiority of Bishops ouer other ministers But as his assumption crosseth the conceits of our new Disciplinarians so is his conclusion repugnant to their assertion who ascribing the supreme authority in their seuerall Churches to the whole congregation stand for a popular state rather then Aristocraticall Whereas indeed the gouernment of Churches as they are prouinciall are according to the ancient Canons which are in vse with vs gouerned by prouinciall synodes and therefore by a regiment Aristocraticall So that of this syllogisme the proposition is false the assumption is gainesaid by themselues and the conclusion confuting their owne assertion agreeth with the practise of prouinciall churches with vs. § 4. His other inference is this If the gouernment of the seurall Churches may be monarchicall then by the same reason the gouernment of the whole Church may be monarchicall But the gouernment of the whole Church may not be monarchicall therefore the gouernment of the seueral Churches may not This consequence is vnsound there being not the like reason of the whole Church and of the parts And that is the answere which ouâ— men doe make to the papists when they vrge this reason as there was but one high priest for the gouernment of the Church vnder the Law so there should be but one chiefe Bishop for the gouernment of the whole Church They answere there is not the like reason betweene the Church of one nation and of the whole world Cal. Inst. li. 4. ca. 6. s. 2. Gentis vnius totius orbis longè diuersa est ratio perinde est ac siquis contendat totum mundum a praefecto vno debere regi quia ager vnus non plures praefectos habeat For of the vniuersall Church Christ onely is the head which supreame and vniuersal gouernment if any man shall assume to himselfe as the Pope of Rome doth thereby he declareth himselfe to be Antichrist or emulus Christi sitting in the Church of God as God and lifting vp himselfe aboue all that is called God But as touching the seuerall Churches those who be the lieutenants of Christ may be called the heads or gouernors thereof as soueraigne princes of all states and persons within their dominions Metropolitans of prouinciall Churches Bishops of their dioces and Pastors of their seuerall flocks Secondly whereas particular men are enabled by God to gouerne seuerall churches no mortall man is able to weild the gouernment of the whole Church which is one of the maine arguments which our writers vse against the monarchicall gouernment of the whole Church which this refuter seeketh in vaine to infringe The Romane Emperors when their Empire was at the largest and they esteemed themselues Lords of the world enioying indeed not one third part of the whole yet finding themselues vnable to weild so great a burden were faine to assume colleagues vnto them with whom they parted the Empire when they might haue retained the whole Thirdly the monarchicall gouernment of the whole Church would proue dangerous and pernicious to the same if that one head or Monarch thereof should fall into errour or idolatry especially he being so aboue the whole Church as that he should not be subiect to a generall Councell But the heads of seuerall Churches if they erre or fall may by the Synodes of other Bishops be brought into order or deposed Examples whereof we haue in all euen the chiefe seats of Bishops as of Marcellinus at Rome Paulus Samosatenus at Antioch Dioscorus at Alexandria Nestorius and Macedonius at Constantinople c. Cyprian writing to Stephanus Bishop of Rome about the deposing of Martianus Bishop of Arles saith Idcirco copiosum corpus est Sacerdotâ—â— concordiâ— muâ—na glutino atque vnitatis vinculo copulatum vt si quis ex collegio nostro haeresim facere gregâ—m Christi lâ—cerare vastare tentauerit subueniant cateri c. Fourthly to the head of seuerall Churches the members may haue easie and speedie recourse for clearing of doubts and deciding of controuersies c. But from all parts of the world men could not without infinite trouble besides manifold inconueniences repaire to one place These reasons may suffice for the confutation of the proposition The assumption is false in respect of Christ who is the Monarch of the Church otherwise I acknowledge it to be true but without any disaduantage to my cause the odious consequence of the proposition which is so oft vrged being vnsound If therefore he can no better disproue the Supremacy of the Pope then he doth the superioritie of Bishops it were better he should be silent then busie himselfe in matters aboue his reach The other part of his idle flourish is a vaine bragge that were it not for that cause he should not neede to busie himselfe in answearing or examining this point For if neither the Churches were dioceses nor the Bishops Diocesan to what end should wee enquire what power or iurisdiction they had But the Churches were dioceses and the BB. diocesan as I haue manifestly proued before and as those Disciplinarians do confesse with whom chiefly I deale in this point who granting that the Churches were dioceses and the Bishops diocesan doe notwithstanding deny the superiority of Bishops in degree c. § 5. Now that the state of the controuersie betwixt vs and them may appeare I shew wherein the Presbyterians agree with vs and wherein they dissent from vs. But first he findeth fault that I call them Presbyterians as sometimes I doe also Disciplinarians though thereby I meane no other but such as doe stand for the Presbytery and for that discipline being loth either to call them aduersaries whom I acknowledge to be brethren or to offend them with the title of Puritans wherewith others doe vpbraid them And howsoeuer he in bitter scorne doth say that of my charity I doe in scorne so call them I doe professe vnfainedly that out of a charitable mind I did terme them Presbyterians not knowing how to speake of them as dissenting from vs more
charitably And whereas I say they agree with vs in this that by diuine institution there was in the primitiue Church and still ought to be one set ouer the Presbyters he saith I had need to be as mighty in eloquence as Pericles if I would perswade that But small eloquence may serue where there is such euidence to proue the truth Only the Reader must remember that I speake not of my aduersary and other new fangled disciplinarians who are not to haue the credit of comming so neere the truth but of men of greater learning and better desert in Gods Church who as they agree with vs that the Churches were dioceses and the Presbyteries with the Presidents thereof prouided for diocesses which â— haue shewed before so they consent in this that the Presbyteries had by diuine ordinaÌ„ce a President set ouer them the which I wil proue straightwaies after I haue noted his ceÌ„sure concerning the three points wherein I said they differ from vs. The first that they make the Bishop superior in order only and not in degree 2. That they assigne a superiority or presidentship vnto him for a short time and that by course 3. That granting vnto him a priority of order they deny vnto him a maiority of rule or power To the first he saith If by degree I meane dignity onely as neuer any man did they doe not deny the President to be superior indignity and honour during the time of his presidentship which is nothing else but to grant vnto him a priority of order which Beza calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the prerogatiâ—e or precedence and to go before in honor But if I vnderstand degree of office and ministery distinct from Presbyters as theirs is from deacons then he professeth themselues to dissent from vs. And so let them for he cannot be ignorant that I maintaine the antient distinction of the ecclesiasticall Ministers into three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 degrees Bishops Presbyters and Deacons As for those Presidents of Presbyteries which were superior to the other Presbyters in order and not in degree such were they whom they were wont to call sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes archipresbyteri sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say Deanes and not Bishops And it was a great ouersight in these learned men vnder the name and title of the ancient Bishops to describe vnto vs Deanes To the second he saith It is manifestly false for we tie not the presidentshippe to any short or long time nor giue it to all presbyters by course as if it were a matter of diuine institution howsoeuer where all are fit for that seruice as no doubt but in Vtopia they all are we thinke it perhaps for he doth but ghesse at things which he knoweth not in discretion he might haue said indiscretion confirmed by experience not amisse to haue the businesse so carried To the third he saith That it also is vntrue for wee giue saith he the President during the time of his presidentship as priority of order so maiority of rule though not supreme and sole authority as none but Papists doe and they to none but to the Pope As touching their agreement with vs and the second point wherin they differ from vs for of the first I haue spoken at large before shewing the iudgements of Caluin and Beza therin you shall heare the opinion of a cheife patron of the discipline in a treatise which he hath written in defense thereof Beza therfore teacheth that it is a diuine ordinance both that there should be a president of each presbytery and also that his presidentshippe should be but for a short time and by course The former which is the order it selfe he saith is not onely an ordinance diuine but also essentiall and immutable The latter which is ordinis modus though it were of diuine institution yet it is but accidentall and so mutable And when hee distinguisheth Bishops into three sorts he calleth them onely diuine which haue a priority of order onely and that for a time and by course As for those which had a perpetuall presidentship whereunto they were preferred by election by whom the priority of order as he imagineth was changed into a superiority of degree and were such as hee will not absolutely condemne yet such in his opinion are but humane and to these he supposeth the name Bishop first to haue beene appropriated Such diuine Presidents he acknowledgeth these seuen Angels to haue been and before them Timothy at Ephesus And whereas Ierom saith at the first the Churches were gouerned 〈◊〉 Presbyterorum consiliâ— by the common counsell of Presbyters Nâ—â— confuso saith he perturbatâ— What saith he confused and disordered so as when the Presbyters did meete none should be President among them That is not likely therefore euen then the Presbytery had a President And where it was obiected by D. Sarauia against that opinion of Ierome that these seuen Churches had each of them an Angell by diuine ordinance set ouer them to whom a more eminent authority belonged in the regiment of the Church to what purpose saith Beza doe you vrge this against Ierome For when hee said the Churches were gouerned at the first by the common counsell of Presbyters wee may not thinke that hee so doted as to dreame that none of the Presbyters was President ouer that assembly As for the third and the last nothing is more euident then that Caluin and Beza as they deny the Bishop to bee superior to other Ministers in degree so also in rule and dominion For he was not so superior in honour and dignity saith Caluin as to haue dominion ouer his Colleagues And againe that he did goe so before others in dignity that himselfe was subiect to the assembly of his brethren Beza acknowledgeth their superiority to haue been the dignity or honour of the first place but no degree of rule ouer their compresbyters And is not this part of H. I. his second maine assertion that the ancient Bishops in the first two hundred yeeres differed from other pastors onely in priority of order and not in maiority of rule T. C. likewise speaking of him that was chosen to moderate the meeting of Ministers saith If any man will call him a President or Moderator or a Gouernour we will not striue so that it be with these cautions that hee be not called simply Gouernour or Moderator but Gouernour or Moderator of that action and for that time and subiect to the orders that others bee and to be censured by the company of the Brethren as well as others if hee be iudged anyway faultâ— And that after that action ended and meeting dissolued hee sit him downe in his old place and set himselfe in equall state with the rest of the Ministers Thirdly that this gouernment or presidentship bee not so tied to that Minister but that at the next meeting it
shall bee lawfull to take another The vntruths therefore which the Refuter hath bestowed vpon me here he must be intreated to take to himselfe To proue their dissent from vs in this fourth point I alleaged Beza his distinction of Bishops into three sorts and because it is an odious distinction I conceaâ—â—d his name and to salue his credit J shewed that although hee came farre short of Caluins moderation yet he is more moderately affected towards our Bishops then the Disciplinarians among vs vsually bee who as they speake despitefully of them calling them Antichristian pettite Popes c. so doe they wish and labour for the extirpation of them whereas Beza speaking reuerently of them praieth for their continuance But both his distinction and his wish by the Refuter are peruerted expounding him as though he had accounted for humane those which had onely a priority of order whereas indeed he acknowledgeth such a presidentship as you haue heard to be a diuine ordinance and vnderstandeth his praier where he wisheth the continuance of the Bishops as if he had wished that so long as England hath Bishops they may bee such as may giue their liues for the truth as they did Where whiles hee vnderstandeth Beza as wishing our Bishoppes to be Martyrs he indiscreetly maketh him to wish that our Princes may bee persecutors which God forbid That which he addeth concerning my saying Amâ—â— to the like wish for the Churches of France and Scotland and yet be no maintainer of their presbyteries is meerely idle for I did not bring in Beza as a maintainer of Bishops bvt rather did note him as one of their chiefe opposites citing his differences from vs and mentioning that distinction of Bishops howbeit I acknowledge his proposition to be with more moderation then is commonly to be found in the Disciplinarians among vs. Now I am to descend with him into the particulars which I propounded to be handled first to shew that the Bishops or Angels of the primitiâ—e Church were as well as ours superior to other Ministers in degree and secondly to declare more particularly wherein their superiority did consist But before he entreth the combate distrusting himselfe and his cause he seeketh as such champions vse to doe which way if need be he may make an escape and hauing to this purpose looked well about him he hath found out two starting holes whereby he hopeth to finde some euasion The former hath these windings and turnings in it 1. That the primitiâ—e church is to be confined to the Apostles times and not extended to the whole 200 yeares 2. That the question is â—â— be â—nderstood of the Angels of the 7. Churches 3. That I must pâ—â—â—â—e these Angels to haue had sole power of ordination and iurisdiction The first of these argueth extreame diffidence for Caluin and others in this question within the limits of the primitiue Church include the times of Constantiâ—e at the least yea Caluin includeth all the time aâ—tepapaâ—â—m before the Papacy in which time he acknowledgeth the forme of Church gouernment to haue had nothing in it almost dissoâ—ant from the word of God And whereas saith he euery prouince had among their Bishops an Archbishop and whereas also in the Councill of Nice there were established Patriarchs who in order and dignity were superior to the Archbishops that appertained to the preseruation of discipline And although he misliketh that the gouernment so established was called Hiera â—hy notwithstanding if omitting the name saith he we looke into the thing we shall finde that the ancient Bishops would not frame a forme of Church gouernment differing from that which God prescribed in his word And Beza confesseth that those things which were ordained of the antient Fathers concerning the seats of Bishops Metropolitanes and Patriarches assigning their limits and attributing vnto them certaine authority were appointed optimo zelo out of a very good zeale And therefore no doubt out of such zeale as was according to knowledge otherwise it would haue been far from being optimus the best Zanchius intreating of the diuers orders of Ministers in the primitiue Church as Presbyters Bishops Archbishops c. faith they may be defended Against which some learned man I will not say Beza hauing taken exception Zanchius maketh this apology When I wrote this confessioÌ„ of the faith I did write all things out of a good conscience and as I beleeued so I freely spake Now my faith is grounded chiefly and simply on the word of God Something also in the next place on the common consent of the whole antient Catholike Church if that bee not repugnant to the Scriptures I doe also beleeue that what things were defined and receiued by the godly Fathers being gathered together in the name of the Lord by the common consent of all without any gainsaying of the holy scriptures that those things also though they be not of the same authority with the holy Scriptures proceeded from the holy Ghost Hence it is that those things that be of this kind I neither will nor dare with good conscience mislike But what is more certaine out of histories Councels and writings of all the Fathers then that those orders of Ministers whereof I spake were established and receiued by the common consent of all Christendome Quis aâ—tem ego sim qui quod tota Ecclesia approbauiâ— improbem And who am I that I should disallow that which the whole Church allowed c. Neither doe I see any reason why the Church in Constantines time should not rather bee propounded as a pateâ—â—e for imitation to Churches that liue vnder Christian princes and flourish through Gods blessing in peace and prosperitie then the Churches of former times which were not in all things established and setled according to their desires but were hindred by persecutioÌ„ For in time of persecution their gouernment was not alwaies such as they would but such as they could attaine vnto And vnlesse we would haue the Churches to liue alwaies vnder persecution it is madnesse to require them to be imitated in all things But what was by generall consent receiued and practised in the time of peace and prosperity was that which in their iudgements ought to be done and is of vs being in the like case to be imitated Now that in Constantines time the Bishops had superiority ouer other Ministers in degree and a singular preheminence of power and authority it is most euident Neither was their superiority and authority increased by the accession of the Christian Magistrate as their wealth was but rather diminished seeing while there was not a Christian Magistrate they were faine to supply that defect and by their owne authority did many things which afterward were done or assisted by the Magistrate But though there can no colour of a good reason be giuen why the superiority and authority of Bishoppes as they were diocesan should haue been greater
in the fourth century then in the third or in the third then in the second or in the second then the first the first Bishops in all likelihood hauing had rather a more eminent then lesse authority yet our new Disciplinarians for a poore shift and euasion deny this superiority of Bishops in degree and maiority in power to haue been in the first two hundred yeeres because they conceiue there is not the like euidence for the second as for the third Now our Refuter perceiuing there is better euidence then he imagined for the second century will needs haue the times of the primitiue Church restrained to the time of the Apostles And when they are driuen from that they were best to flie to the time of Christs conuersation vpon the earth For my part I make no doubt but that Anianus who succeeded S. Marke at Alexandria being a man beloued of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euery way admirable had the same episcopall authority which S. Marke had before him and that he and those which succeeded him euen in the Apostles times viz. Abilius and Cerdâ— had no lesse authority as diocesan Bishops then those which came two hundred yeeres after them Indeed when the Churches multiplying there was a consociation of dioceses in the prouince the Bishop of Alexandria became actually a Metropolitan Bishop which from the first might bee intended and when there was a consociation of prouinces subiected to him he became a Patriarch the antient Fathers in godly policie so thinking it necessary Now if any man shall thinke that the Bishop of Alexandria was but a parish Bishop at the first and vpon consâ—ciation of parishes subiected to him became a diocesan he is to vnderstand that the diocesse and the mother Church of the diocesse was before any parish that parishes arise out of the distribution of the diocesse that thâ— Bishop and his Presbytery of the mother Church were appointed not for one parish but for the whole diocesse that at Alexandria in and from S. Marks time who constituted the Churches there there haue been more Churches then one subiected to the Bishop of Alexandria Vnlearned therefore and vngrounded is that distinction of Bishops into six sorts viz. 1. Parishionall 2. Diocesan titular Bishop being the President or Moderator ouer the Pastors of a diocesse 3. Diocesan ruling Bishop though not solely 4. Diocesan L. Bishop 5. A Patriarchall Bishop 6. An vniuersall Bishop Of the first sort it is said all were in the first two hundred yeeres Of the second there beganne to be some in the end of the second century The third began about the yeere 260. The fourth shortly after Augustines time The fifth for he knew not how to distinguish betwixt Metropolitans whom hee outskippeth and Patriarches sometimes before the Councell of Nice And how is all this proued It is strange to see how strong some mens conceits can be when their reasons are full weake The proofes for the parish Bishop J haue before disproued How is the second proued Such perhaps first of all was Iulianus the tenth Bishop of Alexandria Perhaps But why he rather then S. Marke or Anianus or any other of his predecessors Because in his time first mention is made by Eusebius that there were diuers Churches in that Citie and hee Bishop of them This would haue gone for a stout reason no doubt had not Eusebius himselfe testified that Saint Marke constituted the Churches in Alexandria it selfe which euer from S. Marks time had but one Bishop at once How is the third demonstrated It may be this began at Alexandria with Dionysius the thirteenth Bishop of that place Very well perhaps it may be these are very good proofs But why may it be It seemeth to be Ieromes meaning where he saith that some priority in Bishops continued there from Marke to Heraclas and Dionysius Heare Ieromes words Euen at Alexandria from Marke the Euangelist vnto the Bishops Heraclas and Dionysius the Presbyters alwaies hauing chosen one from among themselues and placed him in a higher degree called him Bishop euen as an army chooseth a Generall Which words Ierome wrote to magnifie the calling of Presbyters and to prefeâ—re them before Deacons both because they chose their Bishop as also because they did elect him from among themselues vntill Heraclas and Dionysius But it is a world to see what is collected from these words both by that Author and also T. C. By that Author first That some priority in Bishops continued there from Marke to Heraclas and Dionysius As if Ierome had giuen any the least signification of the lesse authority of Bishops before Heraclas then after and had not signified some difference onely in their election For Heraclas and Dionysius who had been Origens schollers and succeded him one after the other in his office of Catechist or Teacher in Alexandria in respect whereof they were no more Presbyters then Origen himselfe had been notwithstanding for their excellent learning the Presbyters who till then had euer chosen one out of their owne number to be Bishop made choice of these two one after the other although at the time of their election they were not Presbyters But what followeth At Heraclas it is probable was a period of one sort viz. of titular diocesan Bishops and with Dionysius began another viz. of ruling diocesan BB. Priority of order in one Bishop ouer a parish seemeth to haue continued exclusiuely from Marke to Iulianâ—â—s for he was ashamed to say that Saint Marke who as the same Ierome testifieth was the Bishop of Alexandria was but a parish Bishop ouer a diocesse from Iulianâ—â— to Heraclas 〈◊〉 and the maiority of ruling in the diocesse to haue 〈◊〉 with Dionysius O acumen But the proofe is admirable and the conclusion passeth all The proofe is this Nothing lâ—â—teth vs but that thus we may probably thinke More is the pitie For true learning and a sound iudgement would haue let you from entertaining and much more from broching such vnlearned and vngrounded fancies Yea but by this meanes Eusebius and Ieromes relation shall well agree I answere though these fancies had neuer beene heard of there had not beene so much as any shew of disagreement betwixt them The conclusion Howsoeuer it is this is certaine that neither the one nor the other was knowne before these times As if he had said Perhaps Iulianus was the first titular Bishop It may be the ruling diocesan Bishoppes beganne at Alexandria with Dionysius At Heraclas it is probable was a period of one sort c. Nothing letteth vs but that thus wee may probably thinke But how soeuer vncertaine our premisses be wee are resolued vpon a certaine conclusion it is certaine c. Is it not strange that so certaine a conclusion should be inferred vpon so vncertaine premises especialle seeing it is most certaine that before Dionysius his time there were not onely diocesan but also Metropolitan BB. But
will you also heare what T. C. gathereth out of these words of Ierome Godly 〈◊〉 mâ—slikâ—d this order of giuing the name Bishoppe to one in a Church and by all likelihood broke it which Ieromes words do apparently import This custome was in the Church of Alexandria from Saint Marke vntill Heraclas and Dionysius for vnlesse there were some change then why should hee not rather haue said From Saint Marke to his time First to his assertion I say it is vntrue that godly men misliked the giuing of the name Bishoppe to one in Church neither was there any reason why they should mislike it For first as the name of Angels being common to all Ministers is by the holy Ghost appropriated to Bishops in such sort as though euery Minister be an Angell yet onely one is the Angell of the Church so by the same reason Episcopi being in the scriptures a title common to al Ministers is so appropriated to one in euery Church that whereas all Ministers are Bishops in a generall sense one onely is the Bishop of that Church neither was it arrogancy but modesty rather in Bishops who assumed this name For whereas in the Scriptures they are called sometimes the Angels of the Churches sometimes the Apostles of the Churches sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rulers sometime 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes episcopi they contented themselues with the title of least honour and left the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 importing the honour of the Ministery in generall to other Ministers Neither is there any more reason as D Raynolds also saith why the appropriating of the name Bishop to the Angels of the Churches should be misliked then of giuing the name Minister to Presbyters which is common to Bishops Presbyters and Deacons Besides it is most certaine that in the writings of Ignatius and others who liued in or neere the Apostles times the name episcopus was appropriated to the Angel of ech Church Ierome plainly testifieth that from S. Markâ— time who was the first Bishop whom three other succeeded in the Apostles times one who was set in a superior degree was called Bishop But that the custome of giuing this name to one in the Church which from S. Marks time had continued should begin to be misliked in the time of Heraclus and Dionysius is against reason vnlesse it may be thought that the estimation of Bishops then decreased which ill agreeth with H I. conceit What antient Writer mentioning Dionysius doth not cal him Bishop of Alexandria Eusebius so termeth him Athanasius who was one of his successors doth not only cal him Bishop ofteÌ„times but also acknowledgeth him to haue bin a Metropolitan B. or rather Patriarch For when as the Bishops of Pentapolis began to fauor the heresie of Sabâ—llicus Dionysius to whose charge those Churches did appertaine sought to reform them You haue heard T. C. assertion His reason is this some change there was therefore in the name Bishop How weake a reason this is I shal not need to note seeing I haue shewed wherein the change was there being lesse likelihood of alceration in this kind then in any other For could any man at that time mislike that the Bishop of Alexandria should be called a Bishop seeing at that time he was without the mislike of any a Metropolitan Bishop yea a Patriarch But to returne to H. I. who saith his Diocesan L. Bishop ruling alone who was not established in Ambrose Ierome and Augustines time tooke place soone after And how is this proued He saith hee doubts not of it though he be not able to shew neither where nor when nor by whom nor how the Bishops authority was increased after Augustines times What if in Augustines time the authority and preheminence of Bishops was abated and restrained namely in the fourth Councell of Carthage more then euer before For whereas the antient Canons referre the power both of ordination and iurisdiction to the Bishop without mentioning the assistance of the Presbytery And whereas Bishoppes before such as were peaceable and well disposed did voluntarily vse the aduice and assistance of their clergy by that Councell the assistance of the clergy both in ordination and iurisdiction in the Churches of Africk became necessary Neither doe I know any reason why the authority of diocesan Bishops after Augustines time should bee thought to haue increased For as by the lawfull authority of Christian Kings Princes to whom they were subordinate in regard of the coÌ„mon good of the kingdom whereof they were meÌ„bers so much more by yâ— vsurped supremacy of the B. of Rome after the yeer 607. yâ— authority of bishops was lessened impaired We are to come to his fift step which is of patriarchal BB. but he hath cleane marred the staires that the refuter and his consorts vse to talke of whereby the Bishoppes of Rome from being as they say a parish Bishop did arise to the papacy partly by denying such BB. as he esteemeth ours to be to haue been till after Augustines time and partly by out-skipping the Metropolitanes For it cannot be denied but that there were diocesan Bishoppes such as ours be before there were Metropolitanes or Primates actually and there were Metropolitanes before there were Patriarches Now it would be knowne when Patriarches begun In the Councel of Nice held about the yeere three hundred twentie foure it is acknowledged to haue been an antient custome which there was ratified that the Bishop of Alexandria should haue authority of Egypt Libya and Pentapolis and the like custome for the Bishop of Rome in the West and of Antioch in the East is mentioned and the antient priuiledges to each Church espcially to each Metropolis reserued To say nothing of Rome whereof the Papists say too much it is plaine by that testimony of the Nicene Councell of Epiphanius before alleaged of Athanasius euen now cited that the Bishops of Alexandria had of old long before their time patriarchall authority For that of Antioch the testimony of Ignatius added to the authority of the Nicene Councell is sufficient calling himselfe the Bishop of Syria whereby we cannot conceiue him to haue been lesse then an Archbishop Now if I should aske H.I. or this Refuter when Metropolitanes first began they would not be able truly to assigne their originall after the Apostles times And therefore cunningly were they omitted by H. I. though I cannot accuse him of any great skill in making a doubt whether Caesarea in the Councell of Nice be reckoned as one of the foure seats of the Patriarches For expresse mention is made of Aeliâ— which was the new name giuen by Adrian to Ierusalem to which according to antient custom the next place of honor after Antioch was granted the proper dignity notwithstanding to the Metropolis which indeed was Caesarea being reserued But if Metropolitanes had not their beginning after the Apostles times as no man is able to
Alexandria that order was changed Then at the soonest saith the refuter began M. D. superiority of Bishops to creep in c. Which answere if his meaning be as our refuter conceiteth is vnsound For first where he saith the order was changed in Heraclas and Dionysius that is spoken but by ghesse because Ierome nameth them Vpon which coniecture T. C. and H. I. as you haue heard did build their two diuers fancies For Ieromes meaning was not to signifie that the superioritie of Bishops was altered but as I haue shewed that vntill Heraclas and Dionysius who were not Presbyters but Teachers of the schoole in Alexandria the Presbyters euer since S. Marks time did chuse one out of their owne number That which the Refuter addeth is absurd and against Ieromes plaine words Then at the soonest began M. D. superiority of Bishops to creepe in for the superiority I spake of is superiority in degree And Ierome saith that euer from Saint Marke and therefore euen in the Apostles times the BB. had been placed in a higher degree My fift argument is also from the authority of Ierome which yeeldeth a double proofe the former that the superiority of Bishops ouer Presbyters and Presbyters aboue Deacons is an ordinance or tradition apostolicall Secondly that as the high Preist was in degree superiour to the other Preists and they to the Leuits so by an apostolicall ordinance the Bishop is superiour to the Presbyters and the Presbyters to the Deacons That wee may know saith he the apostolicall traditions are taken out of the old testament looke what Aaron and his sonnes and the Leuits were in the Temple the same let the Bishops Preists and Deacons challenge in the Church To this testimony containing two impregnable proofs for the superiority of BB. not onely de facto but also de iure the refuter thought it his wisest course to say nothing To these arguments this may be added That as the new ordination of a Deacon when he was made a Presbyter doth proue that he was aduanced to a higher degree of the ministery euen so when a Presbyter was chosen to be Bishop he was by a new ordination promoâ—ed to the Bishopricke as to a higher degree The two first canons among those which are called the Apostles appoint that a Bishop should be ordained of two or three Bishops but let a Presbyter say they be ordayned of one Bishop and likewise a Deacon and the rest of the clergy Valeriuâ— the Bishop dealth with the Primate the Bishop of Carthage by letters intreating him that Augustine who then was Presbyter might be ordained Bishop of Hippo which being obtained Augustine tooke vpon him the care of the Bishopricke maioris loci 〈…〉 and ordination of a greater place The councell of Sardica taketh order that before a man may be a Bishop he must first performe the ministery of a Reader then of a Deacon then of a Presbyter that so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by euery degree if hee be worthy he may arise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnto the height of the Bishopricke Theadoret testifieth that Iohn Chrysostome hauing been the chiefe of the Presbyters at Antioch a long time oft times might haue been chosen to the Bishopricke which he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apostolicall presidency but alwaies did flie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that principality So that though he were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the chiefe of the Presbyters yet he was no Bishop neither durst he for a long time take vpon him that degree of principality So much of the superiority of Bishops in generall CHAP. III. Shewing wherin the superiority of Bishops did and doth consist and first of the singularity of preeminence Serm. sect 3. page 32. But let vs consider more particularly wherein the superioritie of Bishops did and doth consist c. ad lin a fine 6 THe superiority of Bishops ouer other Ministers I place in three things singularity of preeminence during life the power of ordination and the power of iurisdiction all which I ground on Tit. 1.5 But where I say during life hee saith This addition needed not seeing it is grounded vpon an erroneous conceit of mine owne whereby I charge them as holding the contrary Secondly that it is not proued out of the place alleaged In the former hee sheweth how audacious he is seeing Beza the chiefe patron of the pretended discipline holdeth that the Presidents of the Presbyteries which afterwards as he saith were called Bishoppes ought to be but for a short time and that by course and esteemeth them which had a perpetuall presidenship to be Bishops humane as I haue shewed before The practise also of those Churches where the discipline is vsed doth prooue what their Founders thought was agreeable to Gods word This their conceit is euidently confuted by the Epistles to Titus and to Timothy For seeing they doe confesse that they were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Churches of Creet and Ephesus it is euident that they continued in this Presidentshippe whiles they liued there For it is absurd to imagine that Titus was sent to Creet and Timothy to Ephesus to be presidents there in their turnes and when their turnes were ended to be subiected to other of the Presbyters there in their course But these things the refuter doth but cauill at by the way For he granteth that Titus had this superioritie which we speake of his maine answer is that Titus was not a Bishop Which afterwards J proue in the Sermon by the common consent of the antient and most approoued Writers of the Church with whose affirmation in a matter of fact if this Refuters deniall shall be weighed in the ballance of an vnpartiall iudgement it will be found as light as vanitie it selfe But of this question more hereafter In the meane time J will but desire the Reader to take this for granted because it cannot be denied that if Titus was Bishop of Creet then Bishops had this threefold superioritie which I speake of Where I commend this order of Church gouernement consisting in the superiority of Bishoppes and inferioritie of other Ministers this graue and learned Refuter maketh a scorne at it saying It is a toy to please children and a gay Epiphonema wanting a note of exclamation he would haue said acclamation to grace it The which argueth his spite against the gouernment of Bishoppes rather then his might being neither able to endure the iust commendation of episcopall gouernment nor yet to confute it For what hath he but trifles and toies to obiect against it For where hee saith I begge the question supposing ech Church to be a diocesse the conscience of the Reader I hope also of the Refuter will testifie that what I suppose in this behalfe hath beene before sufficiently prooued Besides those with whom I principally contend in this point doe confesse the Churches indued with power of
lawfully ordained whosoeuer now will be made Bishop it is necessarie that he should be put forth of the Church and that he haue not the Churches ordination who doth not hold the vnity of the Church Whosoeuer he be though he boast much of himselfe and challenge verie much to himselfe he is prophane he is an aliant he is out of the Church And for as much as after the first Bishop there cannot be a second whosoeuer after that one who ought to be alone is made he is not the second but none at all Thirdly the singularitie of preeminence in Bishops during their life is proued by their singularitie of succession both in and since the Apostles times noted by Irenaeus Tertullian Eusebius and other approued authors most plainly prouing that there was but one Bishop at once in the ancient and Apostolicall Churches Fourthly what the preeminence and superioritie of Bishops was ouer the Presbyters and others of the Clergie appeareth by this that in good writers they are said the Bishop his Presbyters the Bishops Deacons the Bishops clergy Thus Arius is said to haue been Alexanders presbyter Petrus and Irenaus Timotheâ—â— and Macarius to haue been Athanasius his Presbyters the vicegerents of Siluester in the councill of Nice were his Presbyters Thus Crispio is said to haue been Epiphaniuâ— his archdeacon Heraclides to haue been Chrysostomes deacon In a word all of the Clergie were said to be the Bishops clerks as in the councill of Africke Let no Bishop take anothers clerke without the consent of him whose clerk he is The which is a plain argument of the great preeminence which the Bishops of the primitiue Church had ouer the Presbyters and others of the clergie To these we will adde the testimonie of Bucer against whom the Refuter cannot except as being partiall for Bishops By the perpetuall obseruation of the Church saith he euen from the Apostles themselues we see it seemed good to the holie Ghost that among the Presbyters to whom the charge of the Church is specially committed one shold haue the singular charge of the Churches and in that charge and care gouerned al others for which cause the name of Bishop was attributed to these chiefe Gouernors of Churches Howbeit without the counsell of the other Presbyters they ought not to determine any thing c. Thus much of the Preeminence of Bishops CHAP. IIII. That Bishops were superior in power and first in the power of ordination Serm. sect 5. pag. 36. Let vs see if Bishops were not also superiour in power Hearken to Ierome The safety of the Church dependeth on the dignitie of the chiefe Priest or Bishop to whom if there be not yeelded exors ab omnibus eminens potestas a peerelesse power and eminent aboue all there will be so many Schismes in the Churches as there be Priests THis testimony is handled by him as Sir Christopher Blunts head was vsed after his apprehension first healed and then cut off For first he explanes the testimonie and then reiects it He restraineth Ieromes speech to the Church in his owne time viz. in the end of the fourth age saying That no man can without open violence stretch it further Which is as vnlearned a shift as euer was heard of As though Ierome had spoken onely of that which was in his time and not of that which in his judgement ought to be Was it Ieromes judgement that the superioritie of Bishops was needfull for the auoiding of Schismes in his time onely doth he not plainly teach that the superioritie of Bishops began in the Apostles times and that at the first they were ordained for auoiding of Shismes For the former doth he not say that Iames was Bishop of Ierusalem Timothe of Ephesus and Titus of Creet Doth he not say that euer since Saint Marks time there haue been Bishops placed in a superiour degree aboue the Presbytes Doth he not call the superioritie of BB. a tradition Apostolicall and doth he not say that it began in the whole world when diuisions began in the Church saying I am of Paul c. which was in the Apostles time c. As touching the latter he saith indeed that at the first the Churches vnder the Apostles before BB. were ordained were gouerned by the common Counsell of Presbyters But whereas afterwards one was elected who should be set ouer the rest In Schismatis remedium factum est It was prouided as a remedie against Schisme lest euery man drawing after him should rend in peeces the Church of Christ. And least we should think that afterwards to be referred to the times after the Apostles he addeth in the next words Nam Alexandriae For euen at Alexandria euer since Mark the Euangelist who died 5. or 6. yeares before Peter and Paul and almost 40. yeares before Saint Iohn the Presbyters haue alwaies chosen one and placed him in a higher degree and called him Bishop The like he hath in Titum 1. that when diuisions began in the Church it was decreed in the whole world that one should be set ouer the rest to whom omnis Ecclesiae cura pertineret Schismatum semina tollerentur the care of the whole Church or all the care of the Church should appertaine and that the seeds of Schismes might be taken away or as he speakth afterwards vt dissensionum plantaria euellerentur ad vnum omnem solicitudinem esse delaâ—â—â— that the first plants or sets of dissensions might be plucked out the whole care was committed to one It is most plaine therefore that in Ieromes judgement the superioritie of BB. was needfull for the auoiding of Schisme not onely in his own time but euen in the Apostles times when Bishops were first ordained And as he teacheth that BB. were instituted for auoiding of Schisme so his judgement in the place alleaged was that for the same cause they are necessarily to be reteined Yea he saith Salus Ecclesia The safetie of the Church dependeth on this dignitie of Bishops and that vnlesse a peerelesse and supereminent power be giuen vnto them there would be as many Schismes in the Churches as there be Priests But the refuter wants no reasons J warrant you to restraine Ieromes words to Ieromes time For To stretch it to the Apostles times saith he were to make Ierome a wilde headed 〈◊〉 indeed Thus Ierome if he agree not with the conceipts of some giddie heads shall be judged wild-headed And why so I pray you For three reasons First because Ierome in diuers places disputeth and concludeth that BB. and Presbyters are equall by the word of God Whereunto I answeare that this is all which Ierome in this cause saith that Bishops and Presbyters are the 〈◊〉 in the Scriptures His meaning is that before Bishops were ordained the names Episcopus Presbyter were confounded and the same men were called Presbyters and Bishops which I do not denie
in the iudgement of the Refuter that is when thou wast ordained Presbyter So saith Ierome Cum ordinations episcopatus when thou wert ordained Bishoppe Anselme This imposition was presbyterij of the priesthood because by this imposition of hands meaning ordination hee receiued the Presbytery that is the office of a Bishop I vnderstand saith Caluin the ordination it selfe as if he should say the grace which by imposition of hands thou dâ—st receiue when I made thee Presbyter Calum therefore vnderstandeth it to be gouerned as if it were said Cum ordinatione Presbyteratus For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth either the Senate or company of Presbyters which in Latine we call Presbyterium or the office degree and order of a Presbyter which we call Presbyteratus Yea but the Refuter will shew the absurdity of this interpretation by laying downe the order of the words in the Greeke and yet varieth not at all from the order which I myselfe set downe But this is but to please the simple For he might as well require the words in Greeke and Latine to be set downe in the order of construction as to make the order of words in Greeke and Latine sentences to be answerable to the English Howbeit this exception is against his owne conceit of the traiection of the words it toucheth not the exposition of Ierome Caluin and the rest which is without traiection In his conclusion where he bids me forbeare to bleare the eyes of the Readers with an exposition against reason and mine owne conscience he wrongeth me egregiously and not me alone but all the Authors whom I alleaged For first I did not deliuer this as my exposition but faithfully recited the interpretation giuen by these Authors Secondly if I had rested in this interpretation as I did not though I see no reason why I may not why should it be counted against reason and against coÌ„science in me which I receiued from so approued Authors But what a contumely is this to Ierome Caluin and the rest whose exposition it is warranted by the testimony of Paul to say they bleare the eies of their Readers with an exposition against reason and their owne conscience I wish the Refuter vnlesse his iudgement were better to forbeare to condemne other mens expositions as void of reason and vnlesse his knowledge were greater not to measure other mens conscience by his owne For that which is against his conscience as not being within the compasse of his science may bee agreeable to the science and consceince of them who haue more knowledge and better iudgements But if he would needs censure Caluins exposition as void of reason why did he not answere Caluins reason grounded on the authority of Saint Paul For if Timothy were ordained by a Presbytery then vndoubtedly by more then one But Paul saith Caluin in another place saith that he and not any more imposed hands on Timothy 2. Tim 1 6. And so much might suffice for the former exposition sauing that by way of aduantage something is to bee added out of Erasmus who also vnderstanding the word Presbytery of the office giueth notwithstanding another sense This Paul saith Thou hast not onely the gift of prophecie but also the efficacie by imposition of hands to giue the spirit also to others and that by the office of thy priesthood namely as thou art Bishop And to this interpretation hee was led by force of the Greeke preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth with not as an instrument but as a companion And this may seeme to haue been Ambrose his iudgement also that Paul gratiam dari ordinatoris significat signifieth the grace of an ordainer to be giueÌ„ Which sense if we follow this place maketh wholly for the Bishops authority in ordaining this being the sense of the Apostle that Timothy had receiued the gift of the ministery together with power to impose hands on others by vertue of his office as he was Bishop The latter exposition is of them who vnderstand the word Presbytery collectiuè for a Senate or company of men In which sense though the word receiueth from diuers learned men a threefold interpretation yet in none doth it either fauour the Disciplinarians Presbytery or preiudge the superiority of Bishoppes in the power of ordination For some by Presbytery vnderstand the Apostle as speaking of himselfe by a synecdoche led thereunto by the Apostles testimony in the place before cited where he exhorteth Timothy to stirre vp the grace which was in him by imposition saith he of my hands And this is one of Anselmus his expositions with whom Dionysius Carthus agreeth ioining both his expositions in one Manuum Presbyterij saith he i. manuum meaerum that is of my hands who did ordaine theâ— Bishop By which imposition the Presbytery or priesthood was conferred vpon thee So that in their iudgement wherewith Caluin also agreeth none but Paul did impose hands in the ordination of Timothy The second interpretation is of the Greeke Fathers Chrysostome Theodoret Theophylact and Oecumenous who expounding the word collectiuè doe vnderstand a senate or company of Apostles and Apostolicall men who were either Bishops or more then Bishops Chrysostomes words be these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Presbytery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hee doth not speake here of Presbyters but of Bishops for surely Presbyters did not ordaine a Bishop Oecumenium hath the like words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophylact Of the Presbytery that is of Bishoppes Theodoret He calleth them here the Presbytery who had receiued Apostolicall grace Neither doth any Writer that I know of before our age vnderstanding the word collectiuè for a company expound it otherwise but conceiuing Timothy to haue been ordained Bishoppe by the company of Apostolicall men who either were Bishoppes or more then Bishoppes Now we doe not deny but that diuers Bishops are to concurre in the ordination of a Bishop But that hindereth not but that Presbyters and Deacons may be ordained by one So are wee taught in the two first canons called Apostolicall Let a Bishop be ordained of two or three Bishoppes Let a Presbyter be ordained by one Bishoppe likewise a Deacon and the rest of the clergy This exposition therefore defeating their pretended Presbytery is so farre from derogating from the superiority of BB. in ordaining as that it plainly prooueth it because the ordination of BB. wherewith Presbyters haue nothing to doe belongeth to BB. The third exposition is of Beza and some other new Writers who by Presbytery vnderstand the order of Presbyters By which name saith Beza that whole company is signified which did labour in the word in that Church where this was done Neither will I reiect this exposition though it be new being vnderstood of Timothy his ordination to be a Presbyter so that they will not deny that which Paul affirmeth that himselfe was so principall a man in this company as
that hee doubteth not to say that the grace which was giuen by the imposition of hands of the Presbytery was giuen by the imposition of his hands Which sheweth that if any Presbyters did ioyne with Paul it was no otherwise then as they vse to doe with BB. by the Canon of the fourth Councell of Carthage and by the discipline and order of our Church And this answereth the first thing which the Refuter inferreth vpon this exposition that if Presbytery signifie a companie of seniors as it must for J tell you his word must stand for law then it will follow that the power of ordination was not in one mans hand alone For though that alone bee of his owne adding yet it is plaine that Paul and antient BB. had this power as much alone as our Bishoppes Where I say this place maketh nothing either for their parish Presbyteries or lay Presbyteries whatsoeuer hee saith It skilleth not now what Presbytery this was Belike then it skilleth not what becommeth of the maine pillar of your Discipline so you can make any poore shift to maintaine the point which presently is in hand But if this be the onely place of scripture which mentioneth a Christian Presbytery on which also the Disciplinarians do principally build the authority of their pretended Presbyteries it maketh not a little me thinks for the iustifying of our cause that it maketh not at all for their Presbyteries which by the confession of Caluin haue no right to impose hands Neither can it bee denied but that it is sacrilegious vsurpation and horrible intrusion vpon the right of the Ministery if lay men shalt take vpon them to ordaine by imposition of hands Besides it skilleth something that the Greeke Fathers vnderstand by Presbytery a company of Bishops which as it proueth the Prerogatiue of BB. in the ordaining of BB. so doth it not impeach their superioritie in ordaining Ministers And where hee maketh 〈◊〉 say they were no Presbyters hee mistaketh the matter vnlesse hee vnderstand meere or onely-Presbyters For BB and Apostolicall men yea the Apostles themselues were Presbyters and so call themselues but they were not bare or onely-Presbyters as those bee which are not Bishops But if they were not Presbyters saith he then was the Apostle to blame to call them so If the word bee vnderstood collectiuè hee calleth the company of them which imposed hands on Timothy the Presbytery And forasmuch as not onely inferior Ministers but Bishops and Apostles are called Presbyters it being a common name to all Ministers of the word and sacraments it should not seeme strange that a company or senate of Bishops or Apostolicall men should be called a Presbytery Now that they were not meere Presbyters the Fathers proue Because Presbyters might not ordaine a Bishop neque enim fas erat saith Ambrose nec licebat vt inferior ordinaret maiorem Neither was Timothy any saith he Bluntly and peremptorilie spoken But the Fathers that before I mentioned take it for granted and it is the generall consent of all the antient Fathers as wee shall heare the authoritie of some one whereof in a matter of fact ought to ouerweigh the whole nation of Disciplinarians contradicting the same In fine distrusting this burrough hee flieth to his old starting hole out of which hee hath beene so often ferretted that the Fathers spake onely of their owne times which is nothing to the ordaining of Ministers in the Apostles times almost foure hundred yeeres before them The absurdity of which euasion the Reader may easily discerne if hee will but call to minde what were the Greeke Fathers wordes before cited and vpon what occasion they were vttered Hee speaketh here saith Chrysostome and Occumenius not of Presbyters but of Bishoppes For Presbyters did not ordaine Bishoppes Is it not most plaine that they speake of the Apostles time And were it not absurd to vnderstand them thus Paul by the Presbytery which ordained Timothy vnderstandeth Bishoppes and not Presbyters because howsoeuer in those times Presbyters might ordaine yet in our times they cannot But let me aske the Refuter this question Seeing it is agreed vpon by all that Paul here speaketh of Timothy his ordination to what function hee thinketh he was ordained If to be a Presbyter or Pastor as Caluin saith or to be a Bishoppe as all the Fathers acknowledge then was hee not onely ordained to an ordinary function in the Church but also assigned to a particular Church whereof hee was made Pastor as Caluin speaketh or Bishoppe as the Fathers affirme But that his last ordination whereof the Apostle speaketh was not to the degree of a Presbyter but of a Bishoppe appeareth by the whole Epistle wherein his singularity of preeminence ouer Presbyters and superiority in power both for ordination and iurisdiction is presupposed If he say that he was ordained to be an Euangelist to omit the singularity the nouelty of the conceit it would be knowne what Presbytery this was that imposed hands on Timothy Had the Presbytery of any parish such as our Disciplinarians dreame of consisting for the most part of laymen or the Presbytery of any particular Church though consisting wholly of Ministers authority by imposition of hands to ordaine an extraordinary function and that to be exercised in other parts of the world where themselues had nothing to doe Serm. sect 8. page 39. Yea but the Councell of Carthage say they committeth authority of imposing hands to Presbyters c. to the end of page 44 Here the Refuter meaning to make short worke hauing little to say hath made a long section which he might better haue diuided into three For three diuers things are heere performed The first an answere to the obiection our of the fourth Councell of Carthage The second a new supply of proofes for the superiority of BB. in the power of ordination Thirdly a preuention of popish cauils in fauor of some reformed Churches where the Presbyterian discipline is established As touching the first the Refuter saith that canon may serue to shew that the Fathers of this Councell thought it not fit no not to leaue ordination to the Bishop alone But because he perceiueth by that which I answered that that Canon though greatly vrged by the Disciplinarians maketh nothing against the superiority of BB. in ordaining and that it agreeth with the discipline of our Church and consequently conuicteth him of vntrue dealing seeing he â—udgeth that BB. by that canon haue not sole authority of ordaining and yet will make his Reader beleeue that I defend their sole power of ordaining which by the discipline of our Church is no more sole in our BB. then it was by that canon in the BB. of Africke for thesâ— causes I say he refuseth to vrge this canon though hee pretend hee will neither trouble the Reader nor himselfe about the examining of it because forsooth it commeth not neere the time in
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
so gouerned still Whereunto I answere according to the euident light of truth that the Presbyters gouerned the Churches as vnder the Apostles and that but for a time vntill the Apostles substituted BB. or left them as their successors committing the gouernment of the seuerall Churches vnto them To the second part of his assumption I answere that the Apostles contradicted that gouernment which hee speaketh of by common counsell of Elders ruling without a B. not so much by words as by deeds when ordayning BB. in seuerall Churches they committed the whole care thereof as Ierome speaketh or at least the chiefe care and authoritie as Ignatius testifieth to them And so leauing the Refuter to rowle the stone he speaketh of I proceed to my third argument The III. CHAPTER Prouing that the Apostles themselues ordayned Bishops Serm. Sect. 5. pag. 65. But yet I proceede to a further degree which is to proue that the Apostles themselues ordayned BB. and committed the Churches to them and therefore that the Episcopall function is without question of Apostolicall institution c. to 38. yeares pag. 69. THE refuter would faine haue me seeme to proue idem per idem but that he could not but discerne that I argue from the ordination of the persons to the institution of the function against which consequence though himselfe say that without question it is good yet I confesse he might haue taken more iust exception then he hath hitherto against any which was not of his owne making so farre is it from concluding the same by the same For he might haue said though they ordayned the persons yet Christ instituted the function and that is the iudgement of many of the Fathers who holde that our Sauiour Christ in ordayning his twelue Apostles and his seauentie two Disciples both which sorts he sent to preach the Gospell he instituted the two degrees of the ministerie BB. answering to the high Priest and Presbyters answerable to the Priests Againe those Fathers who affirme the BB. to be the successors of the Apostles doe by consequence affirme that Christ when he ordayned Apostles ordayned BB. and Cyprian in plainetermes saith so much that our Lord himselfe ordayned Apostles that is to say Bishops For the Popish conceipt that the Apostles were not made Priests till Christs last supper nor BB. till after his resurrection as it is sutable with other their opinions deuised to aduance the Popes supremacy so it is repugnant to the iudgement of the ancients contrary to the truth Seeing the very Disciples who were inferiour to the Apostles were authorized before Christs last supper to preach to baptise Neither had they or needed they any new ordination whereby they might be qualified to administer the Sacrament But of this matter I will not contend for whether the function were first ordayned by Christ or instituted by the Apostles Christ is the authour thereof either immediatly according to the former opinion or mediatly according to the latter And those things are said to be of Apostolicall institution which Christ ordayned by the Apostles The antecedent of my argument viz. that the Apostles ordayned BB. and committed the Churches to them was in the Sermon explaned and proued by shewing the time when the places where the persons whom the Apostles ordayned BB. As concerning the time I said there was some difference betweene the Church of Ierusalem and the rest in respect of their first Bishop For there because shortly after Christs passion a great number were conuerted to the faith for we read of three thousand conuerted in one day and because that was the mother Church vnto which the Christians from all parts were afterwards to haue recourse the Apostles before their dispersion statim post passionem Domini straight wayes after the passion of our Lord ordayned Iames the iust Bishop of Ierusalem as Ierome testifieth Here my refuter maketh me to argue thus culling out one part of my argumentation from the rest Iames was ordayned Bishop by the Apostles therefore the Apostles ordayned Bishops And then denieth the consequence because though Iames being an Apostle had Episcopall power in respect of ordination and iurisdiction yet it would not follow that the Apostles ordayned Diocesan Bishops in other Churches But my argument is an induction standing thus The Apostles ordayned BB. at Ierusalem and in other Churches which afterwards particularly I doe enumerate therefore they ordayned BB. That they ordayned BB. at Ierusalem I proue because they ordayned Iames the Iust and Simon the sonne of Cleophas BB. of Ierusalem That they ordayned Iames B. of Ierusalem I proue in this section That they ordained Simon the sonne of Cleophas B. of Ierusalem and Bishops in other Churches I proue afterwards according to the order of time Beginning here with Ierusalem because that Church had first a Bishop Now that Iames was by the Apostles made B. of Ierusalem I proue by these testimonies first of Ierome whose words are these Iames who is called the brother of our Lord fâ—â—named the iust straight wayes after the passion of our Lord was ordayned by the Apostles the Bishop of Ierusalem This is that Ierome on whose onely authoritie almost the Disciplinarians in this cause relye alledging out of him that Bishops were not ordayned till after the Apostles times Secondly of Eusebius and of the most ancient histories of the Church whose testimonies he citeth to this purpose first therefore he saith in generall that the histories before his time did report that to Iames the brother of our Lord surnamed the iust the throne of the Bishopricke of the Church in Ierusalem was first committed Then particularly he citeth Clemens Alexandrinus testifying that Iames Peter and Iohn after the ascension of our Sauiour did choose Iames the iust Bishop of Ierusalem Afterwards Hegesippus who was nere the Apostles times as Ierome speaketh being as Eusebius saith in the very first succession of the Apostles to the like purpose Eusebius himselfe in his Chronicle translated by Ierome hath these words Iames the brother of our Lord is by the Apostles made the first Bishop of Ierusalem Againe in his history he not onely saith that Iames called the brother of our Lord was the first Bishop of Ierusâ—â—em but also testifieth vpon his knowledge that the Episcopall throne or chaire wherein Iames sate as Bishop of Ierusalem and wherein all the BB. of that See succeeded him was yet in his time to be seene being preserued as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a worthy and sacred monument And finally both in his historie and Chronicle he setteth down the succession of the Bishops of Ierusalem from Iames vnto Macarius whom he noteth to haue been the thirtie ninth Bishop of Ierusalem reckoning Iames the first and Simon the second and Iustus the third Zacheus the fourth c. Epiphanius also testifieth that Iames the Lords brother was
the first Bishop of Ierusalem and setteth downe the same succession of the Bishops from Iames vnto Hilarion noting the yeeres of the seuerall Emperours reigne vnto which they continued Bishops The same concerning Iames is witnessed by Chrysostome by Ambrose on the Epistle to the Galathians Paul saw Iames at Ierusalem because there he had beene ordayned B. of the Apostles By Dorotheus by Augustine and to omit all other testimonies of particular men by the generall Councill of Constantinople affirming that Iames who according to the flesh was brother of Christ our Lord was the first to whom the throne of the Church of Ierusalem was entrusted § 4. These testimonies for a matter of story me thinks should suffice let vs then see what the refuter obiecteth First that which he obiected against the consequence is more direct against the antecedent that is that if the Apostles ordayned Iames B. of Ierusalem then they gaue him the Episcopal power but they gaue him no power which the Lord had not before inuested in his person as an Apostle therefore they did not ordayne him B. I answere by distinction the power of order if I may so terme it Iames had before as those who are Bishops sine titulo but the power of iurisdiction was committed to him when he was designed Bishop of Ierusalem and had the Church of Iewry in particular assigned to him For though our Sauiour Christ bad the Apostles to goe into all the world yet his meaning was not that euery one should trauerse the whole world For if euery one had been to trauell ouer all the world great inconuenience disorder and confusion would haue followed thereof Therefore the Apostles who by our Sauiour were indefinitely appointed to goe into all the world by the direction of the holy Ghost before their dispersion from Ierusalem deuided the world among themselues in such sort that one being assigned to one part another to another euery man walked vvithin his owne compasse and according to his owne Canon or rule and did not vsually build vpon the foundation of another nor enter one into anothers labours Now as they were carefull to prouide for other parts of the world so vvould they not all forsake Iewry and Ierusalem but assigne one of their company to take charge thereof Who though he wer an Apostle yet being assigned to the peculiar Church of one nation might not vnfitly be called as he was indeed the B. thereof And hence it is that although the Apostles vvere commanded to goe into all the world yet Iames stayed at Ierusalem vntill his death Secondly he taketh exception against the euidence which I brought first because it is not testified in the Acts of the Apostles that they made Iames B of Ierusalem As though the Apostles did nothing but what is recorded in the Actes and as though vve should deny credit to the ancientest writers and such as be of best credit reporting vvith one consent a matter of fact not registred in the Acts. But though the act of making him B. be not set downe in the Acts yet the story so speaketh of his continuance at Ierusalem of his assistance of Presbyters of his presidency in that Councill vvhere Peter and Paul were present that it may appeare their testimonie is true and agreable to the scriptures who haue reported him to be B. there The next exception is that I produce none of the Apostles Disciples to testifie it And what one of them whose writings are extant could I alledge vvhom you vvould not reiect as counterfeit Clemens the Disciple of the Apostles not only vvriteth an Epistle to Iames translated by Ruffinus calling him the Bishop of Bishops gouerning the holy Church of the Hebrewes in Ierusalem but also in his booke of recognitions translated likewise by the same Ruffinus and dedicated to Iames the brother of our Lord calleth him vsually the B. yea the cheife of Bishops which titles how the Pope can disgest I know not But suppose that none of the disciples of the Apostles in those few writings of theirs which be extant had giuen testimony to this matter were not the testimony of Hegesippus and Clemens who both liued in the very next age to the Apostles sufficient It is not to be doubted but that Iames his being B. of Ierusalem was a thing as notorious and as certainely knowne among Christians in those times as there is no doubt made among vs now that D. Cranmer was Archbishop of Canterbury in King Henry the eights time In the third place he would seeke to descredit all Historyes in generall because the most learned B. of Ely in a Sermon preached when he was of Chichester truely noteth what might be obiected against historians of latter times But Eusebius is free as I suppose from that imputation and much more Hegesippus and Clemens in whom also that cauill of his hath no place that they spake of Bishops which had beene before according to the condition of them in their times For such was the estate of Ierusalem and of the Iewes in their times as that the condition of the Bishops there was rather impayred then increased Neither were they nor any other whom I cited so simple but that they knew as well as the refuter that Iames was an Apostle neither did they know any reason which the refuter would seeme to know why his being an Apostle should hinder his being the Apostle or Angell of that Church For so were the Bishops at the first called Fourthly and lastly he giueth all my witnesses the lye saying playnely that Iames was not Bishop of Ierusalem neither could be so that their testimonie is not onely false but impossible But how is this proued forsooth because two or three late writers worthy men I confesse D. Whitakers Bishop Iewell D. Raynolds doe deny that he was Bishop there If they all had denyed â—t as they did not yet without any disparagement to them the affirmation of so many ancient writers in a matter of fact agreeable also with the scriptures proued by the succession of the Bishops of Ierusalem remayning yet in diuers good authors vpon record besides other euidence may ouerweigh their denyall But what if they all did not deny it to D. Raynolds I know not what to say the refuter onely maketh a shew with his name neither alledging his words nor quoting the place He citeth Bishop Iewels defence of the Apology pag 300. telling Harding out of Clemens Epist. 1. that Iames was no otherwise B. of Ierusalem then ouer all the other Churches where is no such matter Indeed in the 300. page of his reply vnto Harding in the fourth article I find the first Epistle of Clement alledged but Bishop Iewel misalledged and falsified For hauing maintayned against Harding that he was not able to proue the Pope to haue beene called in ancient times the vniuersall B. he sheweth that
owne confession was common to all Pastors though afterwards appropriated to some speciall persons as if he should haue said I grant that which here you doe proue but yet that followeth not hereon which you intended not That the Churches were Diocesses and the Bishops Diocesan like to ours for the substance of their office I proued before in the former part here I am so farre from inferring or prouing it that I presuppose it as sufficiently proued before But this is the poore shift which the refuter vsually flyeth vnto when he hath nothing to answere He perswaded himselfe such was his iudgement that in the question of parishes and Diocesses he had the vpper hand and therefore when he is foiled in any of the points following he flyeth to that as his refuge yea but though this be so as you say yet the Church was not a Diocese nor the Bishop a Diocesan But how little reason he hath to imagine Philippi one of the cheife Cities of Macedonia to haue beene a parish Church may be gathered by that which before hath beene said of the like Cities Where he saith I goe about to deceiue the reader with the like equiuocation of the word Bishop he doth me wrong But he and his consorts deceiue the readers when they would perswade them that because in the Apostles writings and for some part of the Apostles time the names Episcopus Presbyter were confounded namely vntill Bishops began to be chosen from among the Presbyters that therefore the offices were confounded For here I shew that when Presbyters were called Episcopi those who euer since the Apostles times haue beene called Bishops were then called the Agels and the Apostles of the Churches to whom as I noted before out of Theodoret those who were then called Episcopi that is Presbyters were subiect For as I said in the Sermon whiles the Episcopall power was in the Apostles and Apostolicke men those who had that power were called Apostles and therefore Ambrose by Apostles in some places of Scripture vnderstandeth Bishops and to the like purpose Cyprian Apostolos id est Episcopos praepositos dominus elegit the Lord chose Apostles that is Bishops and Gouernours For as Theodoret hath well obserued on 1 Tim. 3. In times past saith he they called the same men Presbyters and Bishops and those who now are called Bishops they named Apostles But in processe of time they left the name Apostle to those who are properly called Apostles and the name of Bishop they gaue to them who had beene called Apostles Thus Epaphroditus was the Apostle of the Philippians Titus of the Cretians and Timothie of the Asians Which testimony if it be conferred with some before cited out of Ierome the truth concerning this matter will appeare to be this Whiles the Bishops were Apostles and Apostolicke men for such were the first Bishops the Angels of the Churches were also called the Apostles of the Churches other Ministers being then called Presbyteri Episcopi indifferently but when the first Bishops being dead their successours were to be chosen out of the Presbyters which Ierome noteth to haue been done at Alexandria euer since the death of S. Marke and was done in all other places where were no Euangelists or Apostolicall men remayning then they left the name Apostle and for difference sake called him the Bishop Wherefore as I said in the Sermon it was not long that the name Episcopus was confounded with Presbyter For Ignatius who was a B. aboue thirtie yeares in the Apostles time after that Evodius had beene B. of Antioch aboue twenty yeares before him appropriateth the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to a Bishop and vsually distinguisheth the three degrees of the Clergie as the Church euer since the Apostles hath distinguished them by these three names Bishop Presbyter and Deacon Yea but we may gather out of Theodorets testimonie saith the Refuter that the report which M. D. maketh of Ignatius his appropriating the name of Episcopus to a Diocesan Bishop is without any sufficient warrant For seeing Ignatius liued in the Apostles times and died within sixe yeares after S. Iohn and Theodoret saith that in processe of time the name of B. was imposed it is not likely Ignatius should be the imposer of it No man includeth the processe of time within the compasse of sixe yeares any man will thinke The processe of time wherof Theodoret speaketh was as appeareth by conference of him with Ierome in the Apostles time At the first towards the beginning of the Apostles time the Gouernours of the Churches were called Apostles but in processe of time when the first Bishops who had beene Apostles or Apostolicall men were dead and now were to be chosen out of the Presbyters which was towards the latter end of the Apostles times then they began to be called Episcopi Bishops And that this was so appeareth not onely by Ignatius who continually vseth the word as the first and highest degree of the Clergie Presbyters as the second and Deacons as the third but also by other monuments of antiquity which I mentioned in the Sermon I haue the longer insisted on this point because it is of great consequence For hereby it appeareth first that when the name Presbyter and Episcopus were confounded yet the offices of Bishops and Presbyters were not confounded Secondly that Bishops being then called Apostoli were superiour to other Ministers who were called Presbyteri Episcopi And lastly that such Bishops as were superiour to other Ministers were in the Apostles times and mentioned in the Apostles writings The IIII. CHAPTER Shewing the Places where and the Persons whom the Apostles ordayned BB but chiefly that Timothie was B. of Ephesus and Titus of Creet Serm. Sect. 7. pag. 72. But we are also to shew the places where and the persons whom the Apostles ordayned BB. and first out of the scriptures c. to all ordayned there pag. 75. IN this section and the two next following I proue that Timothie and Titus were by S. Paul ordayned Bishops the one of Ephesus the other of Creet and maintaine the same assertion against their obiections Afterwards I shew out of other the auncientest monuments of antiquitie that other BB. of other places were ordayned by the Apostles This saith the Refuter is the last supply to maintaine the former antecedent by shewing the places where and the persons whom the Apostles ordayned Bishops If this faile he is vndone As who should say that all which hitherto hath beene said hath by him beene very learnedly and sufficiently refuted When as in truth hee hath not beene able to confute any one sentence or line of the Sermon hitherto with soundnesse of reason or euidence of truth And the like assurance I haue of that which followeth Now that Timothie and Titus were by the Apostle ordained Bishops I proue by a two-fold reason which I ioyned together is thus to be
them alone as extraordinarie persons vvhose authoritie should dye with them but to those also which should succeed them in the like authoritie vntill the end But whether the Bishops were to be their successours or the whole congregation or the Presbyterie belongeth not to the assumption but rather to the proposition Howbeit that which he saith either in denying the Bishops to be the successours of Timothie and Titus or affirming the congregation and Presbyterie to haue succeeded them in the power of ordination and iurisdiction is spoken altogether as against the truth so without proofe I will therefore returne to the proposition which is grounded on this Hypothesis that Diocesan Bishops were the successours of Timothie and Titus For if that be true then is the proposition necessary though the refuter flatly denyeth it Thus therefore I reason If the successours of Timothie and Titus were Diocesan Bishops then those things which were written to informe their successours were vvritten to informe Diocesan Bishops But the successors of Timothie Titus were Diocesan BB. Therefore those things which were vvritten to informe the successours of Timothie and Titus vvere vvritten to informe Diocesan Bishops Here the refuter thinking he had as good reason to deny the one part of this syllogisme as the other denyeth both The consequence of the proposition is feeble saith he vnlesse it were certaine that the Bishops both de facto were de iure ought to haue beene their successors That the Bishops were de facto their successors of all other Apostolical men in the gouernment of the Churches I haue already proued and there vpon haue inferred that de iure also they were Because what gouernment was not onely generally receiued in the 300. yeeres after the Apostles but also was in vse in the Apostles times in the Apostolicall Churches that without doubt was of Apostolicall institution The assumption I proue by two arguments first by this disiunction Either the Bishops were their successours or the Presbyteries or which the refuter would adde the whole congregation But neither the Presbyteries nor the whole congregation which had no greater nor other authority and power vnder Bishops then they had before vnder Timothie and Titus Therefore the Bishops were their successors Againe those who succeeded Timothie and Titus in the gouernment of the Churches of Ephesus and Creet were their successors But the Bishops of Ephesus and Creet did succeed Timothie and Titus in the gouernment of those Churches Therefore they were their successors These reasons the refuter saw not onely he taketh vpon him to answere the proofes of this last assumption And first for Timothie his successors in Ephesus it is apparant that not onely the Angell of the Church of Ephesus Apoc. 2.1 whether it were Onesimus or any other was one of his successors and Policrates the Bishop of Ephesus another But also that from Timothie vntill the Councill of Chalcedon there was a continued succession of Bishops For whereas in the Councill of Chalcedon Stephanus the Bishop of Ephesus being deposed some question did arise whether the new Bishop who was to succeed were to be chosen and ordained by the Councill or by the Prouinciall Synode of Aisa Leontius the Bishop of Magnesia in the Prouince of Asia alledged that from St. Timothie to that time there had beene twenty seauen Bishops of Ephesus all ordained there To this he answereth nothing but that which before hath been refuted that howsoeuer the latter Bishops of those twenty seauen might be Diocesan the former were not For it is certaine that both the latter and the former were not onely Diocesan but also Metropolitan Bishops And where I number the Angell of Ephesus in this rancke he saith that I tediously begge the question But I appeale to the refuter himselfe first whether this Angell was not the B. and gouernour of the Church of Ephesus secondly whether he did not succeed Timothie in the gouernment of that Church thirdly whether he was not one of those twenty seauen Bishops mentioned by Leontius in the Councill of Chalcedon And the like may be said of Polycrates who had beene the eight Bishop of his owne kindred sauing that concerning him there is more euidence that he being Bishop of Ephesus was the Metropolitane or primate of Asia For Eusebius saith that he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was the ruler or chiefe of the Bishops of Asia who by his authoritie did assemble a Prouinciall Synode to discusse the question concerning Easter As touching Creet because there is not the like euidence the refuter taketh vpon him to deliuer diuers things without booke as if Titus had successours in the gouernment of Creet it would be auailable for Arch-bishops which were not bred a great while after but it maketh nothing for Diocesan Bishops Whereto I answere first though such Archbishops as were also called Patriarches were not from the Apostles times yet such as are Metropolitanes were And againe if Prouinciall Bishops may be proued to haue been from the Apostles times much more may Diocesan For euery Metropolitane is a Diocesan but not contrariwise And although I doe not remember that I haue any where read of the next successour to Titus yet I read of Gortyna the mother City of Creet and the Metropolitane Bishops thereof who were Arch-bishops of Creet and successors of Titus though not his immediate successours For Dionysius of Corinth who flourished at the same time with Hegesippus writing an Epistle to the Church of Gortyna together with the rest of the Churches of Creet hee commendeth Philippe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their Bishop for his renowned vertue And although he called him the Bishop of the Churches in Creet yet the Diocesan Churches had their Bishops too as the Church of Gnossus a City of Creet had Pinytus at the same time her Bishop which proueth the other to haue beene an Arch-bishop Theodorus Balsamo saith f antiquius Nomocanonum versaui c. I haue perused the ancient Code of Councils and by the subscriptions I finde that in this Councill held in Trullo Basil the Bishop of Gortyna which is the Metropolis of Creet was present And where he saith that Creet hauing many Churches had no one Bishop to gouerne them after Titus the Euangelist till Diocesan Bishops had got the sway of Ecclesiasticall matters I confesse it is true but he must remember that euen in the Apostles times there were Diocesan Bishops And in the very next age after them Philippe was Archbishop of Creet But though there were no direct proofe that Diocesan or Prouinciall Bishops were the successours of Timothie and Titus yet it might easily be gathered by other Churches from whose forme of gouernment Ephesus and Creet did not vary It cannot be denyed but what authoritie Timothie and Titus had the one in Ephesus the other in Creet the same had Marke at Alexandria Evodius at Antioch Linus at Rome c. Neither may it
as we see in Matthew and Iohn so Euangelists might be Bishops as we see in Marke But as for Timothie Titus the Greeke Writers expounding that place plainely say they were not Euangelists but Pastors or Bishops For they after they were placed the one in Ephesus the other in Creet did not trauaile vp and downe as in former times when they accompanied the Apostle but ordinarily remained with their flockes The Greeke Scholiast saith thus Euangelists◠that is those which did write the Gospell Pastors◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hee meaneth such as had the Churches committed to them such as Timothie was such as Titus And to the same purpose both Chrysostome and Theophylact doe mention them by name Neither was it a debasing of Timothie and Titus when they were made Bishops but an aduancement Forwhereas before they were but Presbyters though called Euangelists in a large sence they were now made the Apostles of those Churches and by imposition of hands ordayned Bishops In the second place hee taketh exception against those words where I say they were furnished with Episcopall power and denieth that when Timothie Titus were assigned to Ephesus and Creet they receiued any new authority which before they had not or needed any such furnishing But were to exercise their Euangelesticall function in those places For so Paul biddeth Timothie after hee had beene at and gone from Ephesus to doe the worke of an Euangelist If they receiued no new authority why did Timothie receiue a new ordination by imposition of hands whereof the Apostle speaketh in two places and which the Fathers vnderstand of his ordination to be Bishop were men admitted to the extraordinarie function of Euangelists by the ordinarie meanes of imposing hands or may we thinke that any but the Apostles being not assigned as Bishops to seuerall Churches had that authority wheresoeuer they came which Timothie had at Ephesus and Titus in Creet verily Philippe the Euangelist though hee conuerted diuers in Samaria and baptized them yet had not authority to impose hands whereby men might be furnished with graces for the Ministerie but the Apostles Peter and Iohn were sent thither to that purpose And whereas Paul willeth Timothie to doe the worke of an Euangelist what is that but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to preach the Gospell diligently and to fulfill his Ministerie or to make it fully knowne the word Euangelist being there taken in the generall sence Now what his Ministerie was Ierome Sedulius declare Ministerium tuum imple Episcopatus scilicet Fulfill thy Ministerie that is to say as thou art a Bishop Now that their being Euangelists did not hinder them from being Bishops when ceasing from their trauailing about they were assigned to these particular Churches I proued by the testimony of Zuinglius who saith that Philip the Euangelist who had beene one of the Deacons was afterwards Bishop of Caesarea Iames the Apostle was Bishop of Ierusalem and diuers of the Apostles which may much more be verified of the Euangelists when they ceased from their peregrinations became Bishops of certaine Churches as by the ancient histories is manifest Whereto the refuter answereth two things first that Zuinglius speaketh according to the phrase of the histories and writers before him therefore say I according to the truth Or else we must thinke that none of the Fathers or ancient historiographers knew whom to call Bishops and whom not But the refuter and his fellows onely haue this knowledge Yea but a certaine learned man saith that when the Fathers call Peter or Iames or any of the Apostles Bishops they doe not take the name Bishop properly For Peter I graunt but of Iames there is another reason as I haue shewed before And although it were true that Apostles could not properly be called Bishops yet what is that to Timothie and Titus whom I haue proued notwithstanding their supposed Euangelisticall function to haue beene particularly assigned by Paul to the Churches of Ephesus and Creet where also they liued and dyed His other answere is that howsoeuer Zuinglius speake of their being Bishops it is manifest by his writings he neither thought they were and so belike spake otherwise then he thought nor any other might be a Diocesan B. as by a testimony hereafter alledged appeareth where he saith no such thing I will therefore adde another testimony of Zuinglius in the same booke when Paul said to Timothie doe the vvorke of an Euangelist Timothie was a Bishop vvherefore it is certaine according to Pauls opinion the office of an Euangelist and of a Bishop is all one After I had thus answered these two obiections I brought a new supply of arguments to proue Timothie and Titus to haue beene Bishops of Ephesus and Creet And first by occasion of his second obiection I argue thus The function and authoritie which Timothie and Titus did exercise in Ephesus and Creet was either extraordinarie and Euangelisticall as the Disciplinarians teach or else ordinarie and Episcopall as we hold But it was not extraordinary and Euangelisticall Therefore ordinary and Episcopall The assumption I proued thus The supposed Euangelisticall function of Timothie and Titus was to end with their persons and admitted no succession being as themselues teach both extraordinary and temporary But the function and authority which they had as being assigned to certaine Churches viz. of Ephesus and Creet consisting especially in the power of ordination and iurisdiction was not to end with their persons but to be continued in their successors Therefore the function and authority which Timothie and Titus had as being assigned to Ephesus and Creet was not extraordinary and Euangelisticall Here the refuter would make his reder belieue that I hauing before denyed the consequence of the second obiection doe also deny the antecedent and in this place reason against it But I doe not deny they were Euangelists howsoeuer I doe not conceiue their Euangelisticall function to haue beene such and so great as the refuter and other Disciplinarians suppose and therefore I call it their supposed Euangelicall function Now that I did not intend to deny or disproue that antecedent but to bring a new supply of arguments taking occasion by the last obiection appeareth by those words which I premised as it were an introduction to this argument hereof we may conclude thus But let vs heare what he answereth Forsooth he flatly denyeth the assumption wherein though he vntruely say that I begge the question that Timothie and Titus were assigned to Ephesus and Creet as ordinarie Bishop or Pastors of those Churches for that I doe assume but conclude yet hath he nothing to disproue it but a meere begging of the question and denyall of the conclusion rather then the assumption viz. that they had no assignment to those Churches but onely as euangelists which doth not touch the assumption no more then that which followeth Neither by that Euangelisticall office
saith he did they take the power of ordination and iurisdiction from the Churches in which by right it is seated but with the Churches ordayned ministers and redressed such things as were amisse though perhaps that right of laying on hands might sometimes be performed by them alone c. What is all this to the assumption which if he would deny and make this denyall good he should haue said and proued it that the function and authoritie which they exercised in Ephesus and Creet was to end with their persons and admitted no succession or was not to be continued in their successors But he roues and raues as men vse to doe which being at a non-plus would faine seeme to answere somewhat And that which he answereth besides that it is impertinent is partly also vntrue For when he saith that Timotie and Titus did not take the power of ordination and iurisdiction from the Churches c. First he would insinuate that Bishops doe as though herein there were some difference betweene Bishops and them vvhen as indeed neither Bishops nor they doe take that authority from the Church but they and all other first BB. receiued their authority from the Apostles and deriued the same to their lawfull successors Secondly he saith that the power of ordination and iurisdiction by right is seated in the whole Church or congregation which is not true of any particular congregation but in case of necessity wherein both the succession of their owne clergy failing and the help of others vvanting the right is deuolued to the whole body of the Church But let this goe among other his Brownisticall or rather Anabaptistiall nouelties I proceed to the proofe of my assumption which hee hath layd forth thus That function and authority which is ordinarie and perpetually necessary not onely for the well being but also for the very being of the visible Churches was not to end with the persons of Timothie and Titus but to be continued in their successors But the function and authority that they had as being assigned to certaine Churches is ordinary and perpetually necessary not onely for the well being but also for the very being of the visible Churches Therefore the function and authority which they had as being assigned to certaine Churches was not to end with the persons of Timothie and Titus but to be continued in their successors The assumption is thus to be explaned the function which Timothie and Titus had as being assigned to certaine Churches was ordinary and the authority which they did exercise consisting chiefly in the power of ordination and iurisdiction was perpetually necessary This assumption the refuter would seeme to deny and yet granteth that the power of ordination and iurisdiction is perpetually necessary onely he denieth it to be necessary that there should be in euery Church an Euangelist to exercise that authority So that of the two points in the assumption the latter hee granteth that the authority which they exercised was perpetually necessary the other that the function which they had being assigned to those Churches was ordinary hee toucheth not but denieth that which I did not affirme to wit that it was necessary there should be an Euangelist alwayes in euery Church to exercise the power of ordination and iurisdiction Did I affirme this or rather did I not teach the contrary when I said that the function whereby they did exercise that power of ordination and iurisdiction was not an extraordinary function as the Euangelisticall but ordinary as the Episcopall Now that the function which Timothie and Titus had being assigned to Ephesus and Creet was an ordinary function the very same which the Bishops that succeeded them and all other BB. both in and since the Apostles times haue exercised it is most certaine for though in them who cheifly are called Euangelists there were diuers things extraordinary besides their limitation to no certaine place as their immediate calling from Christ their extraordinary gifts of the Spirit as of reuelation and of working miracles as appeareth by Steuen and Philippe yet in Timothie and Titus and others who were called Euangelists because they were the companions of the Apostles in their iourneyes and assistants in their worke of the ministery there was nothing extraordinarie but their not limitation to any certaine Churches For their calling to the ministery was ordinary and their gifts though great yet attayned and increased by ordinary meanes When as therefore they were assigned to certaine Churches as the Pastors and gouernours thereof whereunto they were ordayned by imposition of hands and by that ordination were furnished with power of ordination and Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction their function was the same ordinary function which their successors and all other Bishops did exercise But as the refuter said it was not necessary that there should alwayes be an Euangelist in euery Church to exercise the power of ordination and iurisdiction so perhaps some more iudicious will alledge that though the power of ordination and iurisdiction be perpetually necessary yet it is not necessary that this power should alwayes be wholy in some one in euery Church as it was in Timothie or Titus Neither did I say it was but that the power or authority which they exercised was perpetually necessary and the function whereby they did exercise it was ordinary being the very same function which other Bishops both then and euer since haue administred And therefore the refuter doth greatly wrong me when hee saith that I make this Episcopall power perpetually necessary and chargeth me with contradicting my selfe in another place where I acknowledge that where the Episcopall gouernment may not be had there others may be admitted For the clearing therefore of the whole controuersie and plaine manifestation of that which I hold therein we will make vse of a distinction which the learned vse concerning matters of gouernment In all gouernments therefore there are these things to be considered potâ—stas ordo formae vel modus titulus siue applicatio potestatis ad personam vsus First the power to be exercised in gouernment then the order whereby the inferiours both to be gouerned gouerning are subordinate to the superiours after the forme and the manner of gouernment as whether it be a Monarchy where the power is in one or an Aristocraty wher it is in few or a Democraty where it is in the multitude and how each gouernment is ordered the title as whether the gouernours are put in and intituled to their power and authority by succession or by election or institution and after how they vse and exercise their authority c. Of these the two first that there should be power of gouernment and order therein in the people gouerned are essentiall perpetual as the immutable ordinances of God The other many wayes are accidentall variable But yet if question be made what forme of gouernment in the commonwealth is the best hath the best
vvarrant I vvould say the Monarchy as hauing diuine both institution and approbation But yet so as vvhere this cannot so vvell be had the other formes of gouernment be lawfull Euen so in the Church of euery country that there should be a power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment to be exercised an order or eutaxy it is the perpetual immutable ordinance of God the Church being by his appointment a well ordered society as the wise man saith tanquam acies ordinata But whether the sway of spiritual authority shold be in one alone of euery Church or in more it seemeth not to be so essentiall though I must confesse that both in the Church of the Iewes by the appointment of God it vvas in one namely the high Priest and likewise in the primitiue Churches as hath beene shewed And as touching the title that seemeth also to be variable For the gouernours in the Church of the Iewes came to their places by succession and lineall descent but in the Churches of Christ by free election after Gods first immediate calling Now if we shall enquire what forme of Church-gouernment hath the best warrant hereby we may be resolued For it is manifest that our Sauiour Christ committed the power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment cheifly to his Apostles and that they being seuered into diuers parts of the world did gouerne the particular Churches which they had collected seuerally And howsoeuer there were diuers things extraordinary in the Apostles and peculiar to their persons as their immediat calling from Christ their vnlimited function hauing authority to exercise their Apostolicall power wheresoeuer they came their admirable extraordinary gifts of wisedome of languages of miracles their infallible inspiration direction of the holy Ghost preseruing them from errour notwithstanding there were other things in them which being perpetually necessary for the being and well being of the Church were from them to be communicated or deriued to others as the power to preach the Gospell and to administer the Sacraments and publicke prayer or liturgy the power to ordayne ministers and Pastors the power of the keyes for gouernment and exercise of Ecclesiasticall censures Now the power of preaching the word and administring the Sacraments was not from the Apostles communicated to euery Christian but to such as they ordayned ministers and by the imposition of their hands communicated that power to them The power of ordination and publicke iurisdiction was not committed by the Apostles neither to other Christians nor yet to all ministers whom they ordayned but after the ordination of Presbyters in each Church they reserued the power of ordination and publicke iurisdiction in their owne hands which after a time they communicated to those whom they set ouer the seuerall Churches to that very purpose viz. to ordayne Presbyters and to exercise publicke iurisdiction which manifestly appeareth by the Epistles to Timothie and Titus Thus was Timothie set ouer the Church of Ephesus Titus of Creet Linus of Rome Evodius of Antioch Simon of Ierusalem Marke of Alexandria c. and what authority was from the Apostles communicated to them was from them deriued to their successors not onely since but euen in the Apostles times For what authority Evodius had at Antioch the same after him had Ignatius and what Linus had at Rome the same had Anacletus Clemens Euaristus what Marke had at Alexandria the same after him had Anianus Abilius and Cerdo and all these in the Apostles times and what Timothie had at Ephesus the same had Gaius who if Dorotheus is to be creditted was his next successor Onesimus after him and Polycrates and euery one of those twenty seauen mentioned in the Councill of Chalcedon which from Timothie to that time had beene successiuely the Bishops of Ephesus These to my vnderstanding are plaine euidences to warrant the Episcopall function and to shew the deriuation of their authority from the Apostles and to perswade Christians to preferre that forme of gouernment before others For as I added and will now repeate a reason vvhich the refuter might more easily elude vvith a male pert speech calling it wauing and crauing then to answere vvith soundnesse of reason and euidence of truth If the Apostles vvhiles themselues liued thought it necessary that is needfull and behoofefull for the well ordering of the Churches already planted to substitute therein such as Timothie and Titus furnished with Episcopall power then much more after their decease haue the Churches need of such gouernours But the former is euident by the Apostles practise in Ephesus and Creet and all other Apostolicall Churches Therefore the latter may not be denyed All which notwithstanding I doe not deny but that where the gouernment by Bishops cannot be had another forme may be vsed because the modus or forme of being in the B. alone doth not seeme so to be of diuine ordinance but that it may vpon necessity be altered But if any shall reply that howsoeuer in ciuill gouernment the forme is variable yet for Church gouernment we are to keepe vs close to the word of God and what hath warrant there we are to hold perpetuall and vnchangeable by men as some of our Disciplinarians vse to argue I wish them to looke to this inference For if they doe not leaue that hold they must needes grant that the Episcopall function hauing that vvarrant in the Scriptures which I haue shewed is to be holden iure diuine And whereas to confute me or rather to fight with his owne shadow hee saith that other reformed Churches haue continued many yeares and may doe more without Bishops I confesse they haue and I wish they may continue to the end in the sincere profession of the truth But where hee saith that they haue continued in more quietnesse then ours hath done or is like to doe for that wee may thanke him and other vnquiet spirits who haue troubled the peace of Israell with vrging and obtruding their owne fancies for the ordinances of God To these reasons I added the testimonies of antiquity which with a generall consent beareth witnesse to this truth that Timothie was B. of Ephesus and Titus of Creet Of all which the Refuter maketh very light All that remaineth to proue that Timothie was B. of Ephesus and Titus of Creet is no more but this the subscriptions to the Epistles to Titus and 2 to Timothie call them Bishops as also the generall consent of the ancient Fathers and histories of the Church doe No more quoth he but the generall consent of antiquity in a matter of fact agreeable with the Scriptures Why the testimony of some one of the Fathers affirming it ought to be of more weight with vs then the deniall of the same by all the Disciplinarians in the world But let vs come to the particulars First I alledged the subscriptions annexed to the end of the Epistle to Titus and second to Timothie wherein the one is said to haue
there ordained The refuter replieth that my consequence is naught for euen whiles the Church was gouerned in common by the Apostles it was not gouerned without the counsell of the Presbyters of the same Church much lesse did Iames afterwards take the whole authority into his owne hands from them Which exception of his is of no force because there were no Presbyters ordayned in that Church when it was gouerned by the common counsell of the Apostles and I added which he should haue disproued if he would haue said any thing to the purposâ— that Iames was assigned Bishop to that Church before we read of any Presbyters ordayned in or to that Church For if Iames were Bishop of that Church before it had Presbyters then was not that Church ruled by the common counsell of Presbyters before they had a Bishop Iames indeed after he was Bishop ordayned Presbyters whose counsell and assistance he did vse in the gouernment and instruction of that Church as other Bishops vsed to doe in the like case as wee read Act. 15. and 21. Yea but the whole multitude saith he as appeareth by Act. 6.2.5 had the choise of Church-officers What then therefore the Church was not gouerned by the common counsell of the Apostles or was gouerned by the common counsell of Presbyters Because the Greekish Iewes which had their Liturgy and scriptures in the Greeke tongue were discontented with the Apostles distribution of the Churches stocke the Apostles therefore to auoid contention and scandall and to giue euery one contentment departed from their right and willed the whole multitude to choose seauen whom wee say the Apostles may appoint to this busines Surely if where the Presbyters are erected the people who doe contribute to the releife of the poore are permitted to make choise of ouerseers collectors for the poore it wer but a simple consequence to inferre hereupon that therefore the Churches are not gouerned by the common counsell of Presbyters And to as little purpose or rather lesse is that which followeth If the Apostles altogether or Iames alone afterterwards had by vertue of their extraordinarie calling the power of ordination and iurisdiction in â—heir hands in that as in all other Churches yet the Pastors of the Churches afterwards being no Apostles had no such vnlimited power and so Ierome still speaketh truely of the ordinary gouernment of the Church And so Ierome still spake vntruely in respect of the Church of Ierusalem I doe confesse this was peculiar to the Church of Ierusalem and differing from the order of other Churches that the Church of Ierusalem had a Bishop before it had Presbyters of her owne And therefore though I did not deny his speech to be vntrue in respect of other Churches yet I proued it to be vntrue in respect of Ierusalem by his owne testimony But before I come to the sifting thereof there are two other things to be noted in this speech of the refuter For that which he pratleth of Iames his sole power exercised in the Church of Ierusalem by vertue of his extraordinarie calling is altogether impertinent seeing Ierome of whom the question is confesseth that hee was Bishop and ruled that Church as the Bishop thereof thirtie yeeres Neither is it true that the ordinarie Pastors of that Church had not the like power therein which Iames had For there is no question but what authority Iames had in the gouernment of that particular Church of Ierusalem Simon his successor had the same and all the Bishops of Ierusalem after him Now that Ieromes speech was vntrue in respect of Ierusalem I proued by Ieromes owne testimony affirming that Iames straight wayes after the passion of our Lord was by the Apostles ordayned Bishop of Ierusalem Here the refuter hath found out a quirke which if it were true would not yet serue his turne The quirke is that Ierome is mistaken by false pointing and reading for that straight way belongeth not to Iames his being made Bishop but is brought to shew that Iohn maketh mention of him immediately after he hath spoken of our Lords passion So that Ierome doth not say that Iames straight wayes after the passion of our Lord was ordayned Bishop of Ierusalem but that Iohn mentioned him presently after hee had spoken of the passion of our Lord. Let me lay downe the whole sentence that it may appeare more plainely Iames saith Ierome who is called the brother of our Lord surnamed Iustus the sonne as many thinke of Ioseph by another wife as it seemeth to me of Mary the sister of our Lords mother of whom Iohn in his booke maketh mention after the passion of our Lord straight wayes statim id est continenter immediate vt loquuntur Iohn 19.25 saith Iunius who was ordayned Bishop of Ierusalem by the Apostles And this manner of reading is auouched by Sophronius that translated that booke of Ierome into Greeke who maketh the distinction presently after straight wayes seuering that word from his ordination by the Apostles Among many other proofes of his learning iudgement the refuter giueth this for one For first this subtility hee receiued from Iunius as he doth professe but exceedingly dulled by comming through his fingers For whereas Iunius referrâ—th the word of whom to Mary the sister of our Lords mother of whom Iohn maketh mention straight waies after the passion of our Lord Iohn 19.25 our learned refuter referreth it to Iames that twice for failing But though he might be mistaken in the English of Ieromes cuius yet me thinkes so learned a man should haue known that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Sophronius should haue beene referred to her and not to him But let that passe To iustifie his correction of this place of Ierom he saith this manner of reading is auowed by Sophronius c. which is neither so nor so For between the Greeke and the Latine there is onely this difference in that edition which I haue being as I suppose the best that whereas in the Latine there is a Colon at the word filius which followeth meminit in the Greeke there is but a Comma but at the word statim in Latin and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greeke no distinction at all The Latine words are these vt mihi autem videtur Mariae sororis matris Domini cuius Ioannes in libro suo memunt filius pâ—st passionem Domini statim ab Apostolis Hierosolymorum Episcopus ordinatus The Greeke these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the correction it self I would be loth to contest with Iunius neither is that subtilty which he hath found out preiudiciall to my assertion as you shall heare notwithstanding I must needs say he was greatly transported with preiudice when he would referre the aduerbe statim to the verbe meminit rather then to the participle ordinatus For though both the Comma and Colon that come betweene them were taken away yet the word filius comming also betweene
cleane spoileth his conceipt For can any man of indifferency thinke that Ierome being an elegant writer if he had meant that the aduerbe statim should haue waited on the verbe meminit would haue disposed it thus cuius Ioannes meminit filius post passionem Domini statim ab Apostolis Hierosolymorum Episcopus ordinatus But now weigh the refuters iudgement Suppose that this place were read as Iunius would haue it and that Iames were not so presently made Bishop of Ierusalem after Christs passion as Ieromes words seeme to import but that after the Apostles he tooke the gouernment of the Church of Ierusalem as Ierome citeth out of Hegesippus what is all this but the same that my selfe set downe in the Sermon both in this place also pag. 68. in these words the Apostles first ioyntly ruled the Church at Ierusalem but being to goe into all the world and no longer to be accounted members of that particular Church ordained Iames to be Bishop And that charge which before they had in common they now comitted to him in particular And this is that which Ierome citeth out of Hegesippus who saith Iames the brother of our Lord surnamed Iustus receiued or vndertooke the Church of Ierusalem after the Apostles And if the refuter will needs expound after the Apostles to signifie after their departing from Ierusalem I must intreat him to take with him the words both of Eusebius who sometimes saith the throne of that Bishopricke was committed to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Apostles therefore before their dispersion sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Apostles therefore whiles they were present and also of Ierome who plainely saith that he was ordained Bishop of Ierusalem by the Apostles but chiefly that he will remember that the words straight wayes after the passion of our Lord are to be ioyned with the other words ordayned by the Apostles then will he acknowledge himselfe satisfied for this point § 4. Secondly I answered in respect of other Churches that which Ierome saith neither proueth that the office of Bishops and Presbyters were confounded neither doth it hinder but that the distinct office of Bishops is of Apostolicall institution Both the parts of this answere I explaned and confirmed The former thus it is true that for a time the Presbyters by common counsell gouerned the Churches but as vnder the Apostles who kept in their own hands the Episcopall authority they I meane the Presbyters hauing neither the right of ordination nor the power of outward or publike iurisdiction This therefore doth not proue that the offices of BB. Presbyters wer confounded The name of B. was confounded with Presbyter but the office and authority of the B. was as yet in the Apostles the Presbyters being such then vnder the Apostles as they were afterwards vnder the Bishops The latter thus but when the Apostles were to discontinue from those Churches which they had planted then were BB. substituted Whereunto the factious behauiour of the Presbyters whereof Ierome speaketh might be some inducement For parity indeed breedeth faction and confusion for the auoyding whereof when the Apostles should be absent BB. were instituted but when and where and by whom and to what end let Ierome himselfe testifie The summe is that although for a time the Churches were gouerned by the common counsell of Presbyters yet this doth not hinder but that the Episcopall function is of diuine institution For after a while the Apostles ordayned BB. as Ierome himselfe doth most plainely and fully testifie shewing the places where and the persons whom and the time when and the end wherefore they ordaynd them Now let vs see what the Refuter can reply against this answer Forsooth as if he knew or regarded no lawes of disputation he thrusts himselfe into the answerers place and maketh me the opponent casting my answer into a Syllogisme and bids me proue euery part and parcell of it or else all that I say is to little purpose himselfe in the meane while who should follow the argument which I answered and take away my answer goeth about to proue nothing but himselfe to be a shifting Sophister I thinke it was neuer heard in disputation that the opponent hauing receiued the answere and reciting the summe thereof saying sic respondes would cast it into a Syllogisme and then bid the answerer proue the parts thereof But such a disputer am I matched with And how I pray you doth he reduce my answere into a Syllogisme that vvhich I brought to cleare the former part of my answer is made the argument to proue both the parts in a filthy long Syllogisme and that vvhich I added to proue the latter part he mentioneth as straggling speches brought in to no purpose This is his analysing which whether it be done of vnskilfulnes or wilfulnes I refer it to his owne conscience I cannot iudge therof because I know not the man But if my answere must needes be reduced into Syllogismes I would intreat that the parts thereof may seuerally be concluded as they were by me seuerally explicated and then that the first Syllogisme may be this If whiles the Churches were gouerned by the common counsell of Presbyters the Presbyters did gouerne the same as vnder the Apostles the Episcopall office and authority being not in them but in the Apostles the Presbyters being such then vnder the Apostles as they were afterwards vnder the Bishops then their gouerning of the Church by common counsell doth not proue that the office of a B. and a Presbyter was confounded But the antecedent is true in all the parts thereof Therefore the consequent The consequence I did illustrate by this distinction the name of Bishop was confounded with Presbyter but the office was not for that was not in the Presbyters but in the Apostles The consequence when it was worse for the addition of the second part the Refuter granted yet he thought good to gather out of it this worthy obseruation that if there was a time before there were Bishops When the Presbyters gouerned the Churches as vnder the Apostles then all that while there were no Diocesan Bishops the Refuter speaketh sentences and so no distinction betweene a Bishop and a Presbyter in office This and so could not well be gathered out of the proposition being repugnant vnto it for if there were no distinction betweene the office of a Bishop and a Presbyter then were the offices confounded Suppose the common-wealth of Iewry being a Prouince vnder the Emperour of Rome had beene gouerned by the Synedrion or common counsell of the Seniors for a time vntill the Emperour had placed a soueraigne King ouer them as hee did Herod it might be said that for a time that common-wealth was gouerned by the common counsell of their Elders but as vnder the Emperour who kept the regall authority in his owne hands Hereof it might not be infered that the office of
the Senatours and of a King were confounded For the soueraignty was in the Emperour and the Senatours might haue beene the same vnder their King which they had beene vnder the Emperour c. As touching the assumption he saith it should haue beene proued and I say if he were able he should haue disproued it For my part I was in this place the answerer and the parts of the assumption be such as either had beene before cleared or seemed to neede no proofe For first that the Presbyters ruled the Churches as vnder the Apostles it is manifest That the Episcopall authority consisting specially in the power of Ordination and publicke Iurisdiction was not in them but in the Apostles partly was proued before to wit that Presbyters neuer had it and partly needed no proofe viz. that the Apostles had it And surely little need had Paul to haue sent Timothie to Ephesus and Titus to Creet to exercise the power of Ordination and publicke Iurisdiction in those Churches if the Presbyters had the same before they came But still I desire some euidence whereby the deriuation of this power of Ordination and Iurisdiction from the Apostles to the Presbyters or people may be warranted Thirdly that the Presbyters were the same vnder the Apostles then which they were afterwards vnder the Bishops I take for a certaine truth For if they were the same vnder Timothie and Titus that they were vnder the Apostles then questionlesse they were the same vnder the Bishops who haue no other function nor exercise any other authority then that which Timothie and Titus had and exercised in Ephesus and Creet And these I hope are reasons sufficient to approue the former part of my answere vntill the refuter who is the opponent be able to disproue it The second part of my answere may be concluded thus If after a while namely when the Apostles were to discontinue from the Churches which they had planted the Apostles themselues ordayned BB. then the Presbyters ruling of the Churches by common counsell for a time doth not hinder but that the Episcopall function is of Apostolicall institution But the former is true Therefore the latter The consequence needeth no proofe the assumption I proue by Ieromes owne testimony For if Ierome doe testifie that the Apostles ordayned BB. and withall doe note the time when the place where and the end wherefore then doth he giue plentifull testimony to this truth But Ierome doth testifie that the Apostles ordayned BB. and withall noteth the time when the place where and the end wherfore The time and place he noteth first generally the time when Bishops were ordayned was in the Apostles time the place where in all the world Which two if you ioyne together it will appeare that by Ieromes testimony the function of BB. is of Apostolicall institution For it is vtterly incredible that BB. should be ordayned in all parts of the Christian world in the Apostles times and yet not be of the Apostles ordayning That Ierome helde BB. to be ordayned in the Apostles time I proue out of the place alledged when factions began to spring in the Church saith Ierome some saying I am of Paul I am of Apollo I am of Cephas which was in the Apostles times 1 Cor. 1. and it were fond to imagine that factions did not begin till after their time This argument the Refuter would discredit because Sanders vseth the like and his owne answere he would credit with the name and countenance of certaine learned men which is one of his ordinary shifts to bleare the eyes of the simple who many times respect more who speaketh then what is said But my argument standeth thus When the factions began whereof Ierome speaketh BB. were ordayned as he saith In the Apostles times the factions began whereof Ierome speaketh Therefore in the Apostles times Bishops were ordayned as he saith The effect of the answere which hee bringeth is that Ierome speaking of Schismes which did arise after the Apostles times alludeth to that speech of the Apostle not that hee thought Bishops were ordayned in those times but that hee might shew that schisme was the cause of changing the order of Church-gouernment Which answere might haue some shew of probability if Ierome himselfe did not both in other places which I cite most plainely testifie that Bishops were ordayned in the Apostles times and also in the place alledged expressely speake of those factions which did arise in Corinth and other places in the Apostles times The factions whereof he speaketh did arise from hence that vnusquisque eos quos baptizauerat suos putabat esse non Christi saith Ierome euery one esteemed those whom he had baptized to be his owne and not Christs Now it is apparant that this is the very thing which Paul reproueth in the Corinthians that euery one sayd they were his who had baptized them and therefore thanketh God that he had baptized none of them but Crispus and Gaius and the houshold of Stephanas For by this meanes as Caluin also obserueth the factious and ambitious teachers whom he meant vnder the name of Paul and Apollos sought to draw Disciples after them Yea but Ierome in his Epistle to Evagrius sheweth that in the Apostles times Bishop and Presbyter was all one and that afterwards Bishops were first ordayned as a remedy against schisme To this I haue answered before shewing that Ierome there proueth that the names at the first were confounded and the same men were called Presbyters and Bishops vntill one out of the Presbyters in euery Church was chosen and set aboue the rest and called a Bishop Which Ierome there confesseth to haue bin done euer since St. Markes time and therefore in the time of the Apostles For the first Bishops were not chosen out of the Presbytery of the Churches whereof they were made BB. but were Apostolicall men I meane either Apostles or some of their companions and assistants all which while the Bishops were called Apostles as I shewed out of Theodoret the names Presbyter Episcopus being as yet confounded And whereas he saith that I answered euen now the course of gouernment was not changed at the first when factiâ—â—s began he doth but threapen kindnesse on mee for I said no such thing If therefore Ierome teacheth that Bishops were ordayned when factions began and also that in the Apostles time factions did begin then in Ieromes iudgement Bishops were ordayned in the Apostles times but Ierome teacheth both the one and the other as is manifest by that which hath beene said As touching the Place Ierome saith in toto orbe decretum est it was decreed in the whole world that one being chosen from among the Presbyters should be set ouer the rest to whom the whole care of euery Church should appertaine From whence I reason thus A generall decree in the whole Christian world could not be made in the Apostles times without the
authority and consent of the Apostles This generall decree was made in the Apostles times Therefore not without their authority and consent The assumption I proue thus This generall decree in the whole world was made either in the Apostles times or neare their times But not neare their times for there could no such generall decree be made without a generall Councill And there was no generall councill before the councill of Nice before which councill there were not onely Diocesan and Metropolitane Bishops but also Patriarches The Refuter answereth that Ieromes words deceiue mee For though Ierome saith it was decreed yet he doth not meane that it was decreed but that it came from custome and that paulatim by little and little The Refuters answere therefore maketh Ierome to contradict himselfe whose speeches notwithstanding are thus reconciled For that which hee there calleth custome in another place hee termeth an Apostolicall tradition and the Apostolicall tradition is that vniuersall decree which hee speaketh of And vvhere Ierome saith by little and little that the rootes of discension might be plucked vp the whole care was committed to one that is to be vnderstood thus that although it were agreed vpon at once and decreed to be put in practise in the vvhole vvorld yet it vvas not practised at once in the whole world but first in one Church as at Ierusalem after in Antioch then in Rome after in Alexandria in all which Churches not onely the first Bishops were ordayned in the Apostles times but their successours also and that by the testimonie of Ierome himselfe as followeth in the next proofe For hauing thus shewed in generall both the time and place out of Ierome when and where Bishops were ordayned that is to say in the Apostles times in the whole world and consequently that they were ordayned by the Apostles in the next place I declare more particularly out of Ierome that by the Apostles Bishops were first ordayned noting also the persons whom and the places where and the time when they ordayned Bishops Doth not Ierome plainely testifie that Iames was by the Apostles ordayned Bishop of Ierusalem before their departure thence that when hee had gouerned that Church 30. yeares Simon his brother or kinsman succeeded him in the Bishopricke who liuing vntill he was 120. yeares old was crucified vnder Traiane Doth not he witnesse that Ignatius was the third Bishop of Antioch in the Apostles times that Marke was the first Bishop of Alexandria and that he dying at Alexandria in the eight of Nero that is foure or fiue yeares before the death of Peter and Paul Anianus succâ—eded him Doth he not say that Clâ—mens was the fourth Bishop of Rome after Peter For saith he Linus was the second Anacletus the third all in the Apostles times Doth hee not expresly testifie that Polycarpus was S. Iohns Disciple and by him ordayned Bishop of Smyrna and is it not testified in the same Catalogue that Timothie was of blessed Paul ordayned B. of the Ephesians and that Titus was B. of Creet Hereunto the Refuter maketh an answere like himselfe that hee hath often told me that Iames Marke and Timothie neither were nor might be Bishops And I haue often tolde him of his poore shifts whereof this is one For the question being here not whether these men simply were Bishops or not but whether Ierome saith so or no I hauing alledged plaine testimonies of Ierome auerring that they were Bishops he in steed of maintayning his assertion which was that Ierome testifieth Bishops not to haue beene ordayned vntill after the Apostles times giueth Ierome the lye but answereth not to the point For if Ierome testifie that these men were Bishops in the Apostles times how is not he ashamed to say that in Ieromes opinion there were no Bishops in the Apostles times And where he saith that Polycarpe and the like no doubt would say of Linus and Clemens and Ignatius c. was the ordinarie Pastor of that one congregation at Smyrna and no Diocesan Bishop which euasion I haue heretofore auoided I desire this answere may be compared with the next which he maketh concerning the end The end saith Ierome was to auoid Schisme and acknowledgeth that for the same end they are to be retayned professing that the safety of the Church dependeth vpon the dignitie of the Bishop to whom if a peerelesse power and eminent aboue all be not yeelded there would be as many Schismes in the Churches as Priests The Refuter answereth that some say the remedy was almost worse then the disease But first what is this to the purpose that the Refuter had rather there should be a Schisme in euery Parish then a Bishop of the Diocese it was Ieromes iudgement that I opposed to their allegation out of Ierome And if Ierome testifie that in the Apostles times Bishops vvere ordayned to auoyd Schisme and that this was a necessarie remedie insomuch that he doubteth not to say that the safety of the Church dependeth vpon it it was as much as in this place either I intended or could by the aduersarie be required Secondly where Ierome saith that Bishops were ordayned for auoyding of Schisme hee meaneth such Schisme as the Presbyters vvhom hee calleth Sacerdotes Priests would make if there were not one in euery Church set ouer them to vvhom the care of that vvhole Church should belong Novv applie the Refuters answere concerning Polycarpus which is his ordinarie answere that the first BB. were but ordinarie Pastors of one congregation such as wee call Rectors or Pastors of seuerall parishes Were such ordained to auoide schisme among priests or were not such the priests whose schisme was to be auoided by setting one B. in euery diocese ouer them or could the refuter thinke that the ordaining of such ordinarie pastors was a remedie worse then the disease is it not therefore cleare that the Bishops whom Ierome acknowledgeth to haue beene in the Apostles times were not ordinarie Pastors of seuerall congregations or parishes equall to other Presbyters but one in euery diocese set in a superiour degree aboue the rest to preserue them in vnitie and to keepe them from schisme Thirdly where to the iudgement of Ierome he opposeth the testimonie of others who say the remedie was almost worse then the disease because this superioritie of BB. did breed the Papacy this sheweth that great and sound Dâ—uines sometimes let fall especiallie when they write 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnsound speeches grounded on weake proofes For how is it prouâ—â— that the superioritie of Bishops did breed the supremacie of the Pope Because as at the first one Presbyter was before the rest and made a Bishop so afterwards one B. was preferred aboue the rest so this custome bred the Pope and his Monarchy By which reason all superioritie should be condemned as the originall of the Popes supremacie For might not a man
and authority was ordinarie and perpetually necessary I meant that their function was ordinary as being Pastorall and Episcopall and that the authority which they had was perpetually necessary as was said in the former allegations If he shall perhaps vrge those words which mention the successors of Timothie and Titus to the end of the world I answere it is more then likely that they shall haue successors in the same function in some Churches to the end that is to say Bishops though in some others that forme of gouernment being altered the authority may be in those who doe not succeed them in the said function at least in the same forme and manner of gouerning This being all which he hath gained by these allegations he might haue forborne his triumphing insultations which bewray his want of iudgement For where he obiecteth against me this contradiction as though I held both that the gouernment by Bishops is necessary for the very being of visible Churches and also that there may be visible Churches without it either he doth ignorantly mistake or wilfully depraue my sayings For though I said the authority which Timothie and Titus exercised was perpetually necessary both to the being of Churches as the power of ordination and to the well being as the authority of iurisdiction yet I neuer said that this forme of gouernment was necessary to the being of visible Churches And where hee goeth about to proue that the Episcopall gouernment is not perpetually necessary because there be many visible Churches at this day without it what doth hee else but fight with his owne shadow seeing that in fauour onely of those Churches this passage was by me inserted howbeit hee impudently ouer-reacheth when he saith almost all visible Churches are without Bishops For not to mention all other Churches which be in the Christian world which haue alwayes had and still haue Bishops and to speake onely of the reformed Churches in Europe is it not euident that the farre greater part of them is gouerned by Bishops and which is all one with Bishops by Superintendents The refuter when hee desired to the vttermost pag. 52. to enlarge the number of those Churches which haue the Presbyterian Discipline he reckoned the reformed Churches of Fraunce the Low-countreyes Saxony Heluetia Bohemia Zuricke Berne Geneua Sauoy Palatine Poland Hungary Gernsey Iersey Scotland from which number notwithstanding some Churches are to be substracted as all in Scotland and some if not all in Saxony neither doe I suppose that their Presbyterian discipline is established in Zuricke and all the Churches of Heluetia neither is any one whole kingdome ruled by that discipline So that I am perswaded there are scarse so many particular Churches or congregations gouerned by the Presbyterian discipline in all the world as are gouerned by Bishops in the Kings dominions in great Britaine and in Ireland But besides these I finde alledged by one of great wisdome and iudgement many more which are not gouerned by the Presbyterian discipline as the Churches of Denmarke Sueuia all the reformed Churches of Germany sauing in some parts of the Low-countreyes and of late about Heidelberge procured in the minority of the Prince all the Churches in the Duchy of Saxony the Duchy of Brunswicke and Luneburge the Duchy of Megalopurge the Duchy of Wirtemberge all the Churches within the countreyes of the Marquesse of Brandeburge and the Marquesse of Bade all the Churches within the gouernment of the Earledome of Henneberge the Earledome of Swartzenberge the Earledome of Lenning the Earledome of Hannaw the Earledome of Oetinghe the Earledome of Mansfield the Earledome of Stalbergh the Earledome of Glich the Earledome of Rheinesterne and the Earledome of Leonstine and all the Churches in the Barony of Limpurge the Barony of Schenburge and the Barony of Wildenfield Whereunto may be added all the Churches in foure or fiue and thirty at the least free cities with their territories the most of them as large and ample as Geneua in none whereof the Presbyterian discipline is erected Which enumeration is a good euidence also to iustifie my answere to the next obiection which is this Some will say the Protestants which were the blessed instruments of God for the reformation of religion in this last age are thought to haue preferred the other discipline by Presbyteries before this by Bishops and therefore in thus magnifying the Bishops you seeme to ioyne with the Papists against them Whereunto I answered that those godly and learned men allowed the Episcopall function and simply desired the continuance thereof if with it they might haue enioyed the Gospell For proofe whereof I referred the reader to the Suruey of the pretended discipline cap. 8. pag. 110.111 c. In refuting of which answere the refuter dealeth very absurdly with me and the reuerend author of the Suruey For when I referred the reader to a Chapter of that booke contayning many notable testimonies to proue that which I said the refuter dealeth as a man resolued to deny my conclusion what proofes so euer I should bring against him And though I referre him to testimonies for number and weight sufficient either to satisfie or to conuince him if he would but haue turned to the place yet he saith hee cannot possibly see how I should haue any such opinion of those godly and learned men whose writings as he saith doe so often and so vehemently professe the contrary And that he may not seeme to speake without ground he desireth me to leaue the Surueyour and heare what he can say As if the Surueyour were not worthie to be heard when the learned refuter is to speake When as indeed our Refuter for ought I see by him is not for wisedome learning and iudgement worthie to be named with that reuerend Author on the same day But though he would seeme not to vouchsafe an answere to the Suruey yet the truth is he durst not acquaint the Reader with those testimonies which howsoeuer before I did mention for breuity sake I may not now wholy conceale from the Reader And although I might by way of requitall desire him to lay aside hâ—s misse-alledged allegations as vnworthie to be examined and to giue eare to those testimonies cited by the Surueyour yet I will vouchsafe an answere to his authorities after I haue recited some few testimonies of the chiefe Protestant writers as I find them cited by the Surueyour referring the Reader for the rest to the Suruey it selfe And first I wil begin with the Augustane confession whervnto the chiefe learned men who first were called Protestants did subscribe Caluin soone after being one of the number and with the Apologie thereof We haue oft protested say they that we doe greatly approue the Ecclesiasticall policy degrees in the Church and as much as lyeth in vs doe desire to conserue them We doe not mislike the authority of Bishops so that they would not compell vs to doe
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.
4. i Conc. Chalc. act 10. k Bals. in Conc. Eph. c. 5. l Burchard decret l. 2. c. 126. ex Conc. Parisiens §. 21. The superioritie of BB. in iurisdiction prooued by reason §. 22 Ad pag. 104. a Page 6. Ad. pag. 105. Whether BB. may be called Lords Acts 9.5 Ad page 106. Psal. 91.11 Dan. 10.11 §. 2. a Theodor. l. 1. c. 4. b Th. l. 1. c. 5. c Ibid. c. 6. d Atha Apol. 2. e Sozom. l. 3. c. 22. f Soz. l. 3. c. 23. g Greg. Naz. epist ad Greg. Nyss. h Theo. l. 4. c. 9. i Soz. l. 4. c. 13. k Constantine p. 1. apud Theodor l. 5. c. 9. l Ambros. Epist 81. m Conc. Arelat 3. n Turonens 1. Epaunens Valent. Aurelian 3. Toleta 3. c. o Socr. hist. l. 6. in prooem p Chrys. in Ps. 13. apud Caes. Baron an 58.2 q Epist. Caluin ad Cranmer r Epist. Dedic l. de 3. Elohius s Suru 131. Septemb. 15. 1589. t Luc. 22.26 u 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nedibim * In Pagnia thesaur x In Luc. 22.26 y Matt. 20.20 25. z Hier. in Tit. 1. § 27. § 28. Ad pag. 107. § 1. That this treatise of the lawfulnesse of the BB. calling is not superfluous though from the former points the same thing may be concluded Ad pag. 108. § 2. The question is of such BB. as were described in the former part of the Sermon and in the 2. and 3. bookes of this defence Ad pag. 109. § 3. Ad pag. 110. That the function of such BB. is of Apostolicall institution a De grad c. 23. The 1. argument because it was generally vsed in the primitiue Church b De Baptisme cont Donat. l. 4. c. 24 Epi. 118. c De praescript aduers. haeres con Marc. l. 4. d Lib. 2. pag. 2. Ad pag. 111. § 4. 4. Arguments prouing the assumption 1. Because all the Angels or gouernours of the primitiue Church in the first three hundred yeeres after the Apostles were diocesan BB. Ad pag. 112. f Con. Nic. c. 6. g Conc. Ephe. post aduentum Episcoporum Cypri h Cyp. lib. 4. epi. 2 § 5. That diocesan BB. had not their first beginning after the Apostles times i Eus. hist. l. 4. c. 1. 2. k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l c. 6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 m lib. 4. c. 19.20.21.22 n An. 8. Antoni Christi 169. o Eus. l. 4. c. 22. § 6. The second argument from the two testimonies of Ierome p Hier. in Tit. The 1. q Ad. Euagr. r 1 Cor. 1. s Conc. Ancyr c. 16.20.21.22.23.24.25 Et Neocaes c. 2. 3. § 7. The second testimonie of Ierome in Psal. 45. t Ad. Euagr. Ad pag. 113. § 8. The third argument consisting of two parts the first affirmatiue that all Councils Histories and Fathers giue testimony to BB. u Note his reason the testimonies of the Fathers to no purpose because the antientest Councils were in the fourth age vv They be the first words of Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. § 9. The second part of the third argument negatiue that no instance can be giuen to the contrary All the refuters instances either false or impertinent Hier. ad Euagr. § 10. The refuters instances out of the old writers Ignatius Iustin Martyr Tertullian a Cyp. l. 3. Epi. 19 b l. 4. Epist. 9. c l. 3. Epist. 9. d li. 3. Epist. 2. 13. l. 4. Epist. 2. e li. 1. Epist. 3. l. 3. epi. 9. 14. 15. f li. 4. Epist. 9. g li. 3. Epist. 9. 16. li. 1. Epist. 3. § 11. Cyprians testimonie examined h li. 3. Epist. 14. i Epi. 15. 16. k li. 3. Epist. 15. l li. 4. Epist. 16. m Epi. 17. 18 n L. 3. Epist. 19. o L. 3. Epist. 20. p L. 3. Epist. 18. q In Tit. 1. r lib. 3. Epist. 10 s lib. Epist. 5. lâ—b 3. Epist. 22. lib. 4. Epist. 5. t Con. Carth. 4. cap. 22. 23. § 12. The testimony of Ambrose in 1 Tim. 5. The testimonies of Ierome answered u Ad Ocean in Tit. 1. Ad Euagr. (w) Hier. ad Euagr. Theodor. in 1 Tim. 3. § 13. A fourth testi +mony of Ierome misalledged aduers. Lucifer § 14. Ad pag. 114. The testimony of Augustine Epist. 19. a Aug. â— 2. Epist. 17. 18. b Ad Craâ—â—er c Erasmus in 1. Tim. 4. Theodoret. Beda Sedulius c. d Sacerdotes § 15. Allegations out of the new Writers § 16. His allegations out of new Writers answered § 17. Ad pag. 125. Allegation of Examples * I omit here how shamefully he belyeth the Doctrine of the Churches of England Wirtemberge and Sweueland as opposite to the gouernment of BB. quoting Harmon Confess Sect. 11. The Church of Sweueland is so farre from opposing it selfe to the spirituall authority of Bishops that it doth not contradict the secular power and soueraigntie of such Bishops as be Princes a Euseb. Chron. anno 174. b Euseb. hist. l. 4. c. 21. 22. c Apol. 2. d Lib. 1.14 e Lib. 2.621 f Bez. in 1 Tim. 5. in Phil. 1. g Lib. 1. cap. 11. § 3. h Apologeâ— c. 39. i Praescrip contr haere § 18. Ad pag. 126. The fourth argument from the succession of BB. k Euseb. hist. Chron. l Iren. li. 3. c. 3. m Tertul de praescript Augustine Epist. 24. Christiana societas persedes Apostolorum ac successiones EpiscoporuÌ„ certa per orbem propagatione diffunditur n li. 3 cap. 1. §. 10 12. The Episcopall function not first ordained by Councils o Conc. Nic. c. 6. p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The conclusion § 19. A syllogisme concluding against the pretended discipline vpon the same groundâ— His answere to the proposition § 2. Ad pag. 128. His answer to the assumption § 3. His answere to the former part of the assumption and the proofes therof a Eus. l. 4. ca. 15. b in Apoc. coâ— 9. c Eus. l. 5. ca. 24. lib. 4. cap. 26. Sozo lib. 4. c. 24. § 4. Ad pag. 129. d Inter Orthodoxographa e In Polycarpo f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 g Euseb. l. 3. c. 35. § 5. The second argument prouing the assumption h Iranaeus Eusebius Epiphanius Augustine c. His ioynt answere to the former reasons § 6. The latter part of the assumption that the Episcopall function was not disallowed by the Apostles k Phil. 2.25.29 l Act. 15. 21. Gal. 1.19 m Col. 4.17 Philem. 1. n Ap. 2.13 Ad pag. 130. o Chap. 3. § 12.13.14 § 7. That Ierome acknowledgeth BB. to haue bin in the Apostles time p In Tit. 1. q Ad Euagr. r Catalog script s In Clemente t Ad Euagr. u Proaem in Mat. w Catalog in Marco x Ad Euagr. y In Tit. 1. § 8. The refuters argument for the Presbyterian discipline a In Tit. 1. b Ad Trall His answere to the preposition c li.