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
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
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
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
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
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
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
cheife burden must lye vpon Mat. 18. dic Ecclesiae which hath bin before examined Beza making mention of one Morellius who pleaded in like manner for the popular gouernment giueth him this stile Democraticus quidam fanaticus shewing that these who plead that cause are lead with a phantasticall fanaticall spirit For is it not a phrensy to vrge the peoples supremacy in Church-gouernment is there any shew in scripture or in reason that the sheepe should rule their Shepheard or the flocke their Pastor But for the confutation of them I referre them to other Disciplinarians from whom they had their first grounds seing by this fancy they seeke to ouerturne as well those Churches where the Geneua discipline is established as ours The third dreame is that the lawes of Church-gouernment prescribed in the Epistles to Timothie and Titus were prouided for the democraticall state of the Church So that when Paul saith lay not thou hands on no man hastily you must vnderstand the speech directed not to Timothie to vvhom the Epistle was written but to the people that they should not suffer their Lay-elders when their minister is dead to be hasty in laying hands on a new And vvhen hee saith doe not thou receiue an accusation c. it must be vnderstood of the people and Presbyterie After two or three admonitions doe thou auoid an hereticke or excommunicate him that is thou people What of Creet belike the whole Iland of Creet was a Parish too The next fancy is that the popular state of the seuerall Churches did first degenerate into an Aristocraty and after into a Monarchie But it is as cleare as the light that the seuerall Churches were at the first gouerned by the Apostles or Apostolicall men seuerally and that either perpetually as by Iames Marke c. or but for a time as by Peter Paul c. and that when the Apostles left the Churches they committed them to other Apostolicall men such as Timothie Titus Evodius Simon the sonne of Cleophas Linus Clemens c. communicating vnto them the same authority both for the worke of the ministery and for the power of ordination and iurisdiction which themselues had in those seuerall Churches and what authoritie each of them had their successors in the seuerall Churches had the same Neither haue our BB. at this day greater authority in menaging Church causes then Timothie and Titus and other the first Bishops had Who was to ordaine ministers in Creet and to gouerne that Church did not Paul commit these things to Titus without mentioning either of Presbytery or people are not all his precepts for ordination and Church-gouernment directed onely to Titus for Creet to Timothie for Ephesus and doth not this euidently shew that howsoeuer they might vse either the presence and consent of the people or the Counsell and aduise of the Presbyters in causes of greatest moment as Princes also doe in common-wealthes yet the sway of the Ecclesiasticall gouernment was in them It is therefore most plaine that in the Epistles to Timothie and Titus it is presupposed that they had Episcopall authority and that the rules and directions giuen to them are precedents for Bishops and patternes vnto them for the exercise of their Episcopall function And this I proue againe in my Sermon by another argument which the refuter hath framed thus Those things which were written to informe not Timothie and Titus alone as extraordinarie persons but them and their successors to the end of the world were written to informe Diocesan Bishops But those Epistles were written to informe not Timothie and Titus alone as extraordinarie persons but them and their successors to the end of the world Therefore they were written to informe Diocesan BB. The assumption for with that the refuter beginneth I proued by testimony and by reason And first by the testimony of Paul straightly charging Timothie that the commandements and directions which he gaue him should be kept inuiolable vntill the appearing of our Lord Iesus Christ therfore by such as should haue the like authority to the end Hereof Caluin saith thus nomine mandati significat quae hactenus de officio Timothie disseruit Vnder the name of the commandement he signifieth those things whereof hitherto he had discoursed concerning the office of Timothie And againe omnino ceriè ad ministerium Timothie refero I doe wholy referre it to the ministerie of Timothie For Paul wrot to this end to giue direction to Timothie how he should behaue himselfe in the Church which is the house of the liuing God Which directions he chargeth him Chap. 6. to obserue inuiolable vntill the comming of Christ which could not be performed in the person of Timothie who was not to continue to the end but in a succession of them who should haue the like authority vntill the end T. C. and other Disciplinarians hauing fancied that the Apostles had giuen direction in that Epistle for onely-gouerning Elders hereupon conclude that they are to be continued vntill the comming of Christ So that they can conclude vpon that charge the continuance of an office not once mentioned in that Epistle but they cannot or will not see how the continuance of that office which Timothie did beare for the execution whereof all these directions are giuen is concluded vpon the same ground The second testimonie was of Ambrose writing on those vvords of Paul saying that Paul is so circumspect not because he doubted of Timothie his care but in regard of his successors that they after the example of Timothie might continue the well ordering of the Church The reason whereby I proued that Paul giueth direction not to Timothie and Titus onely as to extraordinary persons but to them and their successors vntill the end of the world was because the authority which was committed to them for the execution whereof the Apostle giueth his directions is perpetually necessary without the which the Church neither can be gouerned as without iurisdiction neither yet continued as without ordination therefore not peculiar to extraordinary persons but by an ordinary deriuation to be continued in those who are the successors of Timothie and Titus The effect of the refuters answere is that he could be content to graunt this assumption were it not that he is resolued to deny the conclusion which followeth thereupon For first hee granteth Pauls purpose to instruct those that should succeed Timothie and Titus in the authoritie which they had but not in their office And that this authoritie was not nor was to be in the hands of any one particular man but the right of it was in the whole congregation the execution in the Presbytery So that the power of ordination and iurisdiction might be continued without Bishops c. It is sufficient for the truth of the assumption which the refuter granteth that what Paul did write to Timothie Titus he wrote not to
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
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 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
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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
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
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
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
Alexandria that order was changed Then at the soonest saith the refuter began M. D. superiority of Bishops to creep in c. Which answere if his meaning be as our refuter conceiteth is vnsound For first where he saith the order was changed in Heraclas and Dionysius that is spoken but by ghesse because Ierome nameth them Vpon which coniecture T. C. and H. I. as you haue heard did build their two diuers fancies For Ieromes meaning was not to signifie that the superioritie of Bishops was altered but as I haue shewed that vntill Heraclas and Dionysius who were not Presbyters but Teachers of the schoole in Alexandria the Presbyters euer since S. Marks time did chuse one out of their owne number That which the Refuter addeth is absurd and against Ieromes plaine words Then at the soonest began M. D. superiority of Bishops to creepe in for the superiority I spake of is superiority in degree And Ierome saith that euer from Saint Marke and therefore euen in the Apostles times the BB. had been placed in a higher degree My fift argument is also from the authority of Ierome which yeeldeth a double proofe the former that the superiority of Bishops ouer Presbyters and Presbyters aboue Deacons is an ordinance or tradition apostolicall Secondly that as the high Preist was in degree superiour to the other Preists and they to the Leuits so by an apostolicall ordinance the Bishop is superiour to the Presbyters and the Presbyters to the Deacons That wee may know saith he the apostolicall traditions are taken out of the old testament looke what Aaron and his sonnes and the Leuits were in the Temple the same let the Bishops Preists and Deacons challenge in the Church To this testimony containing two impregnable proofs for the superiority of BB. not onely de facto but also de iure the refuter thought it his wisest course to say nothing To these arguments this may be added That as the new ordination of a Deacon when he was made a Presbyter doth proue that he was aduanced to a higher degree of the ministery euen so when a Presbyter was chosen to be Bishop he was by a new ordination promoâ—ed to the Bishopricke as to a higher degree The two first canons among those which are called the Apostles appoint that a Bishop should be ordained of two or three Bishops but let a Presbyter say they be ordayned of one Bishop and likewise a Deacon and the rest of the clergy Valeriuâ— the Bishop dealth with the Primate the Bishop of Carthage by letters intreating him that Augustine who then was Presbyter might be ordained Bishop of Hippo which being obtained Augustine tooke vpon him the care of the Bishopricke maioris loci 〈…〉 and ordination of a greater place The councell of Sardica taketh order that before a man may be a Bishop he must first performe the ministery of a Reader then of a Deacon then of a Presbyter that so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by euery degree if hee be worthy he may arise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnto the height of the Bishopricke Theadoret testifieth that Iohn Chrysostome hauing been the chiefe of the Presbyters at Antioch a long time oft times might haue been chosen to the Bishopricke which he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apostolicall presidency but alwaies did flie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that principality So that though he were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the chiefe of the Presbyters yet he was no Bishop neither durst he for a long time take vpon him that degree of principality So much of the superiority of Bishops in generall CHAP. III. Shewing wherin the superiority of Bishops did and doth consist and first of the singularity of preeminence Serm. sect 3. page 32. But let vs consider more particularly wherein the superioritie of Bishops did and doth consist c. ad lin a fine 6 THe superiority of Bishops ouer other Ministers I place in three things singularity of preeminence during life the power of ordination and the power of iurisdiction all which I ground on Tit. 1.5 But where I say during life hee saith This addition needed not seeing it is grounded vpon an erroneous conceit of mine owne whereby I charge them as holding the contrary Secondly that it is not proued out of the place alleaged In the former hee sheweth how audacious he is seeing Beza the chiefe patron of the pretended discipline holdeth that the Presidents of the Presbyteries which afterwards as he saith were called Bishoppes ought to be but for a short time and that by course and esteemeth them which had a perpetuall presidenship to be Bishops humane as I haue shewed before The practise also of those Churches where the discipline is vsed doth prooue what their Founders thought was agreeable to Gods word This their conceit is euidently confuted by the Epistles to Titus and to Timothy For seeing they doe confesse that they were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Churches of Creet and Ephesus it is euident that they continued in this Presidentshippe whiles they liued there For it is absurd to imagine that Titus was sent to Creet and Timothy to Ephesus to be presidents there in their turnes and when their turnes were ended to be subiected to other of the Presbyters there in their course But these things the refuter doth but cauill at by the way For he granteth that Titus had this superioritie which we speake of his maine answer is that Titus was not a Bishop Which afterwards J proue in the Sermon by the common consent of the antient and most approoued Writers of the Church with whose affirmation in a matter of fact if this Refuters deniall shall be weighed in the ballance of an vnpartiall iudgement it will be found as light as vanitie it selfe But of this question more hereafter In the meane time J will but desire the Reader to take this for granted because it cannot be denied that if Titus was Bishop of Creet then Bishops had this threefold superioritie which I speake of Where I commend this order of Church gouernement consisting in the superiority of Bishoppes and inferioritie of other Ministers this graue and learned Refuter maketh a scorne at it saying It is a toy to please children and a gay Epiphonema wanting a note of exclamation he would haue said acclamation to grace it The which argueth his spite against the gouernment of Bishoppes rather then his might being neither able to endure the iust commendation of episcopall gouernment nor yet to confute it For what hath he but trifles and toies to obiect against it For where hee saith I begge the question supposing ech Church to be a diocesse the conscience of the Reader I hope also of the Refuter will testifie that what I suppose in this behalfe hath beene before sufficiently prooued Besides those with whom I principally contend in this point doe confesse the Churches indued with power of
ecclesiasticall gouernement to haue beene dioceses as hath beene shewed I say then which also I prooued afterwards by the testimonies of Cyprian and Ierome whereto the authoritie of Basil may bee added that the vnitie of each Church meaning a diocesse dependeth of the vnitie of the Bishoppe and the setting vp of a second vnlesse it were by way of coadiutorshippe hath euer been esteemed the making of a schisme in the Church But of this more anon § 2. But let vs heare if it bee worth the hearing what more particularly hee obiecteth against these three points And first he trifleth to no purpose when he asketh If there bee not as much vnity in a parish vnder one Pastor as in a diocesse vnder a Bishoppe For though ech parish if it were according to the new conceit an entire body within it selfe vnsubordinate to any other may perhappes haue vnitie within it selfe yet in the Church of the diocesse or prouince that may happen which Ierome affirmeth is like to happen where is no Bishoppe that there shall bee as many schismes as parishes And surely what man of iudgement and moderation can without horrour thinke of those manifold schismes and diuisions which would ensue if euery parish should haue according to the newe conceit sufficient authoritie within it selfe vnsubordinate and independent for the gouernment of it selfe in all causes ecclesiasticall Yea but saith he If there bee not as great vnitie of the Church in a parish vnder one Pastor as in a diocesse vnder one Bishoppe then the more Churches are vnder one gouernement the greater is the vnitie But the consequent is false therefore the antecedent The consequence of the proposition is true being not extended without the limits of the question The more particular Churches in any one visible Church are subordinate to one Bishoppe the greater is the vnitie But by one visible Church I meane the Christian people of one diocesse or of one prouince or at the most of one Nation For the Christian people liuing vnder diuers lawes as they be diuers Nations so are they diuers visible Churches though the faithfull in them all are members of one and the same Catholike Church Let vs heare how he prooueth the assumption If the more Churches are vnder one gouernment the greater vnitie then welfare the Pope who if this be true maketh vnitie of all Churches in the world As who should say all the Churches in the world are vnder the Popes gouernment so that whiles hee denieth the superiority of Bishoppes hee seemeth else there is no sense in his speech to hold the Popes supremacie If any man shall say that as the vnity of ech Church dependeth on the singular preeminence of the Bishoppe so the vnity of the whole Catholicke Church by the same reason shall depend of the Popes supremacy which seemeth to haue beene the Refuters meaning who desireth as much as may bee that the superioritie of Bishoppes and supremacy of the Pope may seeme to bee of one tenure I answere that the vnitie of the whole Church standeth in this that it is one body vnder one head Christ. And as in a diocesse to set vp a second head is to set vp an Antibishoppe and to make a schisme from the true Bishoppe so in the whole Church to acknowledge a second head is to set vp Antichrist and to make an apostasie from Christ. Neither was it euer the meaning of our Sauiour that as euery particular Church should be vnder one Pastor so the whole Church should be vnder one visible head or earthly Monarch For then would not he haue furnished his twelue Apostles with equall power and authority as I haue said before As touching the second he confesseth all that I said namely that from the power of ordination the perpetuity of the Church dependeth and yet cauilleth with mee as if either I had said there could bee no ordination at all without a Bishoppe or that the Bishop had the sole power thereof Thus being resolued to wrangle if he finde not matter to cauill at he will faine it I did not say there could be no ordination without a Bishoppe but that euer since the Apostles times to our age it hath been the receiued opinion in the Church of God that the right of ordination of Presbyters and Deacons is such a peculiar prerogatiue of BB. as that ordinarily and regularly there could be no lawfull ordination but by a Bishop otherwise I doe confesse in the sermon that extraordinarily and in case of necessity Presbyters may ordaine in the want of a Bishop Concerning the third he saith it is enough to preserue good order in Churches if iurisdiction be in the ministers and Presbyters Hee meaneth in the seuerall parishes which may after a fashion be gouerned where the supreame ecclesiasticall officer◠I meane the parish minister assisted with such a senate as ech parish is like to afford hath the reines of gouernment in all causes ecclesiasticall committed to them But I pray you how shall there be any good order in the gouernment of the Churches of a diocesse or prouince when euery parish is so according to the new conceipt an entire body of it selfe indeed a member by Schisme rent from the the rest as it hath neither consociation with nor subordination to others For they are not gouerned by consociation who deny the definitiue power of synods as our new Disciplinarians do neither do they acknowledge any subordination for their Pastor forsooth is the supreme ecclesiasticall officer and the power of ech parish is independent immediatly deriued from Christ. Now how is it possible there should be good order in the gouernment of so many parishes in a Kingdome where is no subordination no superiours nor inferiours but all equall But this is enough for our Disciplinarians if they might be subiect to no superiors but that each of them might be the supreme ecclesiasticall officer in euery Church Serm. sect 4. pag. 32. As touching the first whereas there were many Presbyters in one Citie c. to pag. 36. l. a fine 8. Jn this section I proue that the Bishops of the primitiue Church were superior to other Ministers in singularity of preeminence for terme of life Which is a point very materiall prouing both against the new Disciplinarians that the BB. were diocesan there being but one for ech diocesse as hath been touched before and against the elder that the BB. were not such as their Presidents of the Presbytery or Moderators of assemblies among them whose preeminence is but a priority of order and but for a short time and against both disprouing the parity of Ministers which is the other maine piller of the pretended discipline Here therefore it behoued the Refuter if his cause were such as indeed he could maintaine with soundnes of learning and euidence of truth both to haue disproued this superiority of BB. and to haue proued his parity of Ministers But he passeth by in
lawfully ordained whosoeuer now will be made Bishop it is necessarie that he should be put forth of the Church and that he haue not the Churches ordination who doth not hold the vnity of the Church Whosoeuer he be though he boast much of himselfe and challenge verie much to himselfe he is prophane he is an aliant he is out of the Church And for as much as after the first Bishop there cannot be a second whosoeuer after that one who ought to be alone is made he is not the second but none at all Thirdly the singularitie of preeminence in Bishops during their life is proued by their singularitie of succession both in and since the Apostles times noted by Irenaeus Tertullian Eusebius and other approued authors most plainly prouing that there was but one Bishop at once in the ancient and Apostolicall Churches Fourthly what the preeminence and superioritie of Bishops was ouer the Presbyters and others of the Clergie appeareth by this that in good writers they are said the Bishop his Presbyters the Bishops Deacons the Bishops clergy Thus Arius is said to haue been Alexanders presbyter Petrus and Irenaus Timotheâ—â— and Macarius to haue been Athanasius his Presbyters the vicegerents of Siluester in the councill of Nice were his Presbyters Thus Crispio is said to haue been Epiphaniuâ— his archdeacon Heraclides to haue been Chrysostomes deacon In a word all of the Clergie were said to be the Bishops clerks as in the councill of Africke Let no Bishop take anothers clerke without the consent of him whose clerk he is The which is a plain argument of the great preeminence which the Bishops of the primitiue Church had ouer the Presbyters and others of the clergie To these we will adde the testimonie of Bucer against whom the Refuter cannot except as being partiall for Bishops By the perpetuall obseruation of the Church saith he euen from the Apostles themselues we see it seemed good to the holie Ghost that among the Presbyters to whom the charge of the Church is specially committed one shold haue the singular charge of the Churches and in that charge and care gouerned al others for which cause the name of Bishop was attributed to these chiefe Gouernors of Churches Howbeit without the counsell of the other Presbyters they ought not to determine any thing c. Thus much of the Preeminence of Bishops CHAP. IIII. That Bishops were superior in power and first in the power of ordination Serm. sect 5. pag. 36. Let vs see if Bishops were not also superiour in power Hearken to Ierome The safety of the Church dependeth on the dignitie of the chiefe Priest or Bishop to whom if there be not yeelded exors ab omnibus eminens potestas a peerelesse power and eminent aboue all there will be so many Schismes in the Churches as there be Priests THis testimony is handled by him as Sir Christopher Blunts head was vsed after his apprehension first healed and then cut off For first he explanes the testimonie and then reiects it He restraineth Ieromes speech to the Church in his owne time viz. in the end of the fourth age saying That no man can without open violence stretch it further Which is as vnlearned a shift as euer was heard of As though Ierome had spoken onely of that which was in his time and not of that which in his judgement ought to be Was it Ieromes judgement that the superioritie of Bishops was needfull for the auoiding of Schismes in his time onely doth he not plainly teach that the superioritie of Bishops began in the Apostles times and that at the first they were ordained for auoiding of Shismes For the former doth he not say that Iames was Bishop of Ierusalem Timothe of Ephesus and Titus of Creet Doth he not say that euer since Saint Marks time there haue been Bishops placed in a superiour degree aboue the Presbytes Doth he not call the superioritie of BB. a tradition Apostolicall and doth he not say that it began in the whole world when diuisions began in the Church saying I am of Paul c. which was in the Apostles time c. As touching the latter he saith indeed that at the first the Churches vnder the Apostles before BB. were ordained were gouerned by the common Counsell of Presbyters But whereas afterwards one was elected who should be set ouer the rest In Schismatis remedium factum est It was prouided as a remedie against Schisme lest euery man drawing after him should rend in peeces the Church of Christ. And least we should think that afterwards to be referred to the times after the Apostles he addeth in the next words Nam Alexandriae For euen at Alexandria euer since Mark the Euangelist who died 5. or 6. yeares before Peter and Paul and almost 40. yeares before Saint Iohn the Presbyters haue alwaies chosen one and placed him in a higher degree and called him Bishop The like he hath in Titum 1. that when diuisions began in the Church it was decreed in the whole world that one should be set ouer the rest to whom omnis Ecclesiae cura pertineret Schismatum semina tollerentur the care of the whole Church or all the care of the Church should appertaine and that the seeds of Schismes might be taken away or as he speakth afterwards vt dissensionum plantaria euellerentur ad vnum omnem solicitudinem esse delaâ—â—â— that the first plants or sets of dissensions might be plucked out the whole care was committed to one It is most plaine therefore that in Ieromes judgement the superioritie of BB. was needfull for the auoiding of Schisme not onely in his own time but euen in the Apostles times when Bishops were first ordained And as he teacheth that BB. were instituted for auoiding of Schisme so his judgement in the place alleaged was that for the same cause they are necessarily to be reteined Yea he saith Salus Ecclesia The safetie of the Church dependeth on this dignitie of Bishops and that vnlesse a peerelesse and supereminent power be giuen vnto them there would be as many Schismes in the Churches as there be Priests But the refuter wants no reasons J warrant you to restraine Ieromes words to Ieromes time For To stretch it to the Apostles times saith he were to make Ierome a wilde headed 〈◊〉 indeed Thus Ierome if he agree not with the conceipts of some giddie heads shall be judged wild-headed And why so I pray you For three reasons First because Ierome in diuers places disputeth and concludeth that BB. and Presbyters are equall by the word of God Whereunto I answeare that this is all which Ierome in this cause saith that Bishops and Presbyters are the 〈◊〉 in the Scriptures His meaning is that before Bishops were ordained the names Episcopus Presbyter were confounded and the same men were called Presbyters and Bishops which I do not denie
But no wheres he saith that Bishops and Presbyters were equall for before BB. were ordained he could not say that Presbyters and Bishops were equall he saith they were the same After Bishops were ordained which he acknowledgeth to haue been done in the Apostles times and that by the Apostles for which cause he calleth their institution a tradition Apostolicall he plainly confesseth that one who was chosen from among the Presbyters and was called the Bishop of the Church to haue been placed in a higher degree But hereof we shall haue occasion hereafter to intreat more fully His second reason Ierome maketh Heraclas and Dionysius in Alexandria the first authors of aduancing one minister aboue another in power The words are Nam Alexandriae á Marco Euangelista vsque ad Heraclam Dionysium Episcopos Presbyteri semper vnum ex se electum in â—â—ccelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant quo modo si exercitus imperatorem faciat For euen at Alexandria euer since Mark the Euangelist vntill the Bishops Heraclas and Dionysius the Presbyters haue alwaies called one being chosen out of themselues and placed him in a higher degree Bishop euen as an armie chooseth their chiefetaine Which words as so far from giuing the least inckling of the Refuters conceit that Heraclas and Dionysius should be the first authors of aduancing Bishops that they plainely declare the Bishops euer from Saint Marks time to Heraclas and Dionysius to haue been placed in a higher degree aboue the Presbyters as the generall aboue the souldiours And truely of the two T. C. conceit who collecteth the cleane contrarie to our refuter hath the better glosse for he imagineth that vntill Heralas and Dionysius they who were chosen from among the Presbyters were called Bishops but then godly men misliking the appropriating of the name to one in a Church ceased to call him so And he might haue added with no lesse colour out of the words that the Bishops till then had been placed in a higher degree aboue other ministers but then good men misliking their aduancement aboue their fellow ministers brought them a peg lower To these conjectures the words would seeme to them that vnderstand not the right meaning thereof which heretofore I haue declared to giue some colour of likelyhood were it not that the practize of the Church did openly proclaime the contrarie Wherefore of all collectors my Refuter shal beare away the bell For he that can collect out of these words Euer vntill Heraclas and Dionysius the Bishop was placed in a higher degree that Heraclas and Dionysius were the first that aduanced the Bishops needs not doubt to collect quidlibet ex quolibet what himselfe will out of any thing whatsoeuer His third reason that Ierome in the same Epistle doth teach the contrarie is most false For Ierome plainly confesseth the Bishop to be superiour in the power of ordination and in the end concludeth that what Aaron and his sonnes and the Leuites were in the temple the same let Bishops Presbyters and Deacons challenge to themselues in the Church The Refuter hauing thus salued this testimonie of Ierome in the end rejects it For if this be true that vnlesse the Bishop haue a peerelesse power there will be as many Schismes in the Church as there be Priests then by the like reason Bellarmine may argue if there be not a peerelesse power giuen to the Pope there will be as many Schismes in the Churches as there ar Bishops but this latter consequence is naught so is the former Thus Ierome on whose only authoritie among the ancient the Disciplinarians in this cause relie when he speaketh any thing for the BB. his credit is no better with them then if he had spoken for the Popes supremacie But this is his desperate malice against the holy calling of Bishops whereby he seeketh euery where to parallele the Christian superioritie of BB. with the Antichristian supremacy of the Pope But all in vaine For though it be true in Ieromes conceit that if there were no Bishops there would be as many Schismes almost as Priests yet it doth not follow thâ—t if there were no Pope there would bee as many Schismes as Bishops For first experience teacheth how to judge of this matter for vntill the yeare 607. the Pope neuer attained to his supremacie and yet the Church was more free from Schismes before that time then since whereas contrariwise when there were no Bishops for a short season in the Apostles times in most of the Churches euery one of the Presbyters as Ierome speaketh sought to draw Disciples after him which he supposeth to haue been the occasion of instituting Bishops Secondly there is great oddes betweene BB. and the greatest number of Presbyters One Bishop say the Fathers of the Africane councill may ordaine many Presbyters but one man fit to be a Bishop is hard to be found Thirdly before there was one supreme or vniuersall Bishop there was vnitie and communion betweene all the Bishops in Christendome whose course to preserue vnitie in the Churches and to auoid Schisme was to communicate the confessions of their faith one with an other by their communicatorie pacificall or formed letters And if any were in error they sought first seuerally by their letters to reclaime them and if they preuailed not they assembled in Councils either to reduce them to vnitie or to depose them Cyprian saith that the Catholike Church is one not rent into Schismes nor diuided but euery where knit togither coharentium sibi inuicem Sacerdotum glutino copulata and coupled with the glew as it were of Bishops agreeing mutually among themselues And in another place which before hath beene alledged Therefore is the bodie of Bishops copious coupled together with the glew of mutuall concord and with the bond of vnitie that if any of our companie shall be authour of an Heresie shall endeuour to rend the flocke of Christ and to make hauocke thereof the rest may helpe c. Whereas contrariwise if there were one supreme and vniuersall Bishop whose authoritie were greater then of generall Councils as the Papists teach when he doth erre who should reclame him when he is exorbitant who should reduce him into the way when he shall draw with him innumerable troopes of soules into Hell who may say vnto him Domine cur ita facis Syr why do you so And as the Church is to be carefull for auoiding Schisme and preseruation of itselfe in the vnitie of truth which may be prouided for as it was wont yea better then it was wont where are Christian and Orthodoxall magistrates by the BB. singularitie of preeminence in euery seuerall Church and mutuall concord of them in the truth so must it be as carefull to auoid conspiring consenting in vntruth But where there is one supreme and vniuersall Bishop when he erreth and goeth astray he becommeth as we see in the Papacie the head of
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
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
perpetually vsed in all Christian Churches in the first three hundred yeeres after Christ and his Apostles the latter and was not ordained by generall Councils The former part I proue by foure arguments The first whereof is this If the Angels or gouernors of the primitiue Church in the first 300. yeeres after Christ and his Apostles were diocesan BB. then the gouernment of the Church by such BB. was generally and perpetually vsed in that time But the antecedent is true Therefore the consequent He maketh a doubt of the proposition because he hath not learned that speeches in disputation indefinitly propounded are generally to be vnderstood for auoiding of clenches and therefore when I say the Angels or gouernours I meane all the Angels or gouernours when I say in the three hundred yeers I meane throughout that terme euen from the death of Saint Iohn to the end of the foure hundred yeere after the incarnation of Christ. The assumption hath beene proued at large in the former part of the Sermon and in this defence thereof first by this disiunction either the Churches after the Apostles time were gouerned by diocesan BB. as we say or by presbiteries consisting for the most part of Lay-elders as the disciplinarians hold But neuer by such presbiteries Therefore euer by BB. Secondly I haue proued that euer since the Apostles times the Churches haue been dioceses and the BB. diocesans superiour to other ministers in degree hauing singularity of preeminence during life and majoritie of power in respect both of ordination and iurisdiction his answere is that he hath answered those points of my Sermon where he hath shewed that I proued no such matter whereunto I reply that all his answeres were but shifts and euasions and stand fully confuted But perhaps the refuter will say if I had vnderstood your proposition as vttered in generall termes as now it is expounded by you then I would haue taken the same exception against the proofe of the assumption which I did against your proposition for although in some part of that time some BB. were perhaps such as you described yet it followeth not that generally and perpetually in the first three hundred yeeres after Christ and his Apostles they were such That they were generally such in the last of the three hundred yeeres which is the fourth century after Christ it thing most fully testified and most manifestly proued in the proofe of the former points and hath been confessed by the refuter neither can be denyed of any man who hath any sound learning ioyned with a good conscience Let vs then consider when such BB. had their beginning Perhaps some will say they began with Constantine for then was the greatest alteration in the state of the Church I answere the alteration was in respect of outward peace and prosperitie wherewith God blessed his Church not in the discipline or doctrin of the Church in respect of the wealth and better maintenance of the BB. not in the substance of their calling It is euident that BB. were diocesan before they were actually Metropolitanes and Metropolitanes before they were Patriarches for of the combination of dioceses did follow Metropolitanes and vpon the consociation of prouinces were Patriarches ordayned and yet long before the Councill of Nice the Patriarches were in vse and the customes of subiecting diuerse prouinces to them are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ancient customes In the same canon it was also decreed that the priuiledges or prerogatiues of Churches meaning especially the priuiledges of being mother Churches should be reserued to them which priuiledge as I haue shewed before belonged to them euer since the Apostles times When the B. of Antioch attempted to ordaine the Metropolitane of Cyprus the BB. of Cyprus complaine to the Councill of Ephesus alledging that euer since the Apostles the Metropolitane B. of Constantia was ordained by the Synode of the prouinciall BB. whereupon the Councill not onely censured the attempt of the B. of Antioch as an innouation contrarie to the rules of the Apostles but also determineth first that no B. should haue to doe with any countrey or prouince which had not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euer from the beginning belonged to his See and secondly that euery prouince within it selfe should retayne inuiolable such rights as they had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euer from the beginning according to the custome receiued of old If therefore Metropolitanes and Patriarches were in vse long before Constantines time who can doubt but diocesan BB. were much more Long since saith Cyprian in all prouinces and in all cities BB. are ordained in age ancient sound in faith tryed in affliction c. in Prouinces Metropolitanes such as himselfe was in Cities diocesans Without doubt if diocesan BB. had their beginning after the Apostles times then was it shortly after their decease But that cannot be first because as I shall proue in the next reason they were in the Apostles times secondly because as I said in the Sermon it is incredible that all the Churches would and impossible that they could agree in abolishing a gouernment receiued from the Apostles and setting vp at once in all places of the world one other vniforme gouernment by BB. without the gaine saying of any one of the godly Fathers or worthy Martyrs of Christ. Besides the succession of BB. from the Apostles times as I shall shew doth plainely proue their originall to haue beene in the Apostles times Whereunto may be added the testimony of Eusebius concerning the age succeeding the Apostles times for hauing shewed that about the twelfth yeere of Traian which was about seauen yeeres after the death of Saint Iohn Primus succeeded Cerdo in the Bishopricke of Alexandria and Alexander Euaristus in the Bishopricke of Rome he testifieth that in those times both the doctrine of Christ and his Church did flourish dayly more and more Likewise in the time of Adrian he testifieth both that the Churches shined in all places of the world like most glorious lights and the faith of Christ in all nations flourished And in the same book after he had noted the succession of the BB. of Rome Alexandria Antioch shewing how Soter succeeded Anicetus at Rome Agrippinus Celadion at Alexandria Theophilus Heros who had succeeded Cornelius and he Heron at Antioch and hauing mentioned some other famous BB. as Dionysius of Corinth and Pinytus of Candy Philippe Apollinaris Melita Musanus Modestus and Irenaeus he saith that Hegesippus flourished at the same time whose testimonie of the estate of the Church in his time he hath recorded to this effect that iourneying toward Rome in many places he had conference with the BB. all which he found to be teachers of one and the same doctrine and hauing spoken of the Epistle of Clemens to the Corinthians he giueth this testimony to the Church of Corinth in particular that it had continued in the right faith
the 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
Refuter out of 2 Tim. 4.9 11.12.21 c. and therevpon inferre they were not Bishops But neither are all his proofes good neither is his inference sound He would proue that Timothy was not at Ephesus when the second Epistle was written to him For first thither the Apostle sent Tychicus As if he had said whether Paul sent Tychicus there Timothie was not Belike there was some such Antipathy betweene them that one place could-not hold them both Secondly because from the place where he was Paul requireth him to come to him to Rome with him to bring the cloake the books parchments which he left at Troas As though Timothie might not as well come from Ephesus to Rome as from some other place and as though his bidding him to bring the things left at Troas did not argue that he was at Ephesus which is in the same peninsula rather then else where But that he was at Ephesus may be gathered hereby because the Apostle willeth him to salute Aquila and Priscilla whom he left at Ephesus Act. 18.19 the houshold of Onesiphorus which also was there 2 Tim. 4.19 with 1.16 Sedulius vnderstandeth Paul bidding Timothie 2 Tim. 4.9 to come to him quickly as requiring him to come from Ephesus to Rome Now heare his inferences Titus was sent from Candy to Rome and from thence he was dispatched into Dalmatia therfore he was not B. of Candy Timothie was not at Ephesus when the second Epistle was written to him therefore hee was not B. there c. He stayed with Paul some time in Rome therefore he was not B. of Ephesus These are goodly inferences to oppose to the euidence gathered out of the Epistles and to the generall consent of antiquity which testifieth that they were Bishops Whereas therefore he asketh who dare be so bold or vnreasonable as to imagine that Paul had made them Bishops I say it is intollerable boldnesse and arrogancie to auouch the contrarie And such is that presumptuous speech that if Timothie and Titus had beene Bishops it had beene a matter neither of good report for them nor of good example for the ages following that they should be called to other places For so long as ordinarily they were resident their absence at some times vpon vrgent and weighty occasions was neither of ill report nor bad example Besides when the Apostle sent Tychicus to Ephesus and sent for Timothie from Ephesus he sent the one to supply the absence of the other as Caluin also hath obserued Serm. Sect. 9 pag. 78. The other thing which they obiect is that they were Euangelists but that doth not hinder c. to the midst of page 81. The second obiection saith the Refuter lyeth thus Timothie and Titus were Euangelists Therfore they were not Diocesan BB. of Ephesus and Creet This consequence I denied because their being Euangelists did not hinder but that when they were assigned to certaine Churches and furnished with Episcopall power they became Bishops Against which answere the Refuter obiecteth two things First that their being Euangelists did hinder their assigning to certaine Churches without which they could not be Bishops And this hee proueth by two reasons For first if the Apostle had assigned them to certaine Churches then should he haue confounded the offices which as himselfe saith 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 God had distinguished Secondly hee should haue depriued Timothie and Titus of a higher calling and thrust them as it were out of the Hall into the Kitchin These are nice points which none of the Fathers did euer vnderstand neither did they conceiue but that Euangelists might without any disparagement to them be assigned to seuerall Churches and so become Bishops For if they held that the Apostles themselues being assigned to certaine Churches as Iames was to Ierusalem were BB. much more Euangelists But for as much as the whole force of this argument dependeth vpon the Euangelisticall function which Timothie and Titus are supposed to haue had we will briefly consider what that Euangelisticall function was and whether it could hinder them from being Bishops An Euangelist therefore was he which taught the Euangell or Gospell of Christ whether by preaching or also by writing In the latter sence there are foure onely called Euangelists Matthew Marke Luke and Iohn who though they all preached yet for the penning of the Gospell are peculiarly called Euangelists In the former sence the word is taken either generally to signifie any one that doth euangelize or preach the Gospell or specially signifying the extraordinarie function of those in the primitiue Church who went vp and downe preaching the Gospell being not affixed to any certaine place And these seeme to haue beene of two sorts For either they were immediatly called of Christ and by him sent to preach the Gospell as the 72. Disciples or they were assumed by the Apostles to be their companions in their iourneyes and assistants in the Ministery Of the former sort was Philippe who after he had performed that temporarie office at Ierusalem whereunto he and the other sixe were chosen Act. 6. he returned to his Euangelisticall function Act. 8. and is expresly called an Euangelist Act. 21.8 Of the latter sort were Timothie and Titus while they accompanied the Apostle Paul in his trauailes and were not assigned to any certaine place That which the Fathers say of the 7◠Disciples that they had but the degree of the Presbytery may of this latter sort much more be verified who were ordayned Ministers of the Gospell by imposition of hands Neither did they differ from other Presbyters but in this that they accompanied the Apostles as their helpers being not tyed to any one place For neither had they the power of ordination neither as Zanchy saith did they gouerne the Churches now one then another as the other Euangelists and Prophets did Wee see what the office of Euangelists was Now let vs see whether it hindered men from being Bishops For had Timothie and Titus beene such Euangelists as the foure were which preached and wrote the Gospell or as the 72. who were called and sent by Christ yet might they when they ended their trauailes and betooke them to certaine Churches haue beene Bishops thereof For Marke the Euangelist after he had preached in Aegypt and had set vp his rest at Alexandria became B. thereof in which Episcopall function Antanus succeeded him and after him Abilius and Cerdo in the Apostles times much lesse doth their being of the latter sort For though the Apostle di◠distinctly reckon the functions of the Church 1 Cor. 12. Eph. 4 yet in the former place he doth not so much as mention the office of Euangelists and in the latter he speaketh of those who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were called Euangelists as the foure Euangelists and perhaps also the 72 whose functions notwithstanding were not so disioyned but that as Apostles might be also Euangelists
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
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
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
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
must be giuen him as deseruing it whether he need or not For although it be a crying sinne and doe offend more against charitie to hold it from him if he need yet it offendeth as much against iustice to withhold the stipend from the workeman that is not in need The stipend which Paul appointeth to Presbyters in respect of their paines in edifying the Church which is the house of God is as due in iustice to them for their worke sake as the stipend is due to a Carpenter that buildeth an house And as it were iniustice ioyned with folly for a man not to thinke himselfe bound to giue the Carpenter his stipend vnlesse he be poore the like is to be conceiued of the stipend denied to Presbyters for their wealth which is due for their worke The rest of his speech is vttered in rancour and gall but the points be these First that it doth not become me c to call it a beggerly maintenance Secondly that it is more then is giuen to our Church-wardens that are crept into their roomes The third which is more plainely vttered in the abortiue booke that the like perhaps will not make D. D. rich In what sense I called it beggarly almes giuen onely in charitie opposing it to honourable stipend due in iustice I haue already explaned To the second I answere our Church-wardens hauing lesse trouble haue notwithstanding no lesse allowance then your Elders for they haue none at all And where you say our Church-wardens are crept into their roomes you must first proue that euer they had a roome in the Church For we will neuer grant that our Church-wardens be your Elders successours till you haue proued your Elders to haue beene their predecessors And whereas you make your selues merrie with my want of riches as you did before with my want of preferment I tell you plainely I had rather be poorer then M.D. is with a good conscience then to be as rich as some of you by maintaining a faction to be maintained by it Thus haue I maintained my assumption and the prosyllogisme thereof concerning their confession Now I will proue by another argument that the honour of maintenance is not by the word of God due to Lay-Elders and that the Lay-Eldership is not the ordinance of God nor hath any warrant in the scriptures We haue often heard great words that your Presbyterian discipline is an essential note of a true Church if not an article of your faith that it is to little purpose to receiue the doctrine vnlesse we also embrace the discipline of Christ meaning the pretended discipline that your discipline is the kingdome of Christ wherein your Presbyters hold as it were Christs scepter that to denie this discipline yet to professe Christ to be our King is with the souldiers that crucified him to put a Reede in his hand and a crowne of thornes on his head that in the second petition of the Lords prayer Let thy Kingdome come wee are to pray that your Discipline may be aduanced that the question betweene the BB. and you is about no lesse matter then this whether Iesus Christ shall bee King or no that in denying your discipline wee are the men that say Luke 19. Wee wll not haue this man to raigne ouer vs and to vs is applyed that terrible doome Those mine enemies that would not haue mee to raigne ouer them bring hither and slay them before mee and many such like speeches concerning the kingdome of Christ which being applied to your owne deuices are not farre from blasphemie These confident speeches considered a man would think that you haue most euident certaine and vndeniable grounds for your Presbyteries But when I come to examine your proofes to search the Scriptures and records of antiquitie I professe vnfainedly in the feare of God that I cannot sufficiently wonder that men of reading should approue men of sinceritie should vrge so confidently and maintaine so resolutely euen vnto silencing and depriuation such not onely humane deuices but meere nouelties as the sacred ordinances of Christ our Sauiour for which after all the search which hath beene made there cannot be produced any sound testimonie But to come to the point you say if you deny my aforesaid assumption that to Lay-Elders gouerning well double honour is due by the word of God for their worke sake I say the holie Ghost is so farre from assigning this double honour to them that neither their worke or office it selfe for which that honour should be due to them nor their qualities whereby they should bee qualified for that office nor themselues or their names wherby they should be knowne are once mentioned or intimated in the holy scriptures For first as touching their office it is by them assigned either to their Elders seuerally or to the Elder-ship iointly Their duty seuerally is to be watchmeÌ„ in the Church hauing their seuerall Wards or precincts appointed to them wherein they are to obserue the manners of men for auoiding offences and other occurrents for peruerting disorders The manners of men they are to enquire into and to prie into their faults that if they be secret or small they may admonish the offenders priuâ—ly if opeÌ„ or great they may informe the Consistory therof And for other occurreÌ„ts they are to looke that good orders be kept especially respecting the sacraments As they are to informe their pastor if there be any childe in their Warde to be baptized if there be any in their precinct lately come into the parish to acquaint the Minister before the Communion and at the Communion to keepe backe those whose religion and honestie is not knowne and whom the Ministers haue not dealt withall before Wherfore as in respect of manners they are by them coÌ„pared to the Censors of the Romanes so in respect of good orders they are as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Athenians The ioynt-office of the Elders is the office of the whole Presbyterie or Eldership Consistorie or sacred Senate which in the Assemblie of the Elders of the Church who by common counsell and authoritie do rule and gouerne the same For as Lacedemon had her Seignorie Athens her high court of the Areopagiâ—â—s Rome her Senate and euery kingdome their counsell so euery Church that is euery parish according to the new disciplinarians must haue her Presbyterie or sacred Senate vnto which Christ hath giuen the keyes of the kingdome of heauen whereby is meant all Ecclesiasticall power and authoritie This authoritie respecteth either the Officers of the Church or the offenders Officers as Pastors Doctors Elders Deacons Concerning whome the Eldership hath authoritie to elect ordaine depriue or depose them As touching offenders the Eldership hath authoritie to censure them either by reproofe suspension or excommunication Belieue mee if the word of God hath committed these things to the hands of the Elders then haue they an office of
that there were no other but parish Bishops In the meane time let the Reader hold this for a certaine and vndeniable truth that there were no Presbyteries of Ministers but onely in cities and Cathedrall Churches but hereof I shall haue occasion to speake in the second booke As touching the second conclusion it followeth thus the parish pastor had either a Presbyterie to assist him or he was subiect to superiors as namely the Diocesan and prouinciall Bishops to ouerrule him or else he ruled like a Pope for a fourth thing cannot be named before there were Christian Magistrates But it is absurd to imagine that in the primitiue Church they had an absolute popeling who neither had assistants nor superiors for that were to ascribe not onely supreme but also sole power to them and it is as false that in seuerall parishes there was a Presbyterie to assist him therefore it remaineth that the parish Bishops were subiect to the authoritie of the Diocesan and prouinciall Bishops To the proposition he answereth two wâ—ies first by retortion that what I say of the parish Bishop his ruling as a Pope may with more probabilitie be spoken of a Diocesan Bishop which I haue answered before For this is the second place where he laboureth out of my wordâ— to proue our Diocesan Bishops to be popes vsing this insultation in the margent Sic tu beas amiâ—os But though their parish Bishops whom they make the supreme Ecclesiasticall officers would be absolute popelings if presbyteries were not adioyned to them because they should haue not onely Supreame but also sole authoritie yet it followeth not that our Bishops to whom neither supreme nor sole authoritie belongeth should he esteemed such Secondly he denieth the disfunction alleaging that a fourth thing might be added concerning the chiefe authoritie of the people Which if it be added in the proposition is with the rest to be denied in the assumption For this brownisticall or rather Anabaptisticall conceit for some of the Brownists disclaime it that the Bishops in the primitiue Church were subiected to the people as if the state of the Church had beene Democraticall or popular is a dotage that was neuer dreamed of till of late and therefore as it is most confidently to be denied so it needed not to be inserted in the proposition CHAP. IX Answering the testimonies which by the refuter are alleaged to proue Lay-Elders BVt now had I need to call for armour of defence For hitherto saith the refuter we haue warded the blowes that M. D. gaue to beat downe the Lay-presbyterie now let vs shew that we also can strike if need be The Reader that hath found the refuter so strict in exacting Syllogismes of me euen when I performe the part of an answerer cannot but expect most formall and accurate Syllogismes at his hands But he shall finde that to be true which I foretold him not long since that this great Champion not daring to vrge his testimonies or to reduce his proofes into Syllogismes according to the poore pollicie of them all holdeth out certaine testimonies as it were Pallas shield thinking with the bare quotation of them though he cite them not to put vs to silence And to this purpose like a notorious Mountebanke setting himselfe to delude the simple he commendeth his witnesses euen Christ himselfe his Apostles and Euangelists with swelling titles when their testimonies themselues are not so much as cited as though he thought it more needfull to winne credit to his witnesses then to proue â—hat they testifie that for which he would seeme to alleage them But you shall heare Pyrgopolinices himselfe For the scriptures we haue among others these mightie ones to wage battell for vs. First the great Emperour of the Christian armie our Sauiour Christ himselfe Mat. 18.17 Next a great worthy Luke the Euangelist Act. 14.23 Adde to these Iames the Apostle one of the Pillars of the Church Iam. 5.14 and that famous Generall of the gentiles the Apostle Paul Rom. 12 8.1 Cor. 12.28 These are most worthy witnesses indeed and without exception If any one of these giue testimonie to your Lay-Elders we will most willingly yeeld But I pray you let vs heare their words It shall not need if you will not belieue vs that they giue testi-monie to Lay-Elders yet belieue other diuines who say they doe Are they witnesses what they said only or what by the holy Ghost is committed to writing If the latter why be not their owne testimonies produced but other witnesses must be deposed that they said so when it appeareth vpon most authenticall record whether they said so or not Let vs therefore heare the words themselues The first is Matt. 18.17 Where our Sauiour Christ saith dic Ecclesiae tell the Church or assembly What then therefore there ought to be Lay-Elders in euery congregation See you not by this time what a striker this is first there may be question whether Ecclesia signifie the whole congregation of the people or an assembly of iudges or gouernours if the former sense be followed there is no shew for Lay-Elders If the latter which is the more likely question againe may be made whether Christ speake of the Synedrion of the Iewes as Caluin and some others suppose or of Christian gouernours if of the Synedrion which was a ciuill senate and indeed the high counsell of estate in the policie of the Iewes what doth that make for Ecclesiasticall Elders in the Church of Christ and that in euery parish If of christian gouernours as the Fathers expound it what sense is there to vnderstand the words of Lay-Elders vnlesse it can otherwise be proued either that Christ had alreadie ordained them or that afterwards they were in vse in the Church of Christ. But the former is absurd and for the latter they haue not so much as a faire shew being disarmed of the two places which I haue vindicated out of their hands viz 1. Tim. 5.17 and Ambrose in 1. Tim. 5.1 Nay further I adde that if it could be proued as it neuer will that euer there were Lay-Elders in the Church before this our age yet they should but argue from the Genus to the Species affirmatiuely tell the gouernours ergo Lay-Elders wherefore this is a very seely argument Yea but other diuines say that Christ spake of Lay-Elders What others say it is not greatly materiall in this kind so long as we plainely see there is no necessitie nor probabilitie so to vnderstand him But who are they that say so Chrysostome Theophylact Erasmus Caluin Beza Piscator vpon the place it selfe c. For the three first because they are no parties I can be content to examine their testimonies All that Chrysostome saith of those words is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tell the Church that is Prelates and gouernours and on those words whatsoeuer you shall bind on earth c nec dicit saith he Ecclesiae presuli neither did he
publican that by these meanes seeing himselfe auoided shunned hee may at length be ashamed and brought to repentance And least any man should lightly esteeme the iudgement of the Church that is of such spirituall gouernors as haue authoritie in the church to cēsure offenders Verily I say vnto you saith our Sauiour speaking to his Apostles and in them to all their successors to whom the keyes of heauen are committed Whatsoeuer you for you and such as you sitting in Consistory or Synode are they whom I meant by the Church or assembly whatsoeuer you shall binde on earth shall be bound in heauen and whatsoeuer you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heauen Neither thinke when I mentioned the church I meant a great assembly only or the whole congregation for I say vnto you that where 2. or 3. are gathered together in my name I am there in the middes of them therfore if but 2. of you shal cōsent in asking any thing of God as namely pardon for the penitent sinner it shall be graunted vnto you If against this exposition it shal be obiected that the Churches hearing and censuring of offences would be prejudiciall to Magistrates I answere offences and offenders admitte diuers distinctions Of offences some are open notorious some are secrete priuate Some againe are grieuous and capital crimes which may not be cōcealed or left vnpunished other be offēces not so hainous or enormous but they may be concealed and pardoned where is hope of amendment For notorious and enormous crimes our Sauiour doth not prescribe this course but for the priuate and lesse offences Againe offenders are either in the iudgment of charity our brethren in Christ or the sonnes of Belial For the latter we may take the ciuile course of Iustice for the former we must take a spirituall course of Christian charitie that wee may winne our brother vnto Christ or recouer him beeing fallen which course our Sauiour heere prescribeth By Church therefore or assemblie our Sauiour meaneth neither the supposed Ecclesiasticall senate of the Iewes nor yet a Presbyterie of Christians answerable therto consisting for the most part of Lay-elders Not the former for Christ speaketh of such as should meet in his name to whō he promiseth what they bind vpon earth shal be bound in heauē neither are we to think that our Sauior would send his disciples to the corrupt Consistories of the vnbelieuing Iewes as Caluin also saith It was a strange conceit therefore of Beza not only to imagine that the name Church is here attributed to the Iews but that the Archisynagogi assembled together were they who are meant by Church in this place Or if that were true how should this direction belong to vs seeing not only the imaginarie Ecclesiasticall Senate of the Iewes is vanished but also the true Synedrion is long since abolished and their whole policie abrogated Not the latter for our Sauiour by Church vnderstandeth such as should haue power to bind loose sinnes as appeareth by the words following Which power of the keyes of binding and loosing sinners of retaining and remitting sinnes our Sauiour Christ hath so peculiarly appropriated to the Apostles their successors in the ministerie of the word and Sacraments as nothing more Neither had the Iewes indeed such an ecclesiasticall Senate as they speake of mixed of the Priests and Leuites with the Elders of the people as I am now to shew in answering the assumption For if this be true that the Iewes had no such Presbyterie then what shew of trueth or probabilitie is in their argument taken from Matth 18.17 Caluin saith that the Iewes after their returne from captiuitie had a chosen counsell to which was cōmitted the censure of doctrine manners which they called Sinhedrin or Sanedrin in Greek Synedrion T.C. holdeth that the Synedrion was not then first instituted but restored which seemeth to be the truth Howbeit his reason as almost all the rest is but a meere colour For it would follow saith he that the Priests other Leuiticall teachers who were a part of that Bench had then their first institution when it is plaine that the Priests and Leuiticall teachers were instituted before the Synedrion and so might haue cōtinued their functiō though the Sanedrin had neuer bin Beza fetcheth the first institution of it from Moses the instauratiō therof whē it was decayed frō Iosaphat T. C. doubteth not to fetch the Eldership from Exod 4. With his Elders therefore as being the eldest in conceit I will beginne This order of Eldership saith hee was taken from the gouernement of the people of God before and vnder the Law Before the Law the Elders which Moses assembled Exod 4. were Ecclesiasticall officers for it is not likely that vnder such a Tyrant they should haue Magistrates of their owne I answere briefly the state of the Hebrews if you respect the whole people was neither a settled Church nor established common-wealth But if you respect the seuerall kinreds and Families they were ruled by the Elders of the people which were the heads of the Families who as alwayes from the beginning so at that time vntill the separation of the Tribe of Leui to the priestly function were both priests and magistrates to their seuerall kinreds and Families Wherefore let them who will needes haue these to be Lay-Elders tell vs who were then the priests whome these Elders did assist Vnder the Law he findeth these Elders in Elisha his house 2. King 6. and in Ezekiels house Ezek 8. because it is vnlike that in so corrupt a state the Prophets could haue the ciuill Gouernors to consult with is it not more vnlike that there should be approued Elders of an ecclesiasticall Senate either in the Apostoticall Church of Israell vnder Achab and Iehoram or in Mesopotamia whether Ezekiell and those Elders of Iuda were transported who could neuer be found vnder the most godly Kings at Ierusalem Againe hee findeth them standing on the right hand of Ezra and on the left Nehem 8. Being distinguished both from the teaching Leuites and from the people From the people because they stood by Ezra From the teaching Leuites because he speaketh of them after Therefore they must needs bee Lay-Elders as though either some of the Princes of the people might not stand with Ezra or that these might not haue beene priests or that all the Leuites were teachers or that there were no more teaching Priests or Leuites but those which are mentioned then and there to haue taught the people Hee that considereth what T. C. was able to say in a good cause must needs thinke this cause to be very badde which he was not able to make good by better arguments then those most vnlikely likely-hoods Beza holdeth that 2. sorts of councels or consistories were ordained by Moses which should be held both in Ierusalem the
of God as well as those which concerned the ceremoniall law Neither do I therefore reiect the exposition of Beza and some others who by the causes of God vnderstand Ecclesiasticall causes and by the causes of the king ciuill causes because it is preiudiciall to my defence but because it is repugnant to the truth for though their interpretation were admitted it would no more proue that there were two distinct Synâ—dria then that which I doe embrace For though Zebadiah the prince of Iuda was the chiefe in the causes of the King as Amariah the high priest was the chiefe in the causes of God yet were they Colleagues and coassessors in the same counsell as Iosephus also doth witnesse For speaking of this act of Iosaphat he saith that he being returned to Ierusalem appointed iudges there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Priests and Leuits and of the chiefe or principall men of the people requiring them to exercise iust iudgement but especially that they should be diligent in determining those difficult causes that should be brought to them from inferiour iudgement seats but the chiefe or presidents of them as colleagues and coassessors be appointed Amasiah the Priest and Zabadiah of the tribe of Iuda and relating the law Deu. 17.8 he saith if the iudges in the cities be not able to determine any cause it is entirely to be sent to the holy citie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and let the high Priest and the Prophet that is the scribe or Doctor of the law saith Sigonius and the senate assembling together pronounce what seemeth right Besides it is manifest that the counsell at Ierusalem after the captiuitie which consisted of priests and Leuits besides the Seniors of the people and whereof the high priest was president as Bertram confesseth hauing authoritie to assemble it c. Act. 5.21 Matt. 26.57.59 was the high councell of state called the Sanedrin or Synedrion or coÌ„sistorium Gazith which dealt in causes not onely Ecclesiasticall but also ciuil and in causes criminall and capitall Neither happened this by the ambition of the priests but by the ordinance of God in respect of the first institution Deut. 17. and instauration by Iosaphat 2. Chron. 19. and by his approbation as Caluin witnesseth in respect of the erection of it after the captiuity For as the Lord promised by Esay to restore their iudges and counsellers after the captiuitie as before so Ezekiell prophecieth that the Priests after the captiuitie should not onely teach the people and iudge betweene holy and prophane betweene cleane and vncleane but also that they should stand vp to iudge controuersies iudging according to Gods iudgement Iosephus also testifieth that the Priests were ordained by Moses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ouerseers of all iudges of controuersies and punishers of such as are by the law condemned And so much for the present shall suffice concerning the counsell at Ierusalem vntill I come to answere Caluins opinion As touching Ecclesiasticall Presbyters in other cities Beza hath nothing but his owne coniectures For the courts of iudgement which both Moses instituted and Iosaphat renewed though they had Leuites among them were to deale not onely in Ecclesiasticall but also in ciuill and criminall causes The reasons which he bringeth for distinct Ecclesiasticall senates are three First because the Archisynagogi had as it is probable Seniors of the people ioyned with them Secondly because the name of Church in this place of Mathew is giuen to them which could not be vnlesse they did consist of the laitie as wel as the clergie Thirdly because as the ciuill consistories assembled in the gates so the Ecclesiasticall in the Synagogues To the first I answere that a probabilitie if this were such as indeed it is not is no proofe to the 2. that the name Ecclesia is not giuen to the Archisynagogi but to the Rulers of Christs Church assembling in his name with whom he promised his presence and to whom he committed the power of the keyes to whom also the name Ecclesia which may be giuen to any company of Christians be it but of two or three meeting in the name of Christ doth fitly agree Thirdly he telleth vs of Ecclesiasticall consistories ordained by Moses and renewed by Iosaphat sitting in Synagogues when there is not once mention in the old testament either of Ecclesiasticall consistories or yet of Synagogues And in the new such iudges are mentioned in Synagogues as punished by stripes Bertram also witnesseth that in the Synagogues of the cities iudgements were exercised by ordinarie iudges the greater and weightier causes as also the appeales of the lesse being referred to the counsell â—t Ierusalem And againe that the people came to the Synagogues to prayer to heare the law and the Prophets and to heare the iudgement of Moses law as well ciuill as Ecclesiasticall And so much of Beza Caluiâ— by Ecclesia vnderstandeth the Synedrion or Sanedrin of the Iewes instituted by them after their returne from Babylon which he conceiueth to haue beene an Ecclesiasticall senate to which belonged the censure of doctrine maners hauing the power oâ— excoÌ„munication c. What this Synedrion was Caluin himselfe shall tell vs It is certaine saith he that the Iewes when they were returned from the Babylonian banishment because they might not make a King did imitate this example of appointing 70. Elders Num. 11 in ordaining the Synedrion Onely so much honour was granted to the memorie of Dauid and the Kings that out of their stocke they would choose 70. gouernours in whom should be the chiefe power And this course continued vntill Herod c. The Sanedrin indeed was the high counsell of state which was to iudge of causes not only Ecclesiasticall but also ciuill and criminal yea capitall hauing the authoritie of the sword and power of life and death Whereby they adiudged malefactors conuicted of capital crimes to one of these foure kinds of death stoning burning killing with the sword and strangling hauing also authoritie to ordaine Sanedrioth that is the consistories of iudges in other cities to whom alone it appertained to iudge the cause of a tribe of a false Prophet of the high Priest c. And howsoeuer their power was much restrained after Iewrie became a prouince subiect to the Romanes notwithstanding the Romanes hauing granted the Iewes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 libertie to liue according to their owne lawes permitted them to exercise authoritie both in iudging not onely Ecclesiasticall but also ciuill and criminall causes and also in punishing by stripes and imprisonment and sometimes by death Moreouer by the law of God he that disobeyed the sentence of this counsell was not as our Sauiour Christ heere saith to be held as an heathen or Publican but he was to die the death Finally there was but one Synedrion for the whole estate of the Iewes by the appointment of God and that in the
nor graunted by vs that among gouernours Lay-Elders had a place in the primitiue church then this generall might particularly be applyed to them after this manner all gouernours ought to be diligent therfore they But seeing there were none such for men to argue from the generall to a fained speciall and that affirmatiuè in this manner the Apostle speaketh of gouernours therefore of Lay-Elders It is an argument like all the rest not worth the answering Yea but the disputer alleageth Caluin who in his institutions affirmeth that this place cannot bee otherwise vnderstood I would be loath to contest with Caluin whose name is reuerend and whose memorie is blessed Neuertheles it is euident by that which hath bene said that it may and ought otherwise to be expounded Yea Caluin himselfe confesseth else-where that howsoeuer this place doe seeme especially to be vnderstood of Ecclesiasticall Gouernours or Seniors tamen dubium non est quin omne iustae prefecturae genus nobis commendet Yet it is not to bee doubted but that the Apostle doth commend vnto vs all kindes of iust gouernement And againe although properly he call the Church-Gouernors and namely the Seniors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notwithstanding what he saith of them may vniuersally be extended to gouernements of all sorts By Caluins owne confession therfore the words may generally be vnderstood And if they may then also they must For who shall dare without good warrant to restraine the generall sence of the holy Ghost to one onely particular Especially that being but a counterfeit as if the Apostle when he saith hee that gouerneth in diligence had said let the Lay or only gouerning Elders be diligeÌ„t in their office Yea but the Apostle speaketh of such a Gouernour as might neither teach nor exhort and therefore beeing neither Pastor nor Doctor it must needes be the only gouerning Elder Of this Enthymâ—me both the antecedent is false and the consequence vnsound For if the Apostle speake of such a Gouernour as might not teach nor exhort then neither distribute nor shew mercie and by the same reason the teacher and exhorter of whome hee spake before may not gouerne But as I said the Apostle doth not speake of distinct offices but of diuerse gifts which manie times concurre in the same person So that as hee that teacheth and exhorteth may also gouerne and distribute so hee that gouerneth as the Pastor may teach and exhort and not onely hee but the Father is to teach and exhort his children the maister his familie yea priuate Christians are to instruct and exhort one another Neither doth it follow if he which gouerneth be neither a Pastor nor Doctor that straightwaies he should be an onely gouerning Elder For husbands parents maisters and magistrates maisters of Colleges and hospitalls are gouernors though neither Doctors nor Pastors and yet are they no Ecclesiasticall Lay-Elders To conclude D. Fulke vnderstaÌ„deth this place chiefly of Bishops whom he supposeth here to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Heb 13.17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The fifth and last testimonie is thus inforced by them If God hath set in his Church Gouernours distinct from the Ministers of the Word then hath he ordained Lay or onely gouerning Elders But the first is testified by the Apostle 1. Cor. 12.28 therefore God hath ordained lay or onely gouerning Elders In this Syllogisme no part is sound for first the consequence of the proposition is naught for by Church as it is taken in the assumption citing 1. Cor. 12. is meant the whole body of Christ and by the members of his body all Christians among whom God hath established degrees of superiors to gouerne and inferiors to obey in all societies as well in the family coÌ„monwealth as in the Ecclesiasticall state Secondly the assumption is false for although it be true that in Christs body there are gouernours Occonomicall politicall distinct from the Ministers yet Paul doth not in this place testifie that Christ hath set in his Church gouernours distinct from the Ministers and much lesse doth he testifie that in the Church that is the state Ecclesiasticall he hath ordained gouernours which are not Ministers Nay which is more the Apostle doth not once mention gouernours in this text for it is the fault of the translation for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is helpes and gouernements to read helpers and gouernours it being the purpose of the holy Ghost in all the 12.13 and 14. chapters to discourse of the diuerse gifts wherewith God doth adorne the membes of his Church in this context in the midsts of other gifts which are expressed in the abstract he placeth these two for so he saith powers gifts of healing helpes gouernemeÌ„ts kindes of tongues Now it is no better reasoÌ„ to make two distinct offices of helpers and gouernours out of these words then to raise three others out of the other three powers gifts of healing and kinds of tongues But it were ridiculous to make three distinct offices of these three so is it of the other And if the other three are to be accounted as gifts and not as offices why should we not so conceiue of helpings and gouernings that is to say the gift of helping and gouerning Yea I say further that although in the beginning of the verse the Apostle doth reckon three offices Apostles Prophets Teachers yet his purpose was not exactly to distinguish Ecclesiasticall functions but to enumerate the diuerse gifts of Gods spirit wherwith the members of Christs bodie are adorned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the common good of the bodie Some being honoured with the gift of the Apostleship some with the gift of Prophecie some with the gift of teaching some with the gift of working miracles some with the gift of healing diseases some with the gift of helping and relieuing those that be distressed as Chrysostome expoundeth it and as the word is vsed Act 20. some with the gift of gouerning some with the gift of tongues For if the Apostle had meant in this place to distinguish the Functions and Offices of the Church then from this Text should eight distinct offices bee collected neither should these gifts haue bene coincident into the same persons so that teachers might not gouerne and gouernours might not teach c. whereas contrariwise it is euident that the Apostles had all these gifts as Chrysostome also saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Prophets and Teachers had diuers of them c. It is plaine therefore that the Apostle did not distinguish the offices of the Church but orderlie recount the gifts and graces wherewith the Lord doth beautifie diuers members of the Church And whereas the Corinthians were proud of their gift of tongues and despised others the Apostle sheweth that among all these gifts which hee reckoneth that of tongues deserueth the last place And therfore exhorteth theÌ„ to be zealous of
not that we are able to ouersway them without comparison no writer till our age giuing testimonie no Church since the Apostles times vntill this present age giuing approbation to Lay-Elders but all writers and Churches before our time giuing testimonie and approbation to the gouernement of Bishops To omit that as in the number of learned men we are not inferiour so in the multitude of Churches at this day which doe not admit the Lay-Elders we are farre superiour as hereafter shal be shewed And thus much I hope will suffice for the first point FINIS LONDON Imprinted by Thomas Creed 1611. THE SECOND BOOKE PROVING That the Primitiue Churches indued with Power of Ecclesiasticall Gouernment were not Parishes properly but Dioceses And that the Angels of the Churches or ancient Bishops were not Parishionall but Diocesan Bishops The First Chapter entreating of the diuers acceptations of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Church Diocesse and that which is translated Parish IN this second conflict I find the Refuter very confident like the men of Ai though not vpon the like occasion as though my forces were not able to stand before him But forasmuch as in the former assault I haue taken the Acropolis chiefe hold of the Presbyterian Discipline I doubt not but that when he shall with the men of Ai looke backe and see the chiefe Tower of his defence I meane the Presbytery vanishing as it were a smoake his courage will bee abated For the Presbytery being downe what hath he wherewith to hold out Bishoppes For seeing the Primitiue Churches were gouerned eyther by Diocesan Bishoppes as we hold or by Pastors of Parishes assisted with Lay-Elders as they imagine who seeth not that vpon the ouerthrow of the Presbyteries the gouernment by Bishops is necessarily inferred Hauing therefore proued the first point of the fiue with such euidence of truth as I am wel assured all the gainesayers thereof will neuer bee able soundly and substantially to confute I need not doubt of preuailing in the rest As for the 2. next points which I handle concerning Dioceses and Diocesans the refuter thinketh they be the weakest of all the fiue and the worst appointed and thereupon would take occasion to cauill at my order as if I were to learne Methode of him whereas indeed his imputation of weakenesse to these 2. parts if it were true would commend my disposition of them as Homericall seeing I haue marshalled them Nestorio more after the manner of Nestor in medio infirma placing the weakest in the middest The chiefest points in my estimation being the first and the two last The truth is I did more lightly passe ouer these two then the rest but not out of an opinion of weakenes in the points themselues but partly in a conceit of their euidence and partly in consideration that they were not either so worthie or so needfull to be insisted vpon as the rest For first I supposed them to be so euident that howsoeuer T. C. in whose steppes our new Disciplinarians tread vpon weaker grounds then a man of learning iudgement should haue stood vpon doth deny them yet scarsly any other man of learning iudgement besides him would gain-say them Secondly that the three weightiest points which are most contradicted and in which these 2. are presupposed were most worthy in that breuity whereto I was confined to be stood vpon And thirdly that J needed not to bee so carefull in prouing of them seeing the chiefest patrones of the pretended Discipline as Caluin and Beza c. doe herein ioin with vs against our new sect of Disciplinarians as hath already beene proued Now whereas I brought forth these forces intending only a light skirmish velitationem quandam tanquam leuis armaturae my aduersary bringeth his maine battel into the field as if the euent of this whole warfare depended vpon this encounter I will therefore not onely bring a new supply like those of the Israelites which came vpon the men of Ai as they were pursuing the other companies of Israel but also cause these Arguments which now like the troupes of Israel seem in his conceit to flie before him to returne vpon him a fresh And forasmuch as here we are to entreat of Churches Parishes and Dioceses it shall not bee amisse to beginne with the names which are diuersly taken And first with the word Ecclesia which signifying generally any assembly company or congregation of men whatsoeuer ciuill or ecclesiasticall holy or prophane is in all the places of the new Testament excepting Act. 19. appropriated to the Companies of the faithfull For whereas all mankind is to be diuided into two Companies the one is the world which is the kingdome of darkenesse containing manie particular companies which are all the Synagogues of Sathan the other the Kingdome of God this latter is called Ecclesia signifying a Company of men as redeemed so also called out of the world as the Greeke word importeth Ecclesia therefore is a company of men called out of the world vnto saluation by Christ that is to say more brieflie the Church doth signifie a companie of Christians And thus it is vsed in the Scriptures either more Generally to signifie eyther the Vniuersal company of them that are elected in Christ or called to be Saints as Ephes. 1.22 3.21 5.23 24.25.27.29 32. Act 2.47 Colos. 1.18.24 The two main parts of the vniuersall Church Triumphant in heauen as Heb. 12 23. Militant on earth as Mat. 16.18 1. Cor. 12.28 Eph. 3.10 1. Tim. 3.15 and that eyther dispersed in diuers nations and Countries throughout the world 1. Cor. 10.32 15 9. Act. 8.3 Gal 1.13 Phil. 3.6 Congregated in an vniuersall or Oâ—cumenicall Synode Particularly that either Definitely to signifie the Church of a Nation in the nuÌ„ber Singular Act. 7 38. Plural Rom. 16.4 1. Cor. 16.1.19 2. Co. 8.1 Ga. 1.2.22 And these either dispersed or coÌ„gregated into a Synode or consistory Mat. 18.17 Act. 15.22 Congregation whether set or vncertain as Act. 11.26 14.27 1. Cor. 11 18 22. 14.5.12.19 23.28.34.35.3 Ioh. 6. City and Country adioyning Act. 5.11 8.1 11.12 12.1.5 13.1 14.23 20. 17.28 1. Cor. 1.2 2 Co. 1.1 8.23 Col 4.16 2. Thes. 1.1 1. Tim. 5.16 Iam. 5.14 Apoc. 1.4 11.20 2.1.7.8.12.18 3.1.7.14 Village or towne Rom. 16 1. Family Rom. 16.5 1. Cor. 16 9. Col. 4.5 Philem. 2. Indefinitely signifying any company of Christians not defining either the Place Society whether of a Nation City c. quantity whether an entire church or but a part as Act. 9. â—1 15 3.4.41 18.22 Rom. 16.16 23.1 Co. 4.17 6.4 11.16 14. 33. 2. Cor. 8.18.19.24 â—1 8.28 12.13 Phil. 4.15 1. Thes. 2.14 2. Thes. 1.4 â— Tim. 3.5.3 Iohn 9. 10. Apoc. 2.7.17.23.29 3.6.13.22 22.16 The significations of the word Church being so manifold in the Scriptures
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
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
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
possible but that if these churches did containe ample Cities with the countries such as we cal shires belonging to them they were not dioceses but parishes although your assumptiō should bee granted namely that these churches contained not only the cities but countries notwithstanding your conclusion is to be excepted against For though these were dioceses yet others might be parishes Such a froward aduersary I haue met withall who in other places accusing mee for not concluding what these churches or the angels of thē were here findeth fault that J cōclude what they were But both his accusations are alike vniust seeing the constitution of them and all others indued with power of ecclesiasticall gouernment was the same and what is said of the one is to be vnderstood of the other His second reason why the consequence is naught because it doth not appeare neither is it true that euery one of these Churches was diuided into diuers seuerall ordinary asblies all of thē depending vpon some one as the chiefe without power of ecclesiastical gouernment apart in themselus Is this the denial of any thing but the conclusion is not the deniall of the conclusion an euidence that the answerer is confounded and is not confusion a manifest signe of one that writeth against his conscience resolued not to bee perswaded though his conscience be conuicted As touching his assertion opposed to my conclusion that they were not Dioceses because they were not diuided c. it containeth three branches First that they were not diuided into diuers ordinary assemblies Secondly If they were yet they did not all depend vpon some one as the chiefe Thirdly That they had the power of ecclesiastical gouernement in themselues These assertions would haue beene proued by them that are opponents and will needes perswade vs to admitte of their parish Discipline But I am well assured that they are notable to proue any one of them And although it were sufficient for me to deny these assertions and to put them to proue them yet because I desire from my soule to satisfie our opposites in this cause as Brethren and because they containe the very grounds of the parish-discipline I will briefly disproue them For as touching the first I haue often wondred what our brethren meane to argue from the example of the churches which were not diuided into parishes to those that bee Would they haue the Church of a City and country belonging to it to bee all but one congregation assēbling ordinarily in one place If they would thē are they too absurd to be thought worthy to be confuted But though they would the ancient christians would not who when their multitude was increased in all places of the world were diuided into diuers particular assemblies If they would haue them diuided as of necessity they must then let them tell mee whether wee that doe and of necessity must consist of diuers congregations are to follow the example of any ancient church as it was before it was diuided or as it was after it was diuided If the former then are they absurd againe If the latter then haue I that which I desire They will say perhaps that each congregation after the diuision was as that one before Nothing lesse Let them proue that and I will yeeld in the whole cause The one before had a Bishop and a Presbytery as they will confesse which were to attend the whole flocke but after the diuision not each parish had a Bishop and a Presbytery but one of the Presbyters assigned to it the rest remaining with the Bishop who as before assisted with his Presbytery had a generall superintendencie ouer them as well diuided as vndiuided and was but one in euery diocesse as well after the diuision as before Which is so manifest a truth so confirmed by testimonies before cited so testified by the generall consent and practise of the Christian world not one instance to be giuen to the contrary as that it cannot but conuince the conscience I hope also it will perswade For tell mee I pray you were not parishes distinguished in Constantines time and before as well as now Yes questionlesse Were any other assigned to them seuerally then seuerall Presbyters euen as they be now That also is out of doubt Was it euer or at any time otherwise after the diuision of parishes No without question There remained but one Bishop and one Presbytery for the whole citie and country as well after the diuision as before And that is so euident a truth by that which hath bin said that no man of learning can with a good conscience any longer denie it But it will be said that the Churches before they were diuided were not dioceses Whereto I answere that the circuit of the Church in the intention of the Apostle or first founder of it was the same as well before the diuision of parishes as after Euen as the subiect of the leauen is the whole bach in the intention of him that putteth it into the lumpe though the loaues bee not yet diuided yea though but a little of the dough bee yet after it is newly put in seasoned If you aske mee how J know this I answere First because the whole Church of God euer since the Apostles daies vnto our age hath so vnderstood the intention of the Apostles and of their first founders the circuit of euery Church hauing from the beginning included not onely the citie but the country thereto belonging Secondly because that diuision of Churches which was three or foure hundred yeeres after Christ with their limits and circuits were ordinarily the same which had been from the beginning as before hath been testified by diuers antient Councels Thirdly because it is confessed by Beza and testified by Doctor Rainolds and others that the distribution of the Church did vsually follow the diuision of the common-wealth insomuch that those countries which were subiected to the ciuill iurisdiction exercised in any citie were also subiect ordinarily to the ecclesiasticall and as they were accounted of the same county or prouince in respect of ciuill gouernment so of the same Church or diocesse in regard of spirituall And as the Church followed the ciuill distribution at the beginning so also if there were any new citie erected by the authority of the Emperour it was decreed by the Councell of Constantinople following therein the canon of their forefathers that the order of ecclesiasticall things should follow the ciuill and publike forme Therefore though these Churches had not been diuided into seuerall congregations yet had they each of them been dioceses But now I adde that at the time of writing the Reuelation which was almost an hundeed yeeres after the birth of Christ it is more then probable that they contained diuers congregations For when Paul had continued but two yeeres at Ephesus the holy Ghost restifieth that all which inhabited Asia so properly called did heare
the word of the Lord Iesus both Iewes and Gentiles Well Paul hauing placed many Presbyters among them and hauing continued among them for the space of three yeeres afterwards sendeth Timothy to be their Bishoppe who ordinarily continued among them vntill his death And that you should not thinke there was but that Church at Ephesus in Pauls time hee maketh mention of the Churches of Asia Saint Peter likewise had preached and by his preaching conuerted many in Asia to whom among others hee directeth his first Epistle After the death of Peter and Paul because those Churches were as Paul had foretold much annoled with heretikes Saint Iohn by the direction of the holy Ghost went into those parts preached the Gospell for many yeeres ordained Bishoppes and Presbyters where need was To the ministery of the Apostles adde the preaching of the Bishoppes and Presbyters ordained by them and disciples which they had instructed by whose ministerie not onely many particular Christians but some Churches were brought to the faith As that of Colossae which was in the confines of Phrygia bordering on this Asia in Pauls time planted by the ministerie of Epaphraâ— as their founder watered by the ministerie of Archippus as their Bishoppe Now I appeale to the conscience of euery indifferent Reader whether it bee not vnlikely that not in any one of these famous Churches no not in that of Ephesus there were in the whole citie and country belonging to it any more then one ordinary congregation after the preaching of such and so many for the space of forty fiue yeeres And so much for the first of his assertions the other two I will ioyne together For if there were but one Bishoppe for the Church both of the citie and country as there were but seuen in all these seuen Churches and but one Presbytery if the Churches both of the citie and country were subiect to the Bishoppe of the citie if the parishes both of citie and country had neither Bishoppe nor Presbytery but Presbyters seuerally assigned to them if the Presbyters of the country were ordained by the Bishoppe of the citie and not onely they but the rurall Bishoppes also were subiect to his authoritie all which I haue by most euident arguments and testimonies proued already then did the seuerall congregations and parishes which J haue also prooued were all but members of one body depend vpon the chiefe Church in the citie as the head which afterwards was called Matrix ecclesia cathedra episcopi or the cathedrall Church neither had the power of ecclesiasticall iurisdiction whereof they speake as I haue also proued before I come to the assumption wherewith hee cauilleth egregiously because I said that the Churches whereof the seuen Angels were Bishoppes were not onely the cities but the countries adioyning that is as I expressed my meaning in the syllogisme before that the circuit of euery one of these Churches contained both the citie and country which assumption I haue made good by necessary proofe But saith hee Who euer said that the Church of Ephesus was a great Citie Who knoweth not that the Citie is one thing and the Church another But this might serue M.D. turne to dazell the eies of the simple c. As touching this foule imputation that I may beginne with it J thanke God I am free both from desire and intent of dazâ—ling the eyes of the simple But as in my conscience I am cleerely resolued of the truth of these fiue points contained in the Sermon so I haue endeuoured with plaine euidence to vphold and maintaine the truth against the nouelty of your inuentions and the subtilties of your sophistications wherewith you haue too long both dazeled and seduced the simple So much of that by the way If hee discerned the speech which I vsed to bee improper had hee not so much neither Art I meane either Rhetoricke or Logicke nor grace I meane charity as either to conceiue me to haue spoken by a trope or to explane my speech by such an enunciation as the nature of the arguments doth require When it is said in my text the seuen starres are the Angels will he say who euer heard that starres were Angels Or when Christ saith This cup is my bloud that is shâ—d or the new Testament in my bloud will he say who euer heard that the cup is bloud or the Testament When I said the Churches are the cities and the country could he neither vnderstand me as speaking after that most vsuall metonymy of the Christian people in the citie and country nor yet explane my words as the nature of the argumeÌ„ts contained in the speech doth lead him If I should say a man is not onely body but soule also or the body is not one member alone but many you would vnderstand me thus Man consisteth of body and soule the body consisteth not of one member alone but of many Or thus Whole man containeth these two parts the bodie containeth not one member alone but many Euen so the Church or diocesse of Ephesus is that is containeth not only the City but the Country But is that so strange a thing with our learned Refuter that the name of the Citie should be giuen to the Church Let him looke backe to Apoc. 1.11 and hee shall finde that the seuen Churches were Ephesus Smyrna c. And so vsuall is it with good Authors speaking of BB. to say they were Bishops of such or such a Citie as I might fill a Volume with quotations to this purpose These few testimonies may suffice Eusebius saith that Euodius was the first Bishop of Antioch and that Ignatius was the second Bishop of Antioch c. The Councell of Nice writing to the Church of Alexandria maketh mention 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Bishop of Alexandria Athanasius calleth Damasus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bishop of the great Citie Rome and Dionysius the B. of Alexandria The first Councell of Constantinople mentioneth the Bishop of Alexandria the Bishop of Constantinople and the Bishop of Rome And more plainely in the Councell held in Trullo Nectarius is said to haue beene the Bishop of the Citie of Constantinople Dionysius the Archbishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the great Citie of Alexandria Looke into the subscriptions of Bishops vnto Councels as to that of Nice subscribed Osius the Bishop of the Citie of Corduba Alexander Bishop of Alexandria c. to the Councell of Sardica Athanasius Bishop of the great Citie of Alexandria Alexander Bishop of the Citie of Mesenia and in like maner all the rest stiling themselues Bishops of the Cities Looke into the inscriptions of epistles written either by Bishops or vnto Bishops Ignatius stileth himselfe thus Ignatius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bishop of Antioch Leo in his Epistles stileth himselfe sometimes Bishop of Rome sometimes Vrbis Romae of the Citie of Rome Basil writeth to Eusebius
Such as are the French and Duch Churches here in England such were the Churches in the Apostles times But the French and Duch Churches here in England are not diocesan but distinct parishionall assemblies Therefore the Churches in the Apostles times were not diocesan but distinct parishionall assemblies First I denie the proposition not onely because the circuit of the Churches in the Apostles intention was not included within a Citie as of the French and Duch Churches with vs but chiefly because the French Church for example in London is but one Church among many professing the same religion being a certaine and set number hauing a Presbytery consisting for the most part of lay men placed among vs not with purpose to conuert either the City or Country to them but to attend them of their owne Church whereas contrariwise the Churches in the Apostles times before the diuision of parishes were not each of them one among many but were planted among heathen people hauing a Bishop and a Presbyterie of learned men placed among them as leauen is put into the lumpe with purpose to conuert the rest both in Citie and Country The Church which had the Bishop and Presbytery first placed in it was Matrix Ecclesia as after it was called begetting other Churches and spirituall Fathers for them which being begotten in Citie and Countrey were all euen when the whole Citie and Country were filled with her off-spring to bee subordinate and subiect to her as their mother But no such thing can be imagined of the Duch and French Churches among vs. As touching the assumption I say that the French and Duch Churches with vs are not properly parishes nor such as the ancient parishes were after the first diuision of them seeing the members thereof dwell in many distinct parishes either of them being endued with power of ecclesiasticall gouernement and not subordinate to another Church as members thereof but being entire bodies by themselues are models as it were of diocesan Churches hauing a Presbytery as the Church of Geneua hath to supply the want of a Bishop which once they had and still might haue in imitation of the ancient Christians who when the Citie where they dwelt was replenished and the Mother Church occupied with men of another faith as with Arians sometimes in Antioch and Alexandria as ours be with men of another Language had a Bishop of their owne in all respects like other Bishops sauing that they held not the Mother Church and therefore had neither the like Clergie nor the like reuenewes to maintaine them The second thing which hee opposeth is as I said a shew of regestion which he propoundeth with great confidence as if hee had mee at no small aduantage saying that I pull downe with one hand that I set vp with another If there were at that time no parishes how could there bee dioceses seeing euery diocesse consisteth of diuers distinct parishes Thus saith he the light will breake out though men shut their eies against it You see how bragge hee would seeme to bee But good sir what is this to my consequence If there were no parishes in the Apostles times then the Presbyteries were not appointed to parishes You answer If there were no parishes then there were no dioceses To what end is this spoken To denie my consequence or the maine conclusion Assume But you say there were no parishes therefore there were no dioceses which is the contradictorie to the maine conclusion But where doe I say there were no parishes Not in the proposition where it is only supposed but in the assumption for that which is supposed in the antecedent of the proposition is positiuely set downe in the assumption Therefore when he would seeme to deny the consequence of the proposition he doth not so much as touch it But by taking a supposed aduantage against the Assumption hee denieth the principall conclusion But let vs examine his argument If there were no parishes in the Apostles times there were no Dioceses This consequence I deny For the Diocesse was the same before the Parishes were diuided and after And the circuit of the spirituall iurisdiction intended the same before parishes were diuided with that it was after they were diuided that is answerable to the ciuill The same circuit belonging to the Church both in the intention before all were conuerted and in execution after all were conuerted which belonged to the ciuill state Yea but saith he euery Diocesse consisteth of distinct Parishes It is true after the distinction of Parishes but not before as a bach of bread consisteth of many distinct loaues after the distinction which before it contained vndistinguished in the lumpe A man consisteth of many distinct members after they are distinguished which at his first conception were not distinct The Proposition being thus recouered out of his hands J am now to rescue the Assumption Which saith that the Churches in the Apostles times were not diuided into parishes c. Which is to be vnderstood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as true of the most Churches Here I expect a direct answere were they diuided into parishes or were they not If they were as at Alexandria it seemeth to haue beene euen in the Apostles times then was not euery Church but one parish if they were not then the Presbyters were not assigned to seuerall parishes and so the assumption is true Nay rather then the assumption shall goe for currant we will deny each Church to haue beene but a parish Is it credible that any man should bee so transported with the spirit of contradiction as that hee should not care so hee may gainesay his aduersaries present assertion how shamefully hee contradicteth himselfe yet thus it fareth with our refuter In oppugning the proposition hee said and laboured to proue it that each church was but one parish the same he saith and saith againe in defending their obiections propounding his own only argumēt And yet here this assumptiō must be censured as hauing no truth in it for that it denieth Parishes to haue beene distinguished in the Apostles times and the Presbyters to haue beene assigned to their seuerall titles or cures They be his wordes in the conclusion of his answere to the assumptiō And the same he repeateth pag. 71. But let vs see what he obiecteth against the assumption First he findeth an errour in it before noted concerning the end of the Presbyters ordination which he saith is here repeated and therefore not of ignorance by him omitted in the proposition the which though hee call an errour yet I proued to be an euident truth and discouered the shallownes of their iudgement which do denie it Besides that errour he chargeth the maine points in the assumption as altogether void of truth The points are these 1. that parishes were not distinguished in the apostles times 2. that Presbyters were not then assigned to their seuerall titles or cures 3. that they were in
vnto you but now you haue the fewer enemies by reason of the multitude of Christians penè 〈◊〉 ciâ—ium being almost all citizens penè omnes ciues Christianos habendo by hauing almost al your Citizens Christians Let the Reader judge what the number of Christians were in those times whether Tertullian doth not speake chiefly of the city of Rome let him consider whether almost all the citizens of Rome of whom ordinarily there were diuers huÌ„dred thousands besides christian strangers seruants and the female sex were like to be the people of one parish The same author speaking to the same purpose in another place saith it may be sufficiently manifest vnto you that we deale according to the doctrine of diuine patience Seing we being so great a multitude of men euen the greatest part almost of euery city do cary our selues in silence modestie And so much concerning the multitude of the people Serm sect 7. p. 21. Ad to the multitude of the people the consideration of the times raging for the most part with persecution c. to the end of the 2. point As touching the times the refuter answereth that how furiously soeuer the times raged with persecution yet the christian people did vsually assemble together Whereof I doubt not But the question is whether in diuers congregations as I say as it is most euideÌ„t or altogether in one place which is altogether vncredible As for the places wherin the christians in the first 200. yeares vsed to assemble especially in time of persecution whereas I say they were priuate houses vaults and secret places not capable of such multitudes as haue bin spoken of for refuge he flieth to the vâ—lts holes as he calleth theÌ„ which he supposeth were capable of great multitudes but omitteth priuate houses and other small roomes turned to this vse And whereas J say they were not capable of such multitudes as were thâ— whole companies of Christians in the greatest cities proued before to haue bin in a manner innumerable hee onely saith great multitudes But what we are to coÌ„ceiue of this point let vs enquire of Hospinian a Protestant writer who hath trauelled in this argument He therefore saith in the time of the Apostles and some while after the places of meetings which Christians had were simple houses neither were they permitted by the cruelty of tyrants and rage of the people to build I say not magnificent but not meane Temples The places therefore of publike meetings in those times were base more like dens and secret corners then magnificall Temples as Eusebiusâ—estifieth â—estifieth And Tertullian plainly affirmeth that in his time the Christians had no other temples but simple houses Polydor Virgil testifieth that the Christians were so far from hauing any temple built in these times that all was secret their places of meeting were chapels and those hidden and for the most part vnder the ground rather then in open and publike places Bullinger likewise saith that the antient Christians vnder Constantine the Great were wont vnder the quire of the temples to build cryptaâ— vaults in memory of the persecutions whereby the Christians vnder the Emperors before Constantine were not suffered sometimes to come abroad and therfore they were forced to hold their assemblies and performe the sacred exercises in secret sometimes in dens and other priuy places But saith the Refuter Let them bee as little as he would make them yet it doth not follow hereof that the Churches in the Cities alone contained many particular congregations or parishes To which purpose againe he alleageth his chapels of ease for a meere euasion seeing himselfe is perswaded there was none such in those times And where he saith that although there were diuers places of meeting in those times yet all appertained to one congregation I confesse it to be true for euen after the distinction of parishes both in citie and country all of them belonged to one Church as meÌ„bers of the same body Yea but saith he if there were many particular congregations in euery city how chanceth it he told vs before that the parishes were not distinguished Distinguish the times and the answere is easie In the first hundred yeeres though Christians met in diuers places as they could yet neither were there in the most cities certaine set places of meeting nor certaine Presbyters assigned to them as to their perpetuall and peculiar charge But at the end of the first hundred yeeres Euaristus diuided to seuerall Presbyters in Rome titles that is the set places of meetings which we call parish Churches whereof they were entituled and called the Presbyters of such and such a title or parish And thus haue J maintained my arguments and answers against his cauils Now am I to defend my assertion against his proofes CHAP. VI. Answering the Refuters arguments ANd first because you shall know what he meaneth to conclude he propoundeth the question which is saith he whether in the Apostles times and the age following that is the first two hundred yeeres the visible Churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall gouernment were parishes or no. In which question seeing he his consorts restraine the times of the primitiue Church to the first two hundred yeeres the Reader will I hope expect that he should conclude that foâ— this whole terme at the least the churches were each of them but a parish and that in all this time there were no dioceses His argumentation containeth two ranckes of instances the former taken out of the scriptures the latter out of the Fathers The former he concludeth thus If the Churches of Corinth Ephesus and Antioch being visible Churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall government were each of them but one parish vnderstand for the whole terme of 200. yeeres then the other visible Churches 〈◊〉 with the like power were also each of them during the same terme but one parish But the Churches of Corinth Ephesus and Antioch being visible Churches endued with power of ecclesiasticall gouernment were each of them but one parish for the first 200. yeeres Therefore the other visible Churches endued with the like power were also for the like terme each of them but one parish The proposition I will be content to yeeld to my aduersarie so it may be lawfull for me to vse the like for then I would conclude thus If the Churches of Alexandria and Rome were not parishionall Churches in the first 200. yeeres neither were the Churches of other Cities But the antecedent is true therefore the consequent The consequence is the same with his and grounded on the same hypothesis viz. that all Churches endued with power of ecclesiasticall gouernment were at the first of the same nature and constitution The former part of the assumption concerning Alexandria I will manifestly prooue when I come to the third point concerning Diocesans viz. that it was not one parish but contained diuers parishes euen
in the first 100. yeeres Concerning Rome I haue proued already that within the first 200. yeeres it was diuided into many parishes and therefore although there bee not so good euidence for other Cities in particular yet the like is to bee concluded of them seeing they were all of the same constitution Passing by therefore his proposition I take hold of his assumption and doe plainely denie the Churches he speaketh of or any other which had a Bishop and Presbyterie to haue beene for the first two hundred yeeres no more but parishes for J doubt not but it is easier to proue that within this terme not onely the Presbyters and people in the said dioceses but also the Bishops in the same Prouinces were subiect to the Bishops of these three Cities For as it is euident of Antioch by the testimonie of Ignatius who calleth himselfe the Bishop of Syria so no reason can bee alleged why the Bishops of Ephesus and Corinth who in the third centurie and in the ages following were Metropolitans were not so in the second or if they were Metropolitans in the third and in the ages following as most certainely they were why they should not haue beene Diocesans at the least in the second The assumption hee saith appeareth plaine by the proofe of the particulars But what doth he prooue of the particulars Are his syllogismes so soone come to an end His chiefe proofes be that in the Apostle Pauls time each of them vsed to assemble in one Congregation Was this your assumption You that are so strict in exacting syllogismes and direct proofes should not haue sought to carrie away the matter as it were in the cloudes Yea but that which he prooueth doth prooue the assumption That shall thus bee tried by his owne forme of argumentation If those Churches of Corinth Ephesus and Antioch in the Apostle Pauls time were each of them no more then ordinarily assembled in one place then were they for the first 200. yeeres each of them but one parish But the Churches of Corinth Ephesus and Antioch in the Apostle Pauls time were each of them no more then ordinarily assembled in one place Therefore for the first 200. yeeres they were each of them but one parish The proposition is omitted by the disputer as taken for granted but therein he hath plaied the sophister for he that meaneth truly doth not vse to omit any part of his argument but that which is certaine or confessed But the consequence of this proposition is worse then naught for if hee had onely said thus If in the Apostles times they were each of them but one Congregation therefore for 200. yeeres they were so the consequence had beene starke naught or if he had onely said If in the Apostles time they were each but one Congregation then were they each one parish that consequence also had beene naught but when he saith If in the Apostles times each was but one Congregation therefore for 200. yeeres each of them was but a parish that consequence is as I said worse then naught That the first of the two consequences is naught it is euident for though at the first conuersion of any great City and for a while after the number vsually was so small that they might haue assembled in one place yet it is certaine that within 200. yeeres their number was growne to bee almost innumerable as hath beene shewed and therefore too great to make one ordinarie congregation This one exception if no more should bee added ouerturneth all his dispute As touching the second though it should bee granted that each of these Churches in the Apostles time did ordinarilie assemble together in one place yet would it not follow that therefore each of them was but a parish and much lesse which is the end of all this disputation that all Churches endued with ecclesiasticall power should be but parishes and consequently that euery parish should haue a Bishop and presbyterie The reasons of my deniall of these consequences I haue before set downe at large Chap. 3. § 5. and 6. and therefore this disputation I haue sufficiently ouerthrowne already For a surplussage I adde these two reasons First If these Churches because they were each of them but one Congregation were parishes before the diuision of parishes then were they such Churches as after the diuision parishes were This consequence may not be denied especially by them who would haue all parishes framed to the constitution of the first Churches But they were not such for the parishes after their diuision had not a Bishop and presbyterie but only a Presbyter assigned to them neither was the Pastor thereof superintendent ouer others neither was any of them intended to bee a mother Church Secondly if that assumption was false which denied parishes to haue beene distinguished in the Apostles times then these Churches were not onely many congregations but many parishes also But he said before that that assumption had no truth in it These two iust exceptions I haue against his consequence If against the former it bee obiected that some of his testimonies doe seeme to prooue that after the Apostles times these Churches were each of them but one congregation I answer that his maine argument and proofes thereof doe speake of the Apostles time Those which are extended further shall bee further examined Now I come to his assumption for though I doe not denie but that at the first and namely in the time of the Apostle Paul the most of the Churches so soone after their conuersion did not each of them exceed the proportion of a populous congregation yet I cannot yeeld to all his proofes His proofes be either allegation of Scriptures or other testimonies His Scriptures for Corinth are out of the first epistle to the Corinthians and Rom. â—6 1 for Ephesus Act. 20.28 for Antioch Act. 14.27 Now let vs consider the date of his testimonies and then what is testified in them The date of them is ancienter then Paul his going to Rome which was in the yeere 5â— or â—6 Which I do note to shew to what time his proposition is to bee restrained as if hee had said If before the yeere 55. or â—6 they were but one congregation then they were no more vntill the yeere 200. The thing that is testified for Corinth 1. Cor 11. is such as might bee written to the Church of England as verse 18. When you come into the Church I beare there bee schismâ—s among you vers 20. When you come together in the same place this is not to eat the Supper of the Lord vers 33. When you come together to eat expect one another Rom. 16. There is mention of the Church of Cenchreae whereof mention hath beene made now thrice to no purpose vnlesse it bee against himselfe for if Câ—nchreae were a parish subordinate to the Church of Corinth as most certainly it was it selfe hauing not a Bishop or presbyterie but a
Presbyter assigned to it this will prooâ—e that the mother Church of Corinth was diocesan as all Cathedrall Churches bee and that parishes distinguished from the Cathedrall as children from the mother were such as that of Cenchreae That which is testified for Ephesus Act. 20.28 is such as vpon like occasion might by all in his visitation be applied to aâ—â— the ministers of a diocesse that they should attend the stocke c. For must the word stocke which may be extended either to the vniuersall or nationall or prouinciall or diocesan Church must it needes signifie onely the congregation of a Parish yet he that breathes nothing but nouelties saith it is a new conceit to suppose a Diocesan flocke But this calumny of nouelty I haue by plentifull testimonies of antiquity before cited wiped cleane away As touching Act. 14.27 cited for Antioch where it is said that Paul and Barnabas gathered together the Church to relate vnto them what God had done by them since they had laid their hands vpon them and had commended them to the grace of God it is apparant that not all the Church consisting of husbands and wiues their children and seruants but some of the chiefe and principall perhappes not many perhappes not any besides those of the Clergy were called to that meeting These were his proofes out of the Scripture His other testimonies are out of Eusebius Ignatius and some of our owne Writers all which testimonies are scarse worth the mentioning Eusebius calleth the Churches of Corinth Ephesus and Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the ancient vse of this word sometimes signifying the whole Diocesse sometimes the whole City and Suburbes I haue spoken sufficiently heretofore as also of that which hee obiecteth concerning the Parish in Ephesus Wherto I adde that Eusebius as he vsed the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the same purpose Ignatius writing to the Church of Ephesus the multitude whereof hee calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if he had of purpose noted it to be a Church consisting of many multitudes or congregations exhorteth them as one might in like manner the faithfull in London though diuided into many congregations to come oft together to giue thanks and glory to God for when you come oft together into one place the power of Satan is weakened c. His other testimony out of Ignatius is out of his Epistle to Hero where he calleth the Church of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Synagogue that is the church or congregation of the Lord. The word being vsed in the same signification with Ecclesia whereof I spake before But whether Ignatius were Bishop onely of one Congregation or parish let his own words testifie Remember me saith he in his Epistle to the Magnesians in your praiers and the Church which is in Syria whereof I am not worthy to be called the Bishop And in the Epistle to the Romanes towardes the latter end Remember in your praier the Church in Syria the which in stead of me hath the Lord to bee her pastor who saith I am the good shepheard Or if these words bee not plaine inough hee calleth himselfe in the same Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bishop of Syria Now let my aduersarie tell mee what maner of Parish Syria was And let me heare also what he can obiect against these two Epistles of Ignatius to the Magnesians and Romanes For euen they which suspect his Epistle to Herâ— which the refuter citeth and foure others acknowledge these two to bee no bastards Eusebius mentioneth both And that to the Romans he not onely mentioneth but also citeth a good part thereof Thus leauing that most pregnant and authentique euidence of Ignatius to my aduersary to muse vpon J come to his testimonies of our new writers all which excepting two testimonies of Tindall he most childishly alleadgeth to proue that the Churches of Ephesus and of other the like Cities were each of them but a Parish because they call a Church a Congregation vsing the word Congregation in as ample sense as before I proued the word Ecclesia whereof that is the English to bee vsed The auncient English Bibles neuer almost vse the word church but in stead thereof doe vse the word congregation not onely where is mention of particular Churches but of the vniuersall or catholicke Church As Mat. 16. Vpon this rocke I will build my congregation Eph. 1. Hee hath made him head of the Congregation which is his body Eph. 5. Yee husbands loue your wiues as Christ loued the congregation And so in the Communion Booke both in the Praiers translation there vsed As in the Praier for the King before the Epistle haue mercy on the whole congregation In the solemnization of Matrimony out of Ephes. 5. I speake of Christ and the Congregation But you shall heare his particulars First Tindall translateth the word Ecclesia by congregation thus to the angell of the congregation of Ephesus c. 2. Iohn Bale translateth and expoundeth the word Candlesticke and Church by Congregation The reasons why the first Translaters of the Bible into English in these latter times did auoid the name Church and insteed thereof vsed Congregation doe seeme to haue been these two The first because Church or Kyrk being deriued from the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth more properly signifie the place of meeting then the congregation it selfe which is meant by ecclesia and therefore the word Congregation thought to be the fitter translation The second because the Papists had abused the word Church whether it were generally vsed to signifie the Romish Church or particularly to import the Romish clergy So saieth Tindal Because the clergy had appropriated to themselues the name Church therefore I translated the word Ecclesia by this word Congregation For when the people vnderstood that by Church was meant the company of men professing the faith of Christ the name Church is euery where vsed as the translation of ecclesia Thirdly Yea but D. Fulke iustifying the translation of Ecclesia Eph. 5.23 by congregation argueth plainely that he held the Church of Ephesus to consist but of one particular congregation onely Which allegation sheweth extreame want either of iudgement or honesty for what church or congregation is there mentioned the Church of Ephesus or the vniuersall Church of Christ when it is said as Christ is the head of the Church Vpon which words when the Rhemists had noted it as a corruption of the first English Bibles which did not vse the word Church but congregation in stead thereof D. Fulke answereth that the Translator rather vsed the word Congregation then Church to auoide ambiguity because this word Church is commonly taken for the house of the assembly of Christians and that the people might know that the Church is a gathering together of al the
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
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
conceiuing hope of victory like the King of Aâ— betweene these old forces which I haue made to retire vpon him and the new supplies marching towards him FINIS THE THIRD BOOK prouing the superiority of Bishops aboue other Ministers CHAP. 1. Confuting the refuters preamble to the fourth point and defending mine owne entrance thereinto Serm. sect 1. pag. 28. In the fourth place therefore we are to intreat of the superioritie of BB. ouer other Ministers for although the Presbyterians and we agree in this c. almost to the end of the pag. 29. OF the fiue points which I propounded three haue alreadie been handled the first concerning Lay Elders against both sorts of Disciplinarians aswell the elder as the younger though betweene their opinions there is this difference that the elder require such a presbyterie in each Citie or Diocesse the yonger in each Parish In the second and third concerning Dioceses and Diocesans I had to deale onely with our new sect of Disciplinarians who vrge the new-found parish-discipline In the fourth and fift which remaine I propounded to my selfe the confutation of the elder and more learned sort of disciplinarians not greatly regarding what our innouatours in these 2. points do hold or deny their proper opinions concerning the parish discipline being in the three former points sufficiently confuted The which I doe the rather note for 2. causes The one that the reader may vnderstand the refuters euasions in disauowing such assertions as I ascribe vnto the disciplinarians to be to no purpose seeing they are held by men more learned and iudicious with whom principally I had to deale The other that he may discerne the pouerty and weakenesse of their cause the chiefe and almost only strength thereof being the allegation of diuers protestant writers whom I called the learneder sort of Disciplinarians who are parties in the cause As touching the fourth point the refuter before hee come to my words maketh an idle flourish the summe whereof is this that were it not that by confuting the superioritie of Bishops he should overthrow the Supremacy of the Pope he would scarse haue vouchsafed an answeare to my discourse Here therefore he sheweth two things first that by confuting the superioritie of Bishops he shall withall refute the supremacie of the Pope 2. that otherwise an answere to me in this fourth point were needlesse In the former he seemeth ignorantly and yet maliciously to presuppose that the superioritie of Bishops and the supremacie of the Pope hang as it were vpon one pin and that he which graunteth the one must needs hold the other For the Basis or ground of his dispute is this such as is and ought to be the gouernment of the whole Church such is and ought to be the gouernment of the parts or seuerall Churches and contrariwise from hence he hath two inferences the first thus Such as is and ought to be the gouernment of the whole Church such is and ought to be the gouernment of the parts or seuerall Churches But the gouernment of the whole Church is Aristocraticall and not Monarchicall therefore the gouernment of the parts or seuerall Churches is and ought to be Aristocraticall and not Monarchicall The proposition he taketh for graunted noting it as an absurditie in me To fight for that in the particulars which in the generall I wish ouerthrowne But it would be knowne what he meaneth by the particulars or parts of the Church whose gouernment he would haue aunswerable to the vniuersal or whole Church If he mean only parishionall Churches as he needs must For there is no other visible Church indued with power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment in his conceit but a Parish Parishes no doubt may be proud of the comparison for then as some of them haue written in stately maner as Rome had her Senate Lacedaemon her Seigniorie Athens her Areopage Ierusalem her Synedrion Venice which our Refuter addeth her councell of State and lastly which exceedeth all as the vniuersall Church hath her Oecumenicall synode so the Church of euery Parish in euery street and in euery hamlet must haue an Ecclesiasticall senate But what parts soeuer he vnderstand whether Parishionall Nationall or Diocesan Churches the proposition is vntrue for of Prouinciall or Nationall Churches the Metropolitans and Bishops of dioceses are and ought to be the gouernors But howsoeuer in that respect the forme of gouernment may seeme to be Monarchicall yet in respect of the maner of gouerning the Metropolis vsing the aduise of the Nationall or Prouinciall synodes the Bishop of his Presbyterie they may be Aristocraticall Who knoweth not that the common wealth of Rome somtimes was popular and likewise that of Athens for it is an errour of the Refuter to reckon Athens with Venice as an example of Aristocracie yet the seuerall prouinces were ruled by seuerall gouernours as Propraetors and Proconsuls The gouernment of this whole Island blessed be God for vniting the two Kingdomes in the person of our Soueraigne is Monarchicall yet the gouernment of seuerall parts by Counsels and Presidents thereof may seem so far Aristocraticall The gouernment of the whole Church in Heauen and earth is Monarchicall vnder one head and Monarch which is Christ our King And for the gouernment of the whole Church vpon earth he hath no Vicar generall but the holie Ghost who appointeth gouernors vnder him which may gouerne the seuerall parts of the Church in some respect monarchically though the whole Church by the mutuall consociation of her gouernours for the common good and by the concurrence of them to an Occumenicall synode is gouerned Aristocratically for the whole Church beeing but one bodie there ought to be a Christian consociation of the gouernors thereof for the common good of the whole bodie If among the Princes of the whole world there were the like consociation the vniuersall world should be gouerned in that respect Aristocratically though the seuerall parts for the most part Monarchically So much of the proposition The assumption he prooueth by the testimonies of our writers against the Papists with whom himselfe and his copartners do not agree For first when they say that the regiment of the whole Church is Aristocraticall they meane in respect of the gouernors of the seuerall Churches who as being seuered rule their Churches seuerally there being no one visible Monarch ouer all so being congregated in an Oecumenicall Synode do make one Ecclesiasticall Senate But our new Disciplinarians doe hold that euery parish is an entire body by it selfe hauing within it selfe for the gouernment of it selfe sufficient authority vnsubordinate and independent and therfore do not acknowledge any lawful authoritie in Synodes to define determine or commaund but onely to deliberat and aduise as H. I. in his booke vrging reformation and other the Christian and modest challengers of disputation together with the humble petitioners suing for a toleration do teach Secondly Our writers hold the gouernment of the Church
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
the cause But yet what shall these witnesses testifie forsooth two things First that in the Apostles times BB. and ministers were all one whereunto in the first place I answere that this deposition is not to the purpose In this argument I speake of what was in the first three hundred yeeres after Christ and his Apostles but he will make his witnesses to depose what was in the Apostles times perhaps he will say the conscience must build it selfe vpon the practise of the Apostles times but say I in this reason I proue that the Episcopall gouernment was in vse in the Apostles times because it was generally and perpetually vsed in the next three hundred yeeres after the Apostles times which consequence himselfe hath granted â—gainst the assumption therefore he should bring his witnesses if they had any thing to say and not to be so absurd as by them to deny my conclusion againe the Ancients that say BB. and Presbiters were all one in the Apostles times speake of that part of their time when as in the most places there were no BB. or at least not chosen from among the Presbiters for before there were such BB. the same persons indeed were called Episcopi Presbyteri but when BB. were chosen out of the Presbiters which they also confesse was done in the Apostles time as namely at Alexandria they professe that then those which were so chosen and placed in a higher degree aboue the Presbiters began to be called BB. The other thing which he will haue his witnesses testifie is that in the Apostles times one Minister did not exercise authority aboue another as BB. since haue done to which assertion I am sure no sound writer will depose for I pray you were not the Apostles ministers were not Timothie and Titus ministers were they not also superiour to other ministers did they not exercise authoritie ouer them If Timothie therefore and Titus were superiour to other ministers and exercised authoritie ouer them why may not BB. who succeed not onely them whether they were BB. or not but also the Apostles in the gouernment of the Church be superiour also to other ministers and exercise authoritie ouer them But come we to his witnesses whereof he would seeme to haue great store howbeit he will content himselfe with a few and he will passe by Ignatius Iustin Martyr and Tertullian as hauing done their seruice already â—et the reader vnderstand that this is a most vaine flourish for he is not able to produce any one testimonie out of any one of the Councils Histories or Fathers that speaketh against the gouernment of the BB. in the first three hundred yeeres in respect either facti or iuris that is as either denying that the Church was so gouerned then or that it ought to haue beene so gouerned And as for Ignatius Iustin Martyr Tertullian the greatest advantage he could haue by them was to vse their names for there is not a word in them sounding against the gouernment of BB. but pregnant testimonies for them especially in Ignatius and Tertullian whom I haue often quoted in this cause It is true that the refuter did alledge these Authors as witnesses to proue that fond and vnlearned conceipt that the ancient Churches were no other but Parishes to proue that which is more fond that there is and ought to be no other visible Churches indued with power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment but Parishes But the vanitie of his conceipt and the weakenesse of his allegations haue I hope beene sufficiently layd open before in the defence of the second point Passing therefore by them the refuter will begin with Cyprian who affirmeth that the menaging of the Church busines euen in his dayes belonged to the Counsell of himselfe and the rest of the Presbyters omnium nostrûm concilium spectat and therefore durst not take it to himselfe alone praeiâ—dicare ego soli mihi reâ— omnem vendicare non audeo Here let the reader consider with me first the person of the witnesse which is produced and then the thing which is witnessed was not Cyprian himselfe not onely a Diocesan but also a Metropolitane B. did not he in iudgement allow the function of such BB. directly he saith that BB. are the successors of the Apostles and that they answere to the high Priest in the law that the Lord Iesus when he appointed Apostles ordained BB. The Deacons must remember saith he that the Lord himselfe chose Apostles that is BB. but Deacons were chosen by the Apostles themselues after the Ascension of the Lord as ministers of their Episcopall function and of the Church Doth not he teach that in one Church meaning a whole Diocese there may be but one B. that to set vp a second is to make a schisme and to rend in pieces the body of Christ doth he not often plead for the superioritie of BB. ouer the Presbiters shewing how they ought to reuerence and obey them and that the contrary is the source of all schisme Neither doe heresies saith he arise or schismes from any other beginning then this that the Priest of God meaning the B. is not obeyed neither one Priest for the time in the Church and one Iudge for the time in stead of Christ is acknowledged whom if the whole brotherhood according to Gods commandement would obey c. How oft doth he speake of the vigour of the Episcopall power and of the authoritie of his chaire whereby he acknowledgeth euen those of the Clergie might be either excommunicated or deposed Is it not likely therefore thinke you that Cyprian would testifie against the function or authoritie of BB. But let vs examine the allegation it selfe There were some in the Church of Carthage that had fallen by denying their faith in time of persecution and returning to the Church againe would in all hast be reconciled and receiued to the communion whereof some by their importunity preuailed with some of the Presbiters whom as I noted in the Sermon Cyprian being absent reprooued by letter that they not regarding their Bishop set ouer them nor the honour due to him nor reseruing to him the honour of his Episcopall office and his chaire had without his appointment though absent reconciled them and receiued them to the communion others procured the Martyrs and Confessors to write to Cyprian in their behalfe that when peace should be restored to the Church peace might vpon the examination of their cause be giuen to them Cyprian therefore writeth to the Martyrs commending them that whereas the Presbiters should haue taught them what appertained to the discipline of the Church they were to learne of these Martyrs to referre their petitions and desires to the B. and then willeth them to set downe in writing particularly whom they desired to be receiued he writeth also to the people signifying that he had receiued letters from the Martyrs in
61. Now I proceede to the second degree ascending to the Apostles times from whence in the second place I argue thus That gouernment which euen in the Apostles times was vsed in the Apostolicall Churches and was not contradicted by them was vndoubtedly of Apostolicall institution c. ad pag. 65. WHere I take this proposition for granted namely of the aduersaries he saith I reckon without mine host yet confesseth it to be true according to their opinion who hold there may be but one gouernment in the Church and that instituted by the Apostles which is the generall opinion of the Disciplinarians confessed in effect by himselfe Pag. 130. Yea but I say afterward in fauour of the Disciplinarians therein clawing a Churle according to the homely prouerbe as appeareth by this refuter that though the gouernment by BB. is the best yet we doubt not but where this may not be had others may be admitted neither doe we deny but that siluer is good though gold be better If therefore saith he there be diuers kindes of gouernment which may be admitted then might there be a gouernment in the Churches in the Apostles times not contradicted by them which yet was not of Apostolicall institution whereto I answere first that I did not say simply that other gouernments may be admitted besides that which was ordained by the Apostles but where that cannot be had But whiles the Apostles liued that which they ordayned might be had Againe if any in the Apostles times should of their owne heads haue altered the forme of gouernment established by them and consequently haue set vp a worse it cannot be thought that either the Apostles would haue allowed it or that all Churches would haue retayned that gouernment vvhich they had not receiued from the Apostles Besides it is incredible that in the Apostles times any forme of gouernment was vsed in the Apostolicall Churches but that which was ordayned by the Apostles and therefore the proposition is more then manifest Now followeth the assumption vvhereof are two parts the one that the gouernment by BB. was vsed euen in the Apostles times the other that it was not contradicted by them The former I proue by two arguments the one because the seauen Angels were in the Apostles times and they were BB. for the substance of their calling such as ours be and therefore such BB. were in the Apostles time Ere the refuter will answere to the matter of the assumption he propoundeth two things worthy his obseruation the one that I confine the number of the Angels to seauen which neither the text doth saith he nor himselfe euer did till now Did not I before obserue in the Sermon that there was but one Angell in each of the seauen Churches and doth not the text say that the seauen Starres are the Angels of the seauen Churches I haue spoken of this point before onely let the refuter call to mind this argument among the rest The text saith the Starres were seauen The text saith that the Angels be the Starres Therefore the text saith the Angels be seauen The other is that I shunne the terme Diocesan in which notwithstanding the whole question consisteth for no man doubteth that the gouernment was by BB. in the Apostles times seeing that both ministers and ruling Elders were called BB. doth he not speak against the light of his owne conscience when he saith I auoid the name Diocesan seeing in expresse termes I said they were for the substance of their calling such as ours be If I had onely said Diocesan he might haue excepted in behalfe of the learneder sort of Disciplinarians that they doubted not but that the Angels were superintendents of the City and countrey adioyning but all the question would they say is of the superiority whether they had a singular preheminence for terme of life a superiority in degree a maiority of power in respect of ordination and iurisdiction when as therefore I say that for the substance of their calling they were such BB. as ours are I doe say not onely that they were Diocesan but also that they were superiour to other ministers in degree c. But whence I pray you hath the refuter this confidence so boldly to affirme that their ruling Elders were called BB. Caluin and M. Trauers c. confesse that BB. signifie onely preaching Elders and are your Lay-elders now become BB the people may haue ioy of such guides that cease not to broach such fansies After he hath played a little vvith the assumption hee plainely denieth it what thinke you saith he M. D. bringeth to proue it Nothing saith the refuter but that which hath already beene answeared if that were true yet that nothing is more then the refuter will euer be able to disproue and that is this that the seauen Angels were BB. all doe confesse that they were such BB. as ours be for the substance of their calling I proued in the first foure points of the Sermon yea but saith he I haue proued that for the substance of their calling they were but ordinarie ministers let the reader therefore in Gods name iudge secundum allegata probata according to the euidence which hath beene brought on both sides and where he saith I quickely haue done with the scriptures because they indeed afford but slender shew c. I answere first that I had no reason to insist longer in this proofe vnlesse I would haue repeated the former part of the Sermon againe was it not sufficient to referre them to the former part where this point was professedly handled neither is he ignorant but that in demonstration of the latter part of the assumption I bring other proofes out of the scripture But faine he would disgrace our cause with the reader as though we had no proofes in scripture which ill becommeth him that hath not one sillable in the scriptures or other monuments of antiquity to proue their Presbiterian discipline But it is vntrue that I bring nothing to proue the assumption but what was before answered For I bring two other arguments to proue that these seauen Angels were such BB. The former though this great analyser either did not or would not see it that two of these Angels were Polycarpus and Onesimus Polycarpus the B. of Smyrna and Onesimus the B. of Ephesus and what is said of two is to be vnderstood of the rest That Polycarpe was in these times the B. of Smyrna I proued by the testimonie of the Church of Smyrna testifying that he had beene the B. of the Catholicke Church in Smyrna And of Bullinger who noteth that Polycarpe had beene B. of Smyrna thirteene yeares before the reuelation was giuen and so continued for many yeares after Whereunto may be added those authenticall testimonies which after are alledged that he was made B. of Smyrna by S. Iohn That Onesimus was B. of Ephesus at this time I proue by the testimonie of
Ignatius who liued at the same time who in his Epistle to the Ephesians mentioneth their B. Onesimus The latter argument prouing that these seauen Angels were BB. is because from them all a succession of BB. was continued in those seauen Churches to the Councill of Nice and afterwards for to omit that the auncient BB. of these Churches are sometimes occasionally mentioned as Polycrates of Ephesus Thraseas of Smyrna Melito of Sardes c. it is euident that the Bishops of these Churches subscribed to diuerse of the ancient Councils as to the councill of Nice Menophantes B. of Ephesus Eutychius of Smyrna Artemidorus of Sardes Thomasion of Philadelphia Serras of Thyatira Nunechius of Laodicea to the Council of Chalcedon Stephanus of Ephesus Aethericus of Smyrna Eutropius of Pergamus Helladius of Thyatira Florentius of Sardes Megalus of Philadelphia Nunechius of Laodicea To this argument the Refuter answereth nothing in particular With these two arguments the refuter ioyneth that which I propounded Pag. 63. concerning the succession of Bishops in some Churches within the Apostles times being indcede the second argument whereby I proued the assumption that in the Apostles times were BB. To all these he answereth first ioyntly and then cauilleth with some of them seuerally His ioynt answere to them all I reserue vntill I come to that second argument The Epistle of Smyrna which himselfe heretofore alledged as authenticall being now alledged by me so hard is my hap is growne suspitious and why I pray you for the Refuter trauailed of a point of learning which he desired to be deliuered of Forsooth because it vseth the word Catholicke which is not to be found in any of the Epistles of Polycarpus or Ignatius nor seemeth to haue beene in vse vntill the end of the second age Clemens Alexandrinus I thinke is the ancientest in whom it can be found How many Epistles of Polycarpus this Refuter hath read I know not for my part I haue seene no more but his Epistle to the Philippians Indeede Suidas who noteth him to haue beene the Disciple of S. Iohn and the successor of Bucolus who was the first B. of Smyrna saith he wrote an Epistle to Dionysius the Areopagite and to other Churches which Epistles if the Refuter haue he should doe well to communicate them if not how can he tell that the word Catholicke was not vsed in them But to the point was not the Creed of the Apostles as ancient as this Epistle which writeth of the martyrdome of Polycarpe who was put to death in the seauenth of Aurelius Antonius about the yeare one hundred sixtie and nine and yet that mentioneth the Catholicke Church Againe vvas not this a high point of learning to suspect this Epistle to be counterfait because it vseth a word which hee confesseth is vsed by Clemens Alexandrinus who liued at the same time though wrote not perhaps more then twentie yeares after Where I proued that Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians or at least that testimonie which I cited concerning Onesimus their Bishop not to be counterfait because Eusâ—bius mentioneth that Epistle and those words he saith this argument is none of the sufficientest but I alwaies thought if Ignatius his Epistles were counterfaited that this happened to them since Eusebius time It sufficeth me that the testimonie which I alledged vvas not in Eusebius his time who liued vvithin two hundred yeares after Ignatius suspected as counterfait For if Eusebius and those in his time knew no cause to suspect that Epistle I know no reason besides his owne suspiciousnesse vvhy the Refuter should suspect it The second argument whereby I proue the former assumption is this that it is with great consent testified by Authors of best credit in the Church of God that in the Apostles times reckoning vntill the death of S. Iohn that is to the yeere of our Lord one hundred and one there were not onely BB. but also a succession of BB. in diuerse Churches as at Rome Linus Anacletus Clemens Euaristus at Ierusalem Iames the iust and Simeon the sonne of Cleophas at Antioch Evodius and Ignatius at Alexandria S. Marke Anianus Abilius Cerdo hereto he saith that he hath formerly shewen that if not all yet the most of these witnesses doe affirme that those BB. were ordinary ministers without any such supreame power he ought to say if he would leaue his calumniating superiority in the power of ordination and iurisdiction But this is one of his vsuall bragges vttered with what conscience I know not for what one of these hath he or what one among all the ancient Writers can he bring to make good his assertion Now the answere which he maketh to these arguments ioyntly is that the seauen Angels and these Bishops whereof there were as I said successions in the Apostles times were Bishops indeed no meruaile for so were the lay Elders but not Diocesan for what though long after the Apostles times they were so doth it follow thereupon that therefore they were so in their times If euer there had beene within the compasse of a Diocesse more Bishops then one at once since the Apostles times or if it could be truly alledged that the circuit of the Bishops charge was enlarged from a Parish to a Diocesse then were there some colour for this exception but these conceipts I haue disproued heretofore and therefore doubt not most confidently to conclude that if the successors of these seauen Bishops or of the others whom I named as hauing beene Bishops in the Apostles times were in the end of three hundred yeares Diocesan Bishops then were their first antecessors such Neither is his example of the Duke of Venice to the purpose vnlesse hee could proue that the latter Bishops within the first three hundred yeares had vsurped or vsed as they were Diocesans a greater and larger authoritie then had belonged to their Predecessors The latter part of the assumption remaineth to be proued where I said that the Bishops were not contradicted by the Apostles but approued by them Hee obiecteth that this proofe is needlesse seeing the Bishops were such as he fansieth but till he can disproue the former part of my Sermon and of this Treatise hee must giue the Reader leaue to thinke they were such as they haue beene manifestly proued to be but this needlesse accusation being commonly vsed by the Refuter against such passages of my Sermon as are most materiall maketh me conceiue there is somewhat in this point that hee could wish had beene spared or at least whereabout he meaneth to spare his answere That this passage was not needlesse but very materiall appeareth hereby For if I had onely said that BB. had beene in the Apostles times and therefore were of their institution it might haue beene obiected that there were abuses crept into the Churches in the Apostles time whereof notwithstanding the Apostles were not Authors wherefore in this place
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
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
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
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
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
as well say that as one Presbyter in euery parish is superiour to the rest according to their conceipt so one Pastor which is the Bishop in euerie diocese is superiour to the other Pastors c. But indeed the superioritie of Bishops is so far from breeding the Papacy as the cause or originall that it was not so much as any direct occasion thereof Yea so farre vvas it from breeding the oecumenicall B. of the whole world that it did not breed the Patriarckeship in the maine parts of the world nor yet the superioritie of the Metropolitanes in the seuerall prouinces For the superioritie of Metropolitanes did arise as Beza supposeth from the very light of nature directing and force of necessitie vrging men to that course but as I rather thinke from the institution of the Apostles after whose times the first originall of them cannot be shewen For although actually they were not Primates till in the seuerall dioceses of the prouince Bishops were ordained yet the euent plainely sheweth it was from the beginning intended that the Bishop of the mother citie should be the chiefe in the prouince And you haue heard before how in the Apostles times Ignatius the B. of Antioch was the Metropolitane B. of Syria and in the age following Philippe the Metropolitane B of Creet and Irenaeus the B. of Lyons was the Metropolitane of the churches in France And although not long after the Patriarches were acknowledged and in the councill of Nice established in a godly policie as Caluin Beza and Zanchius confesse yet neither did the superioritie of Bishops breede them nor they the Papacy The true originall of the superioritie of Bishops Metropolitanes and Patriarches in their circuites was the patterne of ciuill gouernment in the Romane Empire diuided into certaine precinâ—ts which the Church did follow Whereas therefore to each citie the countrey adioyning was subiect the Apostles first placed Bishops in the cities committing to their charge not only the citie but countrey subiect to it which wee call a Diocese wherein from the beginning there was neuer more lawfully then one B. and whereas in euery prouince wherein were many Cities there was one Metropolis or mother citie where the ruler of that prouince was seated in like manner so soone as Bishops were placed in the seuerall cities they acknowledged the B. of their mother citie their primate and chiefe B. of the Prouince And as the whole Empire was diuided among certaine gouernours who were called praefecti praetorio whereof one was placed in Rome hauing the gouernment of Italy Affricke and part of Illyricum A second in Alexandria hauing the rule of Egypt Lybia Pentapolis c. A third at Antioch ruling Syria and other countreyes of the East A fourth in France gouerning France Germanie Spaine and Britaine so the diuers prouinces subiect to the praefecti praetorio at least the three former were subiected to the Bishops of the same sees who afterwards were called Patriarches whose Patriarchal authoritie was ratified in the Councill of Nice to wit that according to the auncient custome the B. of Rome should haue the care sub vrbicarum prouinciarum as Ruffinus reporteth that Canon that is as I suppose of the prouinces belonging to that pretorian prefecture that the B. of Alexandria should haue the gouernment of Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis and the B. of Antioch the regiment of Syria and other countreyes in the East After Constantinople was built and made the seat of the Empire diuers countreyes were subiect to the prefecture and consequently to the Bishopricke thereof Neither as I said did the superioritie of Patriarches though perhaps larger then was absolutely needfull because the Ecclesiasticall causes of euery prouince might be sufficiently determined in the prouincial Synodes notwithstanding I say it did not breede the Popes supremacie Which did arise from another occasion which was this The Bishop of Constantinople considering that the Churches of Alexandria and Antioch had that prerogatiue which they had because they were seates of praefecti praetorio and Rome because it had beene the seate not onely of the praefectus but of the Emperour himselfe though at that time in respect of ciuill gouernment it were subiect to the Exarch of Rauenna for which cause the Archbishop of Rauenna contended with the B. of Rome for the superioritie and with all remembring that Constantinople vvas the seate of the Empire contended therefore that as the Emperour who had his seate at Constantinople was the Monarch of the world so himselfe might be acknowledged the vniuersall B. or oecumenicall Patriarch The which ambition though it were condemned by Gregorie the B. of Rome as Antichristian for there is no vniuersall B. or head of the whole Church but Christ yet his successor Boniface the third did imitate and exceede Alledging that Rome whereof hee was Bishop was the ancient seate of the Empire and that the Emperour though hee remained at Constantinople yet hee was the Romane Emperour At length with much a doe and contention obtained of the Emperour Phocas not only that he should be called an Oecumenicall Patriarch for that title the B. of Constantinople hauing once vsurped enioyed it as well as hee and doth retayne it to this day but that his See should be head of all Churches And this was the true originall of the Popes supremacie Serm sect 12. pag. 89. Secondly they vrge Ieromes inference in that place Presbyters at the first ruled the Church by common counsell therefore the BB. and they ought to rule the Church in common still The refuter denyeth this inference to be Ieromes or that any hath vrged such an inference from him When indeed the inference plainely is Ieromes and is that which among all their obiections is to best purpose obiected by the Disciplinarians Ierome had said before that in the writings of the Apostles Episcopus and Presbyter is all one and that before factions did arise by the instinct of the Diuell some saying I am of Paul c. the Churches were gouerned by the common counsell of Presbyters c. Of those speeches when hee had made a briefe recitall haecpropterea c. he maketh an inference to this effect that for as much as Episcopus and Presbyter were all one at the first therefore both Presbyters should know themselues to be subiect to the B. and BB superiour to the Presbyters by the custome of the Church c. And for as much as at the first the churches were gouerned by the common councell of the Presbyters as vnder the Apostles that therefore the B. being set ouer the Presbyters should not altogether exclude them but should in communi EcclesiaÌ„ regere rule the church in common imitating Moses who when hee had in his power to rule the people of Israel alone chose seauenty with whom he might iudge the people Which obiection being better then any the refuter hath made in this booke I will not let it passe without some
and Presbyter were at the first all one yet professeth that the safety of the Church dependeth vpon the dignity of the Bishop c. Hauing passed by these two hee professeth to begin with Wickliffe whom hee would faine haue the Reader beleeue to haue beene a Marprelate or an oppugner of the superiority of Bishops But howsoeuer either Papists through malice or Protestants for want of information haue in some points so conceiued of him of both which sorts the refuter quoteth some yet those who haue perused his writings protest that not onely for doctrine but also for discipline hee was wholy conformable to the present Church of England approuing the gouernment of Archbishops Bishops and Archdeacons c. And whereas the Rhemists obiect against Wickliffe that he had renued the heresie of Aerius D. Fulke answereth thus It appeareth by many places of Wickliffe his works and namely in his Homily on Phil. 1. that he acknowledged the distinction of Bishops and Priests for order and gouernment although for doctrine and administration of the Sacraments they are all one Indeed in the booke of Martyrs where be eighteene articles obiected against Wickliffe though neither the twelfth article which the Refuter mentioneth nor that which Pighius obiecteth against him is contayned in that number the which articles he explaneth Among which the fifteenth is this that euery Priest rightly and duely ordered according to the law of grace hath power according to his vocation whereby he may minister the Sacraments and consequently absolue any man confessing his fault being contrite and penitent for the same Which article when he came to expound hee gaue this reason because that the order of Priesthood in his owne nature and substance receiueth no such degrees either of more or lesse And yet notwithstanding the power of inferiour Priests in these dayes be vpon due consideration restrayned and sometimes againe in time of extreame necessitie released And thus according to the Doctors a Prelate hath a double power to wit the power of order and the power of Iurisdiction or regiment And according to the second power the Prelates are in an higher maiestie and regiment Thus haue I recited word for word what is set downe in the booke of Martyrs the words whereof the Refuter depraueth making Wickliffe to say the order of Priesthood receiueth no degrees of more or lesse howsoeuer the Doctors say that the Prelate hath a double power c. Whereby he would make the Reader beleeue that he differed from those Doctors with whom he doth agree affirming as many others haue done who notwithstanding allowed of the superiority of Bishops that in the power of order all Priests are equall though Bishops haue also the power of Iurisdiction wherein they are superiour to other Priests To the same purpose is alledged his assertion of two orders Priests and Deacons which the Papists themselues holde diuiding Priests â—nto Maiores which be Bishops and Minores which be Presbyters Why he quoteth Bales centuries I know not vnlesse it were to shew his more exquisite reading then other mens hauing belike read there something concerning this cause which no man else is able to read or to finde But I had almost forgotten his first allegation which the Refuter pretending such plenty might well haue omitted as impertinent For though he enuied against the excessiue lordlinesse and tirannicall domination of the Popish Bishops Yet doth it not proue that he was an enemie to the superiority of Bishops or the substance of their calling And whereas with Wickliffe hee ioyneth the Waldenses whose opinion he doth not cite but by the report of Pighius it is euident by the booke of Martyrs in their story that they acknowledged these three degrees Bishops Priests and Deacons Artic. 7. And therefore is vntruly layd to their charge by Aeneas Syluius that they held no difference of degrees among Priests vnlesse perhaps by Priests be meant Bishops The next is Iohn Hus saith the Refuter who was charged by the Pope and his officers to erre First in that he held not nor allowed that by the Church was meant the Pope Cardinals Archbishops and Clergie vnderneath them but affirmed that signification to be drawne out of the Schoole-men Secondly that he auouched all Priests to be of like power and therefore the reseruation of the Bishops casualties order of Bishops and consecration of Clerks was inuented onely for couetousnesse Thirdly that he held that euery man hath authority to inuest men into the cure of soules Whereto I answere first that these articles were indeed exhibited against him to the Pope by Michael de Causis but I doe not read that either he acknowledged them to be true or that he was condemned for them Secondly in the book of Martyrs and also in his Story prefixed before his works it is said that of the articles which were obiected against him there were but a few which he acknowledged to be true This therefore is the refuters argument Iohn Hus was accused by his malicious aduersaries who made no conscience of accusing him falsly that hee held all these articles therefore all these were his opinions But if it be sufficient to accuse as the Emperour said who can be innocent the godlyest Martyrs neuer wanted accusers whom if the refuter should therfore pronounce guilty of those matters whereof they were accused he should shew himselfe a wise man But so he dealeth with Iohn Hus he was accused of these opinions therefore he held them Wherfore he must either proue that Hus did acknowledge them to be true or else what doth hee but subscribe to the accusations of his malicious accusers against him But suppose the first of these three were his what will the refuter inferre thereof he did not hold nor allowe that by the Church was meant the Pope Cardinalls Archbishops and Clergie vnderneath them therefore hee did not allowe the calling of Orthodoxall Bishops Michael de Causis his accuser for this article quoteth his booke de Ecclesia where I finde this assertion by the allegation whereof you may guesse how he was vsed in the rest that the Pope of Rome with his Cardinalls is not the whole body of the vniuersall Church but a part and that the Pope is not the head thereof but Christ. The which assertion hee opposeth against the sayings of some Doctors who held first that the Romane Church is the Church vniuersall that of the Church of Rome the Pope is the head and the colledge of Cardinalls the body Which assertion if you shall compare with his aduersaries allegation and apply to the refuters purpose you shall perceiue the malice of the one and folly of the other For the second article his accuser doth not quote any of his bookes but saith thus aliqualiter patet iste articulus ex praedictis this article after a sort may be gathered out of the precedent articles wherein there is
no such matter contayned The third he proueth by Husses fact because in the kingdome of Boheme many by him and his fauourers and abetters haue beene thrust into Parish Churches which they a good while ruled without the institution of the See Apostolicke and also of the ordinary of the City of Prage Whether Hus did this or no it is questionable but if there had beene Orthodoxall Bishops by whose authority faithfull Ministers might haue beene instituted without question he would neuer haue attempted any such enterprise But hee held the Popish Clergy to be Antichristian and therefore did as he did Otherwise for the function it selfe of Bishops he saith plainely more then once that the rest of the Apostles had equall honour and power with Peter and that when they deceased the Bishops did succeede in their place And that all Bishops of Christs Church following Christ in manners are the true Vicars of the Apostles And out of Ierome that all Bishops are the Apostles successours And approueth that saying of Bede as no man doubteth but the twelue Apostles did premonstrate the forme of Bishops So the seauenty two did beare the figure of the Presbyters and second order of Priests And thus much of Iohn Hus to whom the refuter ioyneth Ierome of Prage who iustifieth the doctrine of Wickliffe and Hus against the pompe and state of the Clergie Which if he had done he had spoken neuer a word in disallowance of the Episcopall function But that word state is foisted in by the refuter who alledgeth almost nothing truely His words were these whatsoeuer things M. Iohn Hus and Wickliffe had holden or written specially against the abuse and pompe of the Clergy he would affirme euen vnto the death And againe that all such articles as Iohn Wickliffe and Iohn Hus had written and put forth against the enormities pomp and disorder of the Prelates he would firmely hold and defend And persisting still in the praise of Iohn Hus hee added moreouer that hee neuer maintayned any doctrine against the state of the Church but onely spake against the abuses of the Clergy against the pride pompe and excesse of the Prelates For it was a greife to that good man saith he to see the Patrimonies of Churches mispent and cast away vpon harlots great feastings and keeping of horses and dogges vpon gorgeous apparrell and such other things vnbeseeming Christian religion And againe I take God to my witnesse that I doe beleiue and hold all the articles of the faith as the holy Catholicke Church doth hold and beleiue the same but for this cause shall I now be condemned for that I will not consent with you vnto the condemnation of those most holy and blessed men aforesaid vvhom you haue most wickedly condemned for certaine articles detesting and abhorring your wicked and abhominable life Whereby it is apparant that both hee and they did not speake against the function or calling of Bishops but against the personall abuses and enormities of the Popish Bishops which none but a viperous broode would apply to the persons of our Bishops and much lesse against their sacred function After them ariseth Martin Luther saith the refuter whose sayings hee quoteth in his booke against Popish Bishops of priuate Masse and against the Papacie c. But for the first of these Luther himselfe hath giuen vs this caueat Let no man thinke that what is spoken against these tyrants is spoken against the Ecclesiasticall state and true Bishops or good Pastors Let no man thinke that what is said or done against these sluggish beasts and slowe bellies is said or done against the heads of the Christian Church And howsoeuer in the heate of his zeale against these Antichristian Bishops hee vttered some things vvhich seeme preiudiciall to the calling yet you haue heard it testified before by sufficient vvitnesses that in his iudgement hee allowed the gouernment of Bishoppes Whereunto adde the testimony of Camerarius that Melancthon non modò ad stipulatore sed etiam authore ipso Luthero not onely by the consent but aduise of Luther perswaded that if Bishops would grant free vse of the true doctrine the ordinary power and administration ouer their seuerall Dioceses should be restored vnto them The like may be said of Zuinglius For he that professeth as Zuinglius doth in the booke before cited that Iames was B. of Ierusalem Philippe of Caesarea Timothie of Ephesus cannot lightly speake against the Episcopall function it selfe If he speake against the Popish Clergy for arrogating the name Church to themselues what is that to the purpose or if he affirme that euery seuerall congregation according to the phrase of the Scriptures is a Church who denieth it or if hee inueigh against the sole and supreme power of Bishops whom doth this touch but the Pope Oecolampadius might be of opinion that the Church was gouerned by onely gouerning-Elders and perswade the Senate of Basill who had no Bishop that such may be chosen to assist their Pastor and yet notwithstanding not disallowe the gouernment of Bishops Caluin Zanchius and other learned men haue said and done as much who notwithstanding approued the Episcopall function And as Melancthon was of Ieromes iudgement that Bishop and Presbyter at the first was all one so with Ierome he doth allowe the superiority of Bishops and where the Episcopall gouernment was ouerthrowne he sought to restore it as you haue heard before and did restore it as may appeare by these testimonies You will not beleeue saith he writing to Luther how greatly they of Noricum and some others doe hate me propter restitutam Episcopis iurisdictionem for restoring the iurisdiction to Bishops Againe some are wonderfully angry with me because I seeme to restore the dominion of Bishops Camerarius also reporteth how inhumanely some accused Philip for maintaining of Bishops c. Where hee alleadgeth Master Tindall affirming that in the Apostles times an Elder and a Bishop were all one c he doth but play with names which no man denyeth to haue been confounded so he saith all that were called Elders or Priests if they so wel were called BB. also though they haue diuided the names now Yea but in his booke of the obedience of a Christian man he saith that a B. is the ouerseer but of a parish and is to preach the word of God vnto a parish and for the same to chalenge an honest liuing of the parish This allegation the refuter hath notably wrenched For Tindals words be these by the authoritie of the Gospell they that preach the word of God in euery parish and performe other necessary ministeries haue right to chalenge an honest liuing For Tindall speaketh of such a B. as was but a Presbyter and saith that hee which preached the word in euery Parish should haue an honest liuing the refuter citeth him as saying that a B.
is but an ouerseer of a Parish c. In the next place he citeth Viret as pleading for a popular state in euery church wherein if the allegation be true he is singular hauing neither the iudgement of any other sound Diuine nor practise of any reformed Church that I know of No not of Geneua it selfe to second him For though the common wealth of Geneua be reduced to a popular state yet the gouernment of the church by their consistorie is Aristocraticall And though he passeth by as well he might Caluin and Beza Bucer Peter Martyr Bullinger Brentius Musculus whom he thought good to mention onely as fauourers of the pretended discipline yet neither any of these nor any other moderate and iudicious Diuine doth condemne as our Presbyterians doe eyther the ancient gouernment by Bishops in the primitiue Church or the retayning thereof in reformed churches now as hath been shewed before But he is pleased to conclude with some of our own writers and Martyrs And first with Francis Lambard who is alledged as saying that a B. and preacher a church and a parish is all one that euery parish should haue right to choose their Pastour and which is a very vnaduised speech if it be truely alledged to depose him if he proue vnworthy but not as disallowing the gouernment of the church by orthodoxal BB. eyther now or in the Primitiue church which was the point to be proued And the like is to be said of Iohn Lambart c. As for Bradford whom hee citeth as holding that the Scripture knoweth no difference betwixt a B. and a minister meaning that the names were confounded and that nothing is to be gotten by the succession of Popish BB. as minister not but Lord it yet nothing can be alleadged out of him to proue that he disalloweth the gouernment of orthodoxal Bishops But it is strange that he should alleadge B. Hooper and B. Bale as disallowing in their iudgement the superioritie of BB. which they allowed in their practise But all that is said out of B. Hooper is eyther that BB. were not till Siluesters or Constantines time such as they are now which is true in respect of their outward estate which by the peace and prosperitie of the Church was much increased but is not to be vnderstood in respect of the substance of their calling or that excommunication should not be vsed by the B. alone which is little or nothing to the present purpose as if hee must needs disallow the Episcopall function vvho vvould not haue the Bishop to excommunicate alone B. Bale vnderstandeth by the names of blasphemie written on the heads of the beast Apoc. 13. the titles of Popish offices which he saith are vsurped and not appointed by the holy Ghost among which when he reckoneth Metropolitanes Diocesans Parsons Vicars and Doctors he cannot be vnderstood as speaking of these offices in the true church but as they are members of Antichrist For what is the office of a Parson but of a Pastour c. And that this vvas his meaning appeareth by the other allegation wherein besides the titles and offices of the Popish hierarchy among whom he reckoneth BB. Doctors Priests he addeth temporall gouernors also as Emperours Kings Princes Dukes Earles Lords Iustices Deputies Iudges Lawyers Mayors Baylifes Constables c. leauing their owne duetie offices as to minister rightly to serue their abhomination After these for want of better proofes hee alleadgeth the testimonie of the English men which were at Geneua in Queene Maries time and were the first authors of this contention for the pretended discipline among vs to whose testimonie in their owne cause that they present to vs the forme of a Church limited within the compasse of Gods word what should I answere but that they haue often said but neuer will be able to proue that their discipline is prescribed in Gods word Lastly he alleadgeth M. Foxe whose testimonie though in vaine I sought in three seuerall editions yet his iudgement is apparant by that which may easily be found Hee therefore saith according to the refuters allegation that in the Primitiue Church there was not then any one mother Church such as the church of Rome now pretendeth her selfe to be aboue other Churches but the whole vniuersall Church was the mother Church vnder which vniuersall Church in generall were comprehended all other particular Churches in speciall hee meaneth the Churches of seuerall countreyes and Prouinces as sister Churches together not one greater then another but all in like aequalitie What will hee hence conclude that therefore there were no BB. nor Archbishops Not so But that therefore as the Diocesan churches were equall so were the BB. and as the Metropolitane churches were equal so the Archbb. Heare Mr. Foxe himselfe where he debateth this question If they say there must needs be distinction of degrees in the church and in this distinction of degrees superioritie must necessarily be granted for the outward discipline of the church for directing matters for quieting of schismes for setting orders for coÌ„mencing of Conuocations Councils as need shal require c. Against this superioritie we stand not and therefore we yeeld to our superiour powers Kings and Princes our due obedience and to our lawfull gouernours vnder God of both regiments Ecclesiasticall and Temporall Also in the Ecclesiasticall state we take not away the distinction of ordinarie degrees such as by the scripture be appointed or by the Primitiue Church allowed As Patriarkes or Archbb. BB. Ministers and Deacons for of these foure we especially reade as chiefe In which foure degrees as we grant diuersitie of office so we admit in the same also diuersitie of dignitie neither denying that which is due to each degree neither yet maintaining the ambition of any singular person For as we giue to the Minister place aboue the Deacon to the B aboue the Minister to the Archbishop aboue the B. so wee see no cause of inequalitie why one Minister should be aboue another minister one Bishop in his degree aboue another B. to deale in his Diocese or one Archbb. aboue another Archbishop And this is to keepe an order duely and truely in the church c. Here then is the question betweene vs and the Papists whether the Metropolitane church of Rome with the Archbb. of the same ought to be preferred before other Metropolitane churches and Archbb through vniuersall Christendome or not And thus I haue examined his testimonies which if you shall compare with those whereunto in the Sermon I referred the reader you wil acknowledge that he had little cause either to accuse my speech of vntruth or to iustle out the Surueyours testimonies with his own as though they had not beene worthy to haue been heard in comparison of his Wheras indeed if there had been no more testimonies alleadged then of the authors of the Augustane conâ—ession and the subscribers therunto whom I especialy ment being the men
gregario numero c. Cùm ecclesia distituitur à clero g Can. Apost 2.11 12. c. h Oecum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i Ad Nepotianum §. 13. Presbyters and Deaconâ— in our Refuters conceit of the Clergy but not of the ministery The testimonie of the Councell of Chalcedon k Pag. 77. l Acts 4.5.6.9 m Euagr. hist. lib. 2. cap. 2. n Ph. Nâ—mâ—can tit 9. c 11. o Balsam in Conc. Chalc. c. 29. p Act. Concil Chalced. de Photio Eustathis episcopis q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 §. 15. The testimony of Ierome u Ad EuagriuÌ„ 2. Iohn 1. 3. Iohn 1. * Prooem in Matthaeum a Ad EuagriuÌ„ §. 16. Another testimony of Ierome The like he hath ad Nepotian Quod Aaron filios eius hâ—c episcopum Presbyteros esse nouerimus Can. Apost 1. 2. d Possidon in vita Augustini e Con. Sard. c. 10. f Lib. 4. c 18. Ad pag. 89. g Lib. 1. cap. 2. §. 17. h Lib. 4 cap. 4. l Lib. 1. cap. 2. §. 14 k Basil epist. 67. ad Ancyr professeth that the members of the Church are by the gouernment of the Bishop as it were of the soule vnited and knit together Whether the vnitie of ech Church depend vpon the vnity of the B. §. 3. Ad pag. 83. BB. superior in singularity of preeminence for terme of life Lay Presbyteries and parity of Ministers the two pillers of the new discipline a Epist Cornel. apud Euseb. lib. 6. c. 43. b Conc. Nic. cap. 8. c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 d Ruffin l. 10. c. 6. can 10. Conc. Cabilon ca. 4. e August epist. 110. Possidon in vita August c. 8. f In Phil. 1.1 g Lib. 3. ca. 3. h Vid Athan. cont Mess. i De pontif Rom. l. 1. c. 5. § 7. l Praefat. pag. 3. 5. m Cypr. l. 4. epist. 9. n Lib. 1. epist. 3. o Lib. 3. epist. 9. p Serm. 2 de zelo liuore Ad pag. 91. §. 8. Ad pag. 91. q Conâ— Luciferianos r Ad Euagr. s In Tit. 1. §. 9. §. 10. t Concil epist. apud Cypr. lib. 3. epist. 11. u Theod. lib. 2. cap. 11. * Soz l 4. c. 15. x Lib. 3. epist. 2. y Li. 4. Epist. 2. §. 11. a Epiph. haer 69. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 b Athanas. Ad solâ—t vitam agentes c Ruff. in hist. l. 1. c. 17. d Theodor. l. 2. c. 8. e Socr. l. 2. c. 23. f Euseb. de vit Const. l. 3. g Sozom. l 8. c. 15. h Socr. l. 6. c. 11. i Conc. Afric c. 21. Carth. grac. c. 54. Socr. l. 2 c. 23. k De regno Christi l. 2. c. 12 The BB. superioritie in power proued by the testimonie of Ierome Aduers Lucifer Ad Euagr. In Tit. 1. Aduers Lucifer §. 2. The refuters answer to the testimonie of Ierâ—â—e Lib. 2.529 Ad Euagr. § 3. a In Tit. 1â— b Conc. Afr. c. 22. Carth. graec c. 55. c Li 4. Epist. 9. d Lib. 3. Epist. 13. § 4. What the power is wherein BB. be superiour to other Ministers e Damas. epist. de Chorepiscop Hicronym de 7. ordin eccles et aduers. Lucifer Leo epist. BB. Aduers Lucifer §. 5. Ad pag. 92. BB. superiour in the power of ordination The 1. proofe My second proofe §. 7. Their obiection out of 1. Tim. 4 14. answered Ad pag. 93. a Pag. 129.252 §. 8. The former exposition of Presbyterium viz. that it may signifie the office of a Presbyter defended b 2. Tim. 4.13 c Anselm in 1. Tim. 4.14 d 2. Tim. 1.6 e Much is foisted in by the Refuter Caluin saith Non malè Ad pag. 49. §. 9. a Câ—lu Inâ—liâ— lib. 4. cap 3. in fine b Eâ—asm in 1. Tim. 4.14 c Ambros. in 1. Tim. 4. §. 10. The second exposition maketh not for the Disciplinarians d 2. Tim. 1.6 e Chrys. in 1. Tim. 4. f Ocâ—um in 1. Tim. 4. g Theophylact. in 1. Tim. 4. h Theodor. in 1. Tim. 4. i Can. Apost 1. 2. k Beza in 1. Tim. 4. l 1. Tim. 1.14 m 2. Tim. 1.6 n Conc. Carth. 4. c. 3. o In the booke of ordaining Priests it is appointed that the B. with the Priests present shall lay their hands on the head of him that is ordained § 11. p Calu. Instit. lib. 4. cap 3. § 16. Hoc posiremò habondum est filos pastoreâ— manus imposuisse Ministris q In 1. Tim. 3. Chrys. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Oâ—cum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The obiection out of Conc. Carth. 4. answered Ad pag 95. §. 13. Other arguments prouing the BB. right in ordaining a 2. Tim. 1.6 b Tit. 1.5 c 1. Tim. 5.22 d C. 2. e C. 9. f Afr. c. 22. Carth. graec c. 45. g Hispal 2. c. 6. h De Sacerd. i Possidon de vitae Aug. c. 4. k Soz l. 4. c. 24. l Conc. Carth. 4. c. 68.69 distinct 50. ex poeâ—itentib m Socr. l. 6. c. 23.14 §. 14. n Gregor mag l. 1. epist. 24. Sicut Euangelij 4. libros sic 4. concilia suscipere veneraâ—i mefâ—teor Dist. 15. c. sicut o Aâ—hana apol 2. in epist. â—resh diacon Mareot ad Curios Philagr praefect Aegypâ—i p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 q This seemeth to haue been the generall Councell of Sardica which was not two hundred fiftie yeeres after the Apostles times r Epist. Synod Alex. in Apol. 2. Athanas. s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 t Vid. Balsam in Coâ—c Sardâ—c c. 18.19 editionis Tilianae c. 20. u Constantinop â— c. 4. Graec. 6. Lâ—t Balsam in Conc. Const. 1. c 4. * Soz. l. 7 c. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 g Conc. Chalc. act 11. §. 15. Chorepiscopi forbidden to ordaine y Conc. Neecaes c. 13. z Which was before the Councill of Nice and was within little more then 200. yeares after the Apostles times a C. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c C. 10. d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 f Tit. 9. de Chorepiscop g Conc. Laod. c. 56. h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so it is in â—alsam and some manuscripts i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 k Damas. Epist 4. De Chorepiscop l Leo Epist. BB. m Hispal 2 c. 7. §. 16. The Canon of the Councill of Ciuill n Conc. Hispaâ— 2. c. 5. Dist. 23. c. 14. o See Cent. 7 51 2. p Conc. Arausican c. 29. §. 17. The testimonies of Epiphanius and Ierome Epiph. haeres 75. § 18. Epiphanius his reason defended a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 b Act. 7.8 §. 19. Ad pag. 96. Heres 75. 1. Cor. 1. §. 20. The testimonie of Ierome Ad Euagr. The Epistle of Ierome to Euâ—grius analysed §. 21. Of the power of order and iurisdiction a Bell. de Cler. l. 1. c. 15.
b Aduers Lucifer in TituÌ„ â— ad Euagr. de 7. Ordin Eccles. c 2 2â— q. 187.2 c. d Instruct. sacerd l. 1. c. 3. Whether BB. be superior to Presbyters in the power of order §. 23. e De pont RoÌ„ l. 4. c. 22. f De Sacram. ord l. 1. C. 3. g Aduers Lucifer h 2 2â— q. 40.4 supplem q 37.2 c. h 2 2â— q. 40.4 supplem q 37.2 c. i Suppl q. 40.5 k Bellarm. de Sacram. ord l. 1. c. 9. Hier. de 7. ord eccl acknowledgeth the order of BB. to be the seueÌ„th and the highest order §. 24. That BB. are superiour in the power of order n Bell. de pont R l. 1. c. 12. o 1. Tim. 4.14 2. Tim. 1.6 § 25. The power of ordination belongeth to the power of order Iust. l. 4. c. 14. § 20. Impositâ—onem manuum qua ecclesiae ministri in suum mannâ—â—uitiantur vt non inuitus patior vocari sacramentum â—tâ— inter ordinaria sacramenta sci quae in vsum totius ecclesiaâ— sunt instituta non numero c. 19 §. 31. Impositionem 〈◊〉 in veris legitimisque ordinationibus sacramentum esse concedo Ad pag. 97. §. 26. a Ambros. in Eph. 4. b Aug. quest â—x vet non test mixtim 4.101 c Cyp. l. 3. ep 17. d Conc. Carth. graec c. 43. Carth. 2. c. 4. Conc. Arausic c. 2. e Summa Angelica ordo §. 2. Apostolorum sucâ—â—ssorum â—orum â—st per manus imposâ—tionem donum spiritus sancti tradere Damas epist. de Chorepiscopis Tertull. de Bâ—ptismo Conc. Eliâ— c. 38. Hier. aduers Lucifer a Hier. in Tit. 1. b Lib. 3. epist. 10. f. c In 1. Tim. 5. â— d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignas ad Trall The authority of BB. shewed absolutely e C. Carth. grae c. 68. f Ignat. ad Trall g Contra Lucifer h Hier. 1. Esa. 60. i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 k Hier. in Psal. 44. l Aug. in Ps. 44 m L. 2. aduers. Parmen n Carth. gr c. 39. Afr. c. 35. o Lib. 1. epist. 3. p Conc. Antioch c. 9. q Constant. in Trullo c. 37. r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 eximiam ill 〈◊〉 pontificatus dignitatem s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 t De 7. ordinib Eccles. u Fabricae Dei praeest § 3. The iurisdiction of Bishops compared with that of Presbyters * C. 24. x Hieron ad Marcel aduers Montan. y Ir. l. 3. c. 3. § 4 The BB. authority in respect of the things of the Church a C. Ant. c. 24. b Ibid. c. 25. c Apol. 2. In respect of persons d Conc. Chalc. c. 4. e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 f Bals. in Conc. Carth. c 83. § 5. Their authoritie ouer the people Ad pag 98. g Socr. l. 7. c. 37. h Bellarm. de Pont. R. l. 4. cap. vlt. i Statut. anno Elizab. 1. § 6. Their authority ouer the clergy § 7. 1. Ouer the Presbyters of the Citie l Aduers Lucifer m Hier. in Ps. 44. in Esa. 60. n Ad Trall VVhat is a B. but he that holdeth all authority ouer all o Problem Perk. Ad pag. 99. p Ad Antioch §. 8. Another testimony of Ignatius q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r Ad Roman s Pref. to inform t Ignat. ad Heronem § 9. t The Councell of Sardica saith they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 subiect to the B. and ought to performe a sincere ministery vnto them c. 14. Theodor. hist. l. 5. c. 23. §. 10. The BB. did rule and direct the Presbyters a Conc. Agath c. 22. Tolet. 3. c. 20. b Carth. 4. c. 36. c Neocaes c. 13. d C. Agath c. 22. Ad pag. 100. §. 11. e § 10. §. 12. Presbyters might doe nothing with out the leaue or consent of the Bishop f Can. Apost 39. al 40. g Can Apost 34. aâ— 35. h Con. Antioc c. 9. i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Conc. Const. 1. c. 2. k Socr. hist. l. 5. c. 8. l Orig. lib. 7. c. de clericis m C. Chalc. c. 9. et 17. n Lib. 1. tit 4. de episcopali audientia §. 29. Sancâ—mus et Novell 123 c. 22. o Ius graecorom page 88. p Arelat 1. c. 19 q Ancyr c. 12. alias 13. I cite the Latine text because the Greeke seemeth to be defectiue r Toletan 1. c. 20. s Ad Magnes t Epist. 1. ad Iacob The Presbyters might not doe those things which belong to the power of order without authority from the B. As not baptize u Lib. de baptisme * Epist. Synod Nic. apud Soâ—r l. 1. c. 6. x Synod Nic. c. 8. y Epist. Synodi Ephes. ad synodum Pamphyl § 15. Ad pag. 101. a Aduers Lucifer b Conc. Carth. 4. c 36. §. 16. Presbyters might not administer the Communion without the Bishops license c Ad Smyrnens d Cypr. li. 3. ep 14.15.16 e Li. 3. epist. 1. f Cyprian testifieth when hee wrote the booke De duplici martyriâ— that it was about the year 240. and it is plaine that he was B. in Fabianus the B. of Rome his time who ended his life in the yeere 249. after hee had beene B. 14. yeeres § 17. The like is said of other ministeriall functions g Conc. Carth. 2. c. 9. h Gangr c. 6. i C. 30. aliâs 31. k Conc. Antioch c. 5. l Act 4. m Carth. graec c. 10. 11. n Ad Smyrn §. 18. The Bishops authoritie in correcting Presbyters o Li. 3. epist. 9. p Fungaris circa eum potestate honoris tui vt eum vel deponas vel abstineas q Aduers Vigilant ad Riparium r § 20. s Apoc. 2.2 t Apoc. 2.20 Ad. past 102. Tit. 1.5 u 1. Tim. 1.3.5.19.20.21.22.6.14 * Haeres 75. x Par in parem non habet imperium The Bishops authority ouer Presbyters hauing cures Ad Pag. 103. a Con. Lâ—od c. 56 alias 57. b Epist. de Chorepiscopis c Conc. Carth. Graet c. 31. Aquisgran c. 56. d Can. Apost 15. Con. Antioc c. 3. Constant. in Trul. c 17. Carth. 4. c. 27. e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 g C. Laod. c. 42. 41. §. 20. The B. iudge of the Presbyters h l. 1. Epist. 3. In their controuersies i Con. Carth. 4. c. 5â— k c. Chalc. c. 9. l c. Carth. grae c. 28 126. m C. Chalc. 9. n Cod. Iustin. de audien tia episcopali c. sancimus In causes criminall o Can. Apost 32. p Conc. Nic. c. 5. q C. Antioch c. 4. r Ibid. c. 6. s C. 12. t Sardic c. 13. u C. 14. * C. 4. x Carth. graec c. 9. Carth. 2. c. 7. y Carth. graec c. 10. Carth. 2. c. 8. z Afric c. 29. Carth. gr 63 c. 133.134 a Carth. 4 c. 55. b Ephes. c. 5. c C. 2. d Chalc. c. 23. e Act. 4. f Theod. l. 1. c. 2. g Socr. l. 6. c. 4. Sozom. l. 8. c. 3. h Euagr. l. 2. c.
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.
see what the refuter can obiect why our Sauiour writing to these seuen Churches should not vnder them comprise all the Churches in Asia Because euen there or near saith he we find diuers other churches as those of Colossa Hierapolis Troas mentioned in the Scripture to let passe Magnesia and Trallis recorded in other writers But none of the three former are mentioned in the scripture as parts of Asia Troas beeing the same with phrygia minor and Hierapolis and Colossae Cities of Phrygia maior It is recorded by Eusebius that in the yeare of Christ 66. and tenth of Nero these three cities Laodicea Hierapolis and Colossae were ouerthrowne with earthquakes And although we read that Laodicea was quickly reedified and flourished againe when Saint Iohn wrote the Reuelation and Hierapolis not long after seeing we read that Papias Saint Iohns Scholler was by him made Bishop there yet of Colossae as Caluin obserueth that shortly after the Epistle was written to them that Church with the rest perished so that it stood in Saint Iohns time I read not neither doe I remember any mention of it or of the Bishops thereof in or neere those times Howbeit in processe of time it was reedified and called Conae or Chonae whereof Nicetus the writer of the annales because he was of that citie is called Coniates Oecumenius saith that Colossae was a citie of Phrygia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is now called Chona and by that name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is reckoned among the Bishopricks as they are digested by Leâ— the Emperour That Colossae was no parte of Asia Theodoret sheweth For beeing of opinion that Paul had beene at Colossae he prooueth it because it is said that he went through Phrygia Neither saith he let any man object that Paul was forbidden of God For Luke speaketh of Asia and Bithynia not of Phrygia As touching Magnesia and Trallis it appeareth not that they were as yet conuerted vnto the faith when they were conuerted as not long after I confesse they were seeing Ignatius a little before his death did write vnto them they were inferiour to those seuen which Saint Iohn nameth as the principall and both of them subject to the Bishop of Ephesus as appeareth by the subscriptions in the Councill of Chalcedon where Eutropius the Bishop of Ephesus subscribing as other Metropolitanes did for himselfe and the Bishops which were vnder him beeing absent among twentie others mentioneth Alexander of Magnesia and Maximus of Trallis Likewise in the distribution of the Churches made by Leo the Emperour among the Bishops subiect to the Bishop of Ephesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bishop of Tralles and of Magnesia vpon Maander are numbred Vpon these weake premisses the Refuter inferreth a very confident conclusion It is cleare therefore saith he that our Sauiour intended not to write to all the Churches of Asia but onely to those seven which he nameth to noâ—e of which so many and so famous Churches could belong Whereto I aunswere according to that which I haue prooued that euery Church that was in Asia in these times was either one of these seuen or depending on them As for those Churches which he mentioneth in Asia maior or Asia minor yea euen those which were in Phrygia minor or Troas or in Phrygia maior as Hierapolis and Colossae were not any of them in Asia so properly called there remaine only Magnesia and Tralles to prooue his conclusion Which either he cannot prooue to haue beene Churches at this time or if they were hee cannot disprooue that they belonged to one of these seuen So that nothing which he can obiect doth hinder but that vnder these seuen our Sauiour did write to all the Churches in Asia Thus the former parte of the assumption remaineth true and so will the latter though he say it is vtterly false for his reason is no other but that which I haue alreadie confuâ—ed that they were neither mother cities nor cities at all And whereas he obiecteth that the Epistles were directed to the Angell of the Church in Ephesus in Smyrna c. and not of Ephesus the Church Smyrna the Church as of the whole cities were the Churches I answere that although the whole citie of Ephesus meaning Civitas was not the Church vntill it was wholly conuerted to the profession of Christianitie notwithstanding the whole citie meaning vrbs was contained within the circuite of the Church intended by the Apostles and acknowledged by the iudgement and practise of that Church conformable to the iudgement and practise of all other churches in christendome Neither is that materiall that the church is said to haue bin in Ephesus as it also was when the whole city was conuerted to christianity seing in vrbe in the city the church was chiefly seated as was said before Now that some of these were Metropoleis that is as I said not onely mother cities but also Metropolitan churches I wil briefly declare Those cities which were capita 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the heads of the ciuil iurisdictioÌ„ where the presideÌ„ts of the Roman prouinces held their assemblies kept their courts were mother cities to the rest which were vnder the said iurisdiction But such were fiue of these as hath beene heeretofore noted out of Plinie viz. Ephesus Smyrna Pergamum Sardes Laodicca Where also Philadelphia is noted as one of the cities subiect to Sardes and Thyatira to Pergamus This distinction the Church followed in al excepting Pergamus which it selfe was subiected to Ephesus and Thyatira which had belonged to it sometimes to Synada for in the councel of Chalcedon Marmianuâ— the Bishop of Synada among the BB. which were vnder him reckoneth Helladius of Thyatira sometimes to Sardes as in the Emperor Leo the Philosophers time The Bishops of the other 4. in the council of Chalcedon in the condemnation of Dioscorus are stiled Metropolitanes and in the diuers subscriptions to that councill are placed among the Bishops of the mother cities In the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or distribution of the Churches by the Emperour Leo Ephesus is a Metropolis hauing 36. Bishopricks vnder it among which Pergamum is the 19. Sardes likewise is a Metropolis hauing vnder it 24 Bishopricks whereof Philadelphia is the first and Thyatira the third to Laodicea likewise 21. Bishoprickes were subiect and to Smyrna 7. And so much may suffice for the first argument grounded on the text CHAP. 4. That Presbyters were appointed not to parishes but to dioceses THe Analysis of the 2. argument is mistaken by him to say no worse for hee should haue looked to the end of that which though he make the 3. section should haue beene ioined to the 2. Where hee should haue found this to be the main conclusioÌ„ of al that which followeth the first argument concerning the 7. churches to that place viz. That the Presbyteries in the Apostles times