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
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
but one body it cannot be doubted but that he meant the Church in the citie was the head of this body and the rest of the parts subiect vnto it Whereto you may adde that which after he saith of chorepiscopi placed in the diocesse where it was large as the Bishops deputy in the country subiect to him But what Caluins iudgement was in this behalfe let the Church of Geneua framed thereby testâ—fie Which is as much a diocesse now as when it was vnder a Bishop there being but one Presbytery vnto which all the parishes are subiect But let vs heare what this Refuter doth confesse Caluin to haue acknowledged in this behalfe He neither nameth dioceses nortieth power of ecclesiasticall gouernment to the Bishops Church but onely acknowledgeth that for orders sake some one Minister was chosen to be not a diocesan but a titular Bishop Thus it fareth with men that wrangle against the light of their Conscience being conuicted with euidence of truth but desirous to make a shew of opposition when they know not what to say against it Doth not Caluin plainly say that to each cittâ— was attributed a certaine region and that both were one Church as it were one body To what purpose doth he then say that he only acknowledgeth that for orders sake c. Is not his answere in effect this Caluin doth confesse that the Churches indeed were dioceses and that the Bishops had vnder their charge both the citie and country adioyning for that also he confesseth in the next point but they were not Bishops hauing such authority as you speake of that is I confesse he 〈◊〉 with you in the second and third point as you say but yet in the fourth which also you confesse he dissenteth from you Howbeit hee expresseth his mind absurdly when he saith not a diocesan but a titular Bishop For was not the Bishop a diocesan if his Church was a diocesse if he had vnder his charge both the city and country adioyning Yea but he was not a diocesan but a titular Bishop Though Caluin acknowledgeth the Bishop to haue been only President of the Presbytery like to the Consull in the senate of Rome which you call a titular B. wherein being the fourth point he dissenteth from vs yet doth he acknowledge that vnder his Bishopricke was contained both the citie and country and consequently that he was a diocesan Bishop vnlesse he that is Bishop of a diocesse be not a diocesan Bishop His testimony therefore to the third is cleere especially if you adde that which followeth concerning the Châ—repiscopi or country Bishops For Caluin saith If the country which was vnder his Bishopricke were larger then he could sufficiently discharge all the offices of a Bishop in euery place rurall Bishops were substituted here and there to supply his place Which is a most pregnant testimony both against the parish discipline and also for the diocesan For if euery parish had sufficient authority within themselues what needed rurall Bishops to ouerlooke them If the Bishop of the City had been Bishop but of one parish why doth Caluin say the Countrey was vnder his Bishopricke Why doth he say that the Bishopricke was sometimes so large that there was need of Countrey Bishops as his deputies to represent the Bishop in the prouince or countrey But what saith the Refuter to this he confesseth not ingenuously but as it were 〈◊〉 Minerua as if it stuck in his teeth that Caluin saith somewhat to that purpose But that somewhat is as good as nothing for hee doth not say they were diocesan Bishops O impudency neither doth he speake of the Apostles 〈◊〉 of which all the question is for the feeling of a Christian conscience in the 〈◊〉 of gouernment All the question concerning the Apostles times doe not your selues extend your assertion to 200. yeares And if nothing will settle the coÌ„science but what is alledged from the Apostles times what haue you to settle your conscience for your opinion who can alledge no sound proofe neither from the Apostles times nor afterwards But to what purpose should I spend more words in this matter seeing I haue heretofore proued that the circuit of euery Bishops charge was from the beginning as great if not greater then afterwards And if nothing may be in the Church but as it was in the Apostles times then ought not the whole people of any country be conuerted to the profession of Christianity because none was then and as well might they alleage that no whole country ought to bee conuerted to the profession of the faith because none was in the Apostles times as to deny the people of a whole country to be a Church because it was not so in the Apostles times Thus haue I manifestly proued that Caluâ—â— giueth testimony to the first point and in the two latter that he wholly agreeth with vs. So doth â—eza as I haue shewed before testifying the Churches were dioceseâ— and that in the chiefe towne of euery diocesse the first Presbyter who afterwards began to be called a Bishop hee speaketh therefore of the Apostles times was set ouer his fellow Presbyters both of the Citie and countrey that is the whole diocesse And because sometimes the countrey was of larger extent then that all vpon euery occasion could conueniently meete in the Citie and forasmuch as all other small Cities and townes did need common inspection or ouer sight they had also their Chorepiscopi that is countrey or vice-Bishops Yea but saith he being guilty to himselfe of vntruth in denying Caluins consent with vs it had been nothing to the purpose if Caluin had agreed with him in all seeing he affiâ—meth withall that they were but humane ordinances and aberrations from the word of God That which Caluin speaketh of the superiority of Bishops in degree which is the fourth point wherein I confesse he dissenteth from vs and from the truth supposing it to be of custome and humane constitution that the â—â—futer extendeth to all his reports concerning the ancient Church gouernment when as he plainely testifies that with so great 〈◊〉 they had composed the gouernment that there 〈…〉 it almost dissâ—nant from the word of God Doâ—◠〈◊〉 where say or insinuate that it is an aberration from the word of God either that their colledge of Presbyters did consist wholy of Pastors and Teachers Or that to each Citie was attributed a certaine region being portion of the same Church Or that the Bishop had the superintendency ouer the Citie and countrey It will neuer be shewed And now are we come to his conclusion containing a most vaine braâ—ge proceeding either from pitifull ignorance or extreme vnconscionablenes That hauing answeared my arguments in such sort as you haue heard and wanting indeed proofs worth the producing he shal not need the vntruth of this third point is so euident to bring any proofe for the maintenance of the contrary assertion And so I leaue him
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
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
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
as much in effect yea and in expresse termes had been giuen to others as to the B. of Alexandria called by some the iudge of the whole world to the B. of Constantinople called vniuersall or oecumenicall Patriarch to Iames the B. of Ierusalem Heare B. Iewels words Clement vnto Iames B. of Ierusalem writeth thus Clemens Iacobo fratri Domini Episcopo Episcoporum regenti Hebraeorum sanctam Ecclesiam Hierosolymis sed omnes Ecclesias quae vbique Dei prouidentia fundatae sunt Clement vnto Iames the brother of our Lord the B. of BB. gouerning the holy Church of the Iewes at Ierusalem and besides all the Churches that be founded euery where by Gods prouidence These be all his words sauing that hee saith if Harding had so good euidence for the B. of Rome he would not thus haue passed it ouer in silence Which if you compare with the refuters allegation you may well wonder at his dealing Doth not B. Iewel himselfe in plaine termes call Iames the B. of Ierusalem and that which is said of his gouerning other Churches is not his saying but Clements if it be truely printed in the copies which B. Iewel did follow Neither would it follow of those words alledged as they are that he was no otherwise B. of Ierusalem then ouer all the other Churches The B. of Constantinople though he were called vniuersall or oecumenicall Patriarch yet was he the Diocesan B. of the Church of Constantinople alone and that was his peculiar Diocese So if Clement had meant that Iames had beene the gouernour of all Churches yet the Church of Ierusalem was his Diocese wherein Simon and the rest of the Bishops of Ierusalem did succeed him and thereof he had his denomination The Pope himselfe though he claime to be vniuersall Bishop yet is he specially Bishop of Rome and his cathedrall Church is the Church of Laterane of which he is Bishop Howbeit in the edition of that Epistle set forth by Sichardus and printed at Basill together with his recognitions anno 1526. we read thus Sed ominibus Ecclesiis quae vbique sunt By which copy if it be true Iames is not signified to be the gouernour of all Churches but Clements Epistle is directed not onely to Iames but to all Churches c. Yea but D. Whitakers by eight arguments doth proue that he neither was nor might be B. of Ierusalem I promise you this maketh a faire shew if it be true But this also is a manifest vntruth For the arguments that he vseth are to proue that Peter was not Bishop of Rome Yea but the same are as effectuall to proue that Iames might not be Bishop of Ierusalem and therefore to these eight arguments he doth referre me But this also is vntrue For six of these eight are such as the refuter with all his sophistry cannot with any shew of truth applie to St. Iames. For his third argument taken from Peters long absence from Rome after he was according to their opinion B. there cannot be applyed to Iames who was resident at Ierusalem as the Actes besides other witnesses testifie Nor the fourth that if Peter were B. then had he two Bishopricks For he had beene by their owne doctrine as well B. of Antioch as of Rome But no such thing can be obiected against Iames. Nor the fift that whiles Peter liued Linus was B. of Rome so he was indeed by the appointment of Peter and Paul as Irenaeus teacheth But whiles Iames liued none was B. of Ierusalem but he But after he was dead Simon was chosen to be his successor Nor the sixt that the authors which mention Peters going to Rome note this to haue beene the end not to be B. there but to oppose Simon Magus But the cause of Iames his staying and continuing at Ierusalem was to take charge of that Church which during his life had no other B. Nor the seauenth that if Peter were B. of Rome then would he haue professed himselfe the Apostle of the Gentiles neither would he haue conuenanted with Paul that he and Barnabas should take care of the Gentiles but himselfe and Iames and Iohn of the Circumcision For Iames as he is said to haue beene B. of Ierusalem so hee professeth himselfe to haue beene the Apostle of the Iewes For besides that he writeth his Epistle to the Iewes he and Peter and Iohn gaue the right hand of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas that themselues would be for the Circumcision And for as much as Peter and Iohn trauelled to other parts Iames alwayes abiding at Ierusalem it is more then probable that the Church of Iewry was peculiarly assigned to him Neither is it for nothing that both in the 15. of the Acts he is noted as President or chiefe in that Councill and in the 2. Chapter to the Galathians Paul speaking of such Apostles as were at Ierusalem he giueth the precedence to Iames before Peter and Iohn Nor the eight for they that say Peter was Bishop of Rome say Paul was also meaning that they were both founders of the Church but Linus was the B. to whom they both committed the Church as Irenaeus saith But they which say Iames was B. of Ierusalem mention him alone Neither was he founder of that Church but Christ himselfe who was the minister of Circumcision But it will be said the two first reasons of the eight doe proue that Iames was not B. of Ierusalem That commeth now to be tryed The first reason is this Bishops haue certaine Churches assigned to them The Apostles had not certain churches assigned to them Therefore the Apostles were not Bishops The assumption is to be distinguished according to the times For when Christ gaue them their indefinite commission goe into all the world hee assigned no Prouinces nor parts of the world to any Notwithstanding before they were to goe abroad he willeth them to stay at Ierusalem till they had receiued the holy Ghost who should direct them what to doe and we may be assured that he did not direct them to goe confusedly but distinctly some to one part of the world some to another Howbeit when they ceased to trauaile in their olde dayes and rested in some chiefe Citie where they had laboured they were reputed Bishops of that place where they rested though some of them perhaps were not properly Bishops And this is true of Peter and of the most of the Apostles But herein Iames differeth from the rest for to him at the first before their dispersion the Church of Ierusalem was assigned Neither did he trauaile as the rest from one Country to another being not confined to any one Prouince though in the end of their trauels some of them made choise of some speciall place where they rested exercising no doubt a patriarchall authority as it were in that circuit where they had trauailed and planted Churches Thus Iohn rested at Ephesus and others in other places That
the Apostles would put off the matter till there was no remedie and I cannot much blame them if it be true which D. Bilson saith that they were to keepe the power of imposition of hands to themselues vnlesse they would loose their Apostleship It is more meruaile therefore that they would ordaine any Bishops at all as long as they liued then that they would deferre the doing of it so long as they could Which words as they contayne a meere cauill at my words not worth the answering so a meere belying of that reuerend B. who saith that the Apostles could not loose that viz. the power of imposing hands and deliuering vnto Sathan which the Fathers call Episcopall power vnlesse they lost the Apostleship withall Secondly hee obiecteth want of proofes What proofe bringeth he that the Apostles ordayned such Bishops in other Churches neither one text of Scripture nor any testimonie out of the ancient Writers onely authoritate praetoria hee telleth vs Pythagoras like they did so c. Here in complayning of the want of proofes he giueth sufficient proofe of a bad conscience In this section I did but in generall hauing noted the difference of the time declare what course the Apostles tooke first in deferring the choise of Bishops and afterwards in appointing them The proofes doe follow in the sections following shewing the places where and the persons whom the Apostles ordayned Bishops That imputation of speaking Pythagoras like hee hath often layd vpon me and yet not so oft as vniustly who haue in this Sermon and in this Treatise deliuered nothing almost without plentifull proofe or sufficient authority Thirdly hee carpeth at the names wherewith I said the first Bishoppes were called asking what is all this to the matter Would he prooue they were Diocesan Bishops because they were called by these names what a notorious cauiller is this may nothing be spoken but by way of proofe may nothing be said by declaration or explanation or preuention I knew it was obiected that Bishops are not mentioned in the scriptures the name Episcopus Bishop being giuen to Prebyters and therefore that is not like they were ordayned by the Apostles of vvhom no mention is in the Scriptures For preuention of this obiection or assoyling this doubt I declared first that the Bishops in the writings of the Apostles are called sometimes the Angels of the Churches sometimes their rulers sometimes their Apostles Yea but in my former Sermon I gaue all these names saue onely the name of Apostles to all ministers The former Sermon is of ministers in generall including the Bishops and diuers things there spoken of ministers in generall doe principally belong to Bishops All Pastors are rulers or rectors of their seuerall flockes but the Bishops are rulers both of them and their flocke All ministers are called Angelâ— but the Bishop alone is the Angell of each Church or Diocese c. But by what authority saith he is the title of Apostle appropriated to BB he would haue said communicated to them with the twelue For I know no man so foolish as to appropriate it to the Bishops This reason I rendred why they be called the Apostles of the Churches because they succeeded the Apostles in the gouernment of the particular Churches whereof I gaue instance Phil. 2.25 where Epaphroditus who was the B. or Pastor of Philippi is therefore called their Apostle Therefore saith he Who saith so Ambrose Ierome Theodoret Caluin Thomas Aquinas if we will beleiue D. D. but if we will looke vpon the bookes themselues not one of them saith so Caluin Aquinas and some other indeed as Lyra interlineall glosse Lombard Anselme c. are of minde that Apostle there signifieth teacher and no more Caluin saith thus The name of Apostle here as in many other places is taken generally for proquolibet Euangelista for any Euangelist But by their Euangelist he vnderstandeth their Pastor and so calleth him diuers times vsing that word vpon that occasion sixe or seauen times in that place Paul sendeth to them Epaphroditus ne Pastore carerent qui recte compositum statum tueretur least they should want their Pastor who might maintaine their well ordered state On these words verse 26. He had a longing desire towards you all and was pensiue because you had heard that he was sicke Caluin noteth a signe of a true Pastor that when he was farre distant from them notwithstanding was affected with the care and desire of his flocke and when he vnderstood that his sheepe sorrowed for his sake was pensiue for their sorrow In like manner the godly carefulnesse of the Philippians for their Pastor is noted on the 27. where Paul signifieth what griefe he should haue conceiued if Epaphroditus had died Paul saith he was mooued with the losse of the Church which he saw would haue beene destituted optimo Pastore of a very good Pastor in so great want of good men On the twenty eight he saith Paul did the more carefully send him because he was sory that for his occasion he had beene withheld from the flocke committed to him On the twenty nineth he obserueth how desirous Paul is that good Pastors may be much esteemed c. let the reader therefore iudge whether Epaphroditus were not in Caluins iudgement the Pastor of the Philippians By the Apostle saith Ambrose he was made their Apostle that is Bishop as Ambrose expoundeth the word in other places Apostoli Episcopi sunt the Apostles are Bishops But according to the refuters sence he had beene an Apostle not of Pauls making but of their owne Ierome writing on those words my fellow Souldiour and your Apostle fellow Souldiour saith he by reason of his honour because he also had receiued the office of being an Apostle among them And on those words haue in honour such not onely him saith hee qui vester est Doctor who is your Doctor by vvhich vvord in Ieromes time Bishop most commonly was signified c. Theodoret saith thus hee called him Apostle because to him the charge of them was committed Wherefore it is manifest that those which in the beginning of the Epistle were called Bishops were vnder him as hauing the place of Presbyters And from this place as afterwards I noted Theodoret gathereth that at the first they whom now wee call Bishops were called Apostles Thus Epaphroditus was the Apostle of the Philippians Thomas Aquinas hee calleth him brother saith he by reason of his faith fellow worker in the labour of preaching fellow souldier because they had suffered tribulation together your Apostle that is Doctor Hic fuit Episcopus Philippensium Hee was the Bishop of the Philippians And so saith Bullinger Philippensium Episcopus erat With what face therefore could the Refuter denie that any one of these Authors did say that hee was therefore called the Apostle of the Philippians because hee vvas their Bishop and Pastor And so are they to be
them alone as extraordinarie persons vvhose authoritie should dye with them but to those also which should succeed them in the like authoritie vntill the end But whether the Bishops were to be their successours or the whole congregation or the Presbyterie belongeth not to the assumption but rather to the proposition Howbeit that which he saith either in denying the Bishops to be the successours of Timothie and Titus or affirming the congregation and Presbyterie to haue succeeded them in the power of ordination and iurisdiction is spoken altogether as against the truth so without proofe I will therefore returne to the proposition which is grounded on this Hypothesis that Diocesan Bishops were the successours of Timothie and Titus For if that be true then is the proposition necessary though the refuter flatly denyeth it Thus therefore I reason If the successours of Timothie and Titus were Diocesan Bishops then those things which were written to informe their successours were vvritten to informe Diocesan Bishops But the successors of Timothie Titus were Diocesan BB. Therefore those things which were vvritten to informe the successours of Timothie and Titus vvere vvritten to informe Diocesan Bishops Here the refuter thinking he had as good reason to deny the one part of this syllogisme as the other denyeth both The consequence of the proposition is feeble saith he vnlesse it were certaine that the Bishops both de facto were de iure ought to haue beene their successors That the Bishops were de facto their successors of all other Apostolical men in the gouernment of the Churches I haue already proued and there vpon haue inferred that de iure also they were Because what gouernment was not onely generally receiued in the 300. yeeres after the Apostles but also was in vse in the Apostles times in the Apostolicall Churches that without doubt was of Apostolicall institution The assumption I proue by two arguments first by this disiunction Either the Bishops were their successours or the Presbyteries or which the refuter would adde the whole congregation But neither the Presbyteries nor the whole congregation which had no greater nor other authority and power vnder Bishops then they had before vnder Timothie and Titus Therefore the Bishops were their successors Againe those who succeeded Timothie and Titus in the gouernment of the Churches of Ephesus and Creet were their successors But the Bishops of Ephesus and Creet did succeed Timothie and Titus in the gouernment of those Churches Therefore they were their successors These reasons the refuter saw not onely he taketh vpon him to answere the proofes of this last assumption And first for Timothie his successors in Ephesus it is apparant that not onely the Angell of the Church of Ephesus Apoc. 2.1 whether it were Onesimus or any other was one of his successors and Policrates the Bishop of Ephesus another But also that from Timothie vntill the Councill of Chalcedon there was a continued succession of Bishops For whereas in the Councill of Chalcedon Stephanus the Bishop of Ephesus being deposed some question did arise whether the new Bishop who was to succeed were to be chosen and ordained by the Councill or by the Prouinciall Synode of Aisa Leontius the Bishop of Magnesia in the Prouince of Asia alledged that from St. Timothie to that time there had beene twenty seauen Bishops of Ephesus all ordained there To this he answereth nothing but that which before hath been refuted that howsoeuer the latter Bishops of those twenty seauen might be Diocesan the former were not For it is certaine that both the latter and the former were not onely Diocesan but also Metropolitan Bishops And where I number the Angell of Ephesus in this rancke he saith that I tediously begge the question But I appeale to the refuter himselfe first whether this Angell was not the B. and gouernour of the Church of Ephesus secondly whether he did not succeed Timothie in the gouernment of that Church thirdly whether he was not one of those twenty seauen Bishops mentioned by Leontius in the Councill of Chalcedon And the like may be said of Polycrates who had beene the eight Bishop of his owne kindred sauing that concerning him there is more euidence that he being Bishop of Ephesus was the Metropolitane or primate of Asia For Eusebius saith that he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was the ruler or chiefe of the Bishops of Asia who by his authoritie did assemble a Prouinciall Synode to discusse the question concerning Easter As touching Creet because there is not the like euidence the refuter taketh vpon him to deliuer diuers things without booke as if Titus had successours in the gouernment of Creet it would be auailable for Arch-bishops which were not bred a great while after but it maketh nothing for Diocesan Bishops Whereto I answere first though such Archbishops as were also called Patriarches were not from the Apostles times yet such as are Metropolitanes were And againe if Prouinciall Bishops may be proued to haue been from the Apostles times much more may Diocesan For euery Metropolitane is a Diocesan but not contrariwise And although I doe not remember that I haue any where read of the next successour to Titus yet I read of Gortyna the mother City of Creet and the Metropolitane Bishops thereof who were Arch-bishops of Creet and successors of Titus though not his immediate successours For Dionysius of Corinth who flourished at the same time with Hegesippus writing an Epistle to the Church of Gortyna together with the rest of the Churches of Creet hee commendeth Philippe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their Bishop for his renowned vertue And although he called him the Bishop of the Churches in Creet yet the Diocesan Churches had their Bishops too as the Church of Gnossus a City of Creet had Pinytus at the same time her Bishop which proueth the other to haue beene an Arch-bishop Theodorus Balsamo saith f antiquius Nomocanonum versaui c. I haue perused the ancient Code of Councils and by the subscriptions I finde that in this Councill held in Trullo Basil the Bishop of Gortyna which is the Metropolis of Creet was present And where he saith that Creet hauing many Churches had no one Bishop to gouerne them after Titus the Euangelist till Diocesan Bishops had got the sway of Ecclesiasticall matters I confesse it is true but he must remember that euen in the Apostles times there were Diocesan Bishops And in the very next age after them Philippe was Archbishop of Creet But though there were no direct proofe that Diocesan or Prouinciall Bishops were the successours of Timothie and Titus yet it might easily be gathered by other Churches from whose forme of gouernment Ephesus and Creet did not vary It cannot be denyed but what authoritie Timothie and Titus had the one in Ephesus the other in Creet the same had Marke at Alexandria Evodius at Antioch Linus at Rome c. Neither may it
as we see in Matthew and Iohn so Euangelists might be Bishops as we see in Marke But as for Timothie Titus the Greeke Writers expounding that place plainely say they were not Euangelists but Pastors or Bishops For they after they were placed the one in Ephesus the other in Creet did not trauaile vp and downe as in former times when they accompanied the Apostle but ordinarily remained with their flockes The Greeke Scholiast saith thus Euangelists◠that is those which did write the Gospell Pastors◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hee meaneth such as had the Churches committed to them such as Timothie was such as Titus And to the same purpose both Chrysostome and Theophylact doe mention them by name Neither was it a debasing of Timothie and Titus when they were made Bishops but an aduancement Forwhereas before they were but Presbyters though called Euangelists in a large sence they were now made the Apostles of those Churches and by imposition of hands ordayned Bishops In the second place hee taketh exception against those words where I say they were furnished with Episcopall power and denieth that when Timothie Titus were assigned to Ephesus and Creet they receiued any new authority which before they had not or needed any such furnishing But were to exercise their Euangelesticall function in those places For so Paul biddeth Timothie after hee had beene at and gone from Ephesus to doe the worke of an Euangelist If they receiued no new authority why did Timothie receiue a new ordination by imposition of hands whereof the Apostle speaketh in two places and which the Fathers vnderstand of his ordination to be Bishop were men admitted to the extraordinarie function of Euangelists by the ordinarie meanes of imposing hands or may we thinke that any but the Apostles being not assigned as Bishops to seuerall Churches had that authority wheresoeuer they came which Timothie had at Ephesus and Titus in Creet verily Philippe the Euangelist though hee conuerted diuers in Samaria and baptized them yet had not authority to impose hands whereby men might be furnished with graces for the Ministerie but the Apostles Peter and Iohn were sent thither to that purpose And whereas Paul willeth Timothie to doe the worke of an Euangelist what is that but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to preach the Gospell diligently and to fulfill his Ministerie or to make it fully knowne the word Euangelist being there taken in the generall sence Now what his Ministerie was Ierome Sedulius declare Ministerium tuum imple Episcopatus scilicet Fulfill thy Ministerie that is to say as thou art a Bishop Now that their being Euangelists did not hinder them from being Bishops when ceasing from their trauailing about they were assigned to these particular Churches I proued by the testimony of Zuinglius who saith that Philip the Euangelist who had beene one of the Deacons was afterwards Bishop of Caesarea Iames the Apostle was Bishop of Ierusalem and diuers of the Apostles which may much more be verified of the Euangelists when they ceased from their peregrinations became Bishops of certaine Churches as by the ancient histories is manifest Whereto the refuter answereth two things first that Zuinglius speaketh according to the phrase of the histories and writers before him therefore say I according to the truth Or else we must thinke that none of the Fathers or ancient historiographers knew whom to call Bishops and whom not But the refuter and his fellows onely haue this knowledge Yea but a certaine learned man saith that when the Fathers call Peter or Iames or any of the Apostles Bishops they doe not take the name Bishop properly For Peter I graunt but of Iames there is another reason as I haue shewed before And although it were true that Apostles could not properly be called Bishops yet what is that to Timothie and Titus whom I haue proued notwithstanding their supposed Euangelisticall function to haue beene particularly assigned by Paul to the Churches of Ephesus and Creet where also they liued and dyed His other answere is that howsoeuer Zuinglius speake of their being Bishops it is manifest by his writings he neither thought they were and so belike spake otherwise then he thought nor any other might be a Diocesan B. as by a testimony hereafter alledged appeareth where he saith no such thing I will therefore adde another testimony of Zuinglius in the same booke when Paul said to Timothie doe the vvorke of an Euangelist Timothie was a Bishop vvherefore it is certaine according to Pauls opinion the office of an Euangelist and of a Bishop is all one After I had thus answered these two obiections I brought a new supply of arguments to proue Timothie and Titus to haue beene Bishops of Ephesus and Creet And first by occasion of his second obiection I argue thus The function and authoritie which Timothie and Titus did exercise in Ephesus and Creet was either extraordinarie and Euangelisticall as the Disciplinarians teach or else ordinarie and Episcopall as we hold But it was not extraordinary and Euangelisticall Therefore ordinary and Episcopall The assumption I proued thus The supposed Euangelisticall function of Timothie and Titus was to end with their persons and admitted no succession being as themselues teach both extraordinary and temporary But the function and authority which they had as being assigned to certaine Churches viz. of Ephesus and Creet consisting especially in the power of ordination and iurisdiction was not to end with their persons but to be continued in their successors Therefore the function and authority which Timothie and Titus had as being assigned to Ephesus and Creet was not extraordinary and Euangelisticall Here the refuter would make his reder belieue that I hauing before denyed the consequence of the second obiection doe also deny the antecedent and in this place reason against it But I doe not deny they were Euangelists howsoeuer I doe not conceiue their Euangelisticall function to haue beene such and so great as the refuter and other Disciplinarians suppose and therefore I call it their supposed Euangelicall function Now that I did not intend to deny or disproue that antecedent but to bring a new supply of arguments taking occasion by the last obiection appeareth by those words which I premised as it were an introduction to this argument hereof we may conclude thus But let vs heare what he answereth Forsooth he flatly denyeth the assumption wherein though he vntruely say that I begge the question that Timothie and Titus were assigned to Ephesus and Creet as ordinarie Bishop or Pastors of those Churches for that I doe assume but conclude yet hath he nothing to disproue it but a meere begging of the question and denyall of the conclusion rather then the assumption viz. that they had no assignment to those Churches but onely as euangelists which doth not touch the assumption no more then that which followeth Neither by that Euangelisticall office
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
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
not onely said but proued also both in the preface conclusion of the sermon that it is both profitable and necessarie The third It is necessarie indeed to be confuted As if he had said it is necessarie indeed to be confuted therefore it is most needfull to be answered Of these reasons the two first he proueth in the words following the third being as you see nothing else but an absurd begging of the question The first he proueth by diuerse arguments such as they be First then the doctrine of the SermoÌ„ is proued to be vtterly false because it is repugnant to the truth to the word of truth to the scripture of truth But how after al these ridiculous amplifications is the doctrine of the sermon proued to be repugnant to the word of truth he had rather take it for granted then that you should put him to proue it But I shall make it cleare in this defence of my sermon that as there is not a sillable in the scripture to proue the pretended discipline so the Episcopall function hath good warrant in the word of God But when in the second place he proueth the doctrine of the sermoÌ„ to be vtterly false because it is coÌ„trary to the iudgement practise of the prime Churches next after Christ his Apostles I caÌ„not tel whether to woÌ„der at more the blindnesse or the impudencie of the man Seeing I haue made it manifest that the gouernement of the Church by BB. hath the full consent of antiquitie there being not one testimonie of the ancient writers for their Iudgement nor one example of the primitiue churches for their practise to be alleadged to the contrarie How durst he mention the iudgement and practise of the primitiue Church for the triall of the truth in this question when there is not one testimonie for the preteÌ„ded discipline nor one example of it in all antiquitie let them bring any one pregnant either testimonie or example and I will yeeld in the whole cause And where he addeth that it is contrarie to the iudgement and practise of all reformed Churches since the reestablishing of the Gospell by the worthies in these latter times is it not strange that a maÌ„ professing sinceritie should so ouerreach seeing a farre greater part of the reformed Churches is gouerned by BB. and Superintendents then by the presbyterian discipline as I haue shewed in the latter ende of this booke But he addeth foure notorious vntruthes concerning our owne land saying that it is against the doctrine of our Martyrs contrarie to the professed iudgement of all our worthie writers contrariant to the lawes of our land and contrarying the doctrine of the Church of England The first he expresseth thus Against the doctrine of our immediate forefathers some of whom were worthy Martyrs he quoteth in the Margent Latimer Cranmer c who in their submission to king Henry the 8. at the abolishing of the Popes authoritie out of England acknowledge with subscription that the disparitie of Ministers Lordly primacy of B B. was but a politicke deuise of the Fathers not any ordinance of Christ Iesus and that the gouernement of the Church by the Minister certaine Seniors or Elders in euery parish was the ancient discipline Which allegations would make a faire shew if they might passe vnexamined The witnesses which he quoteth for both were Archbishop Cranmer other BB. who allowing the Episcopall function both in iudgement and practise it is almost vncredible that any testimonies can from them be soundly alleadged against the same And I doe greatly wonder at the large conscience of our reâ—uter in this behalfe who throughout the booke taketh wonderfull libertie in citing Authors alleadging as their testimonies his owne conceits which he brought not from their writings but to them For the former he alleageth the booke of Martyrs whereunto that part of the BB. booke which he mentioneth is inserted which hauing pervsed I finde nothing at all concerning the superioritie of BB. ouer other Ministers that which is said concerneth the superioritie of BB. among themselues all whom with the ancient Fathers I do confesse in respect of the power of Order to be equall as were also the Apostles whose successours they are But we may not inferre because the Apostles were equall among themselues that therefore they were not superiour to the 72. disciples or because BB. are equall among themselues that therefore they are not superiour to other ministers For the latter he quoteth the book called Reformatio legum EcclesiasticaruÌ„ Which was a proiect of Ecclesiasticall lawes which if King Edward the 6. had liued should haue been set forth by his authoritie drawne by Archbishop Cranmer B. May other Commissioners and penned as is supposed by D. Haddon In alleadging whereof whiles the refuter goeth about to make the reader belieue that they stood for Lay-Elders and the pretended parish-discipline he plaieth the part of an egregious falsifier And forasmuch as sometimes in his booke he citeth the 10. and 11. chapters I will transcribe the same the bare recitall beeing a sufficieÌ„t coÌ„futation of his forged allegatioÌ„s For amoÌ„g other orders to be obserued in parochijs vrbanis in parishes which be in cities which begin at the 6. chapter of that title de diuin off in the tenth this order is prescribed CoÌ„fectis precibus vespertinis c. euening prayers being ended whereunto after the Sermon there shal be a concourse of all in their owne Churches the principall Minister whoÌ„ they call Parochum the Parson or Pastor the Deacon if perhaps they be present or in their abseÌ„ce the Ministers Vicar Seniors are to coÌ„sult with the people how the money prouided for godly vses may best be bestowed and to the same time let the discipline be reserued For they who haue committed publike wickedness to the common offence of the Church are to be called to the knowledge of their sinne and publikely to be punished that the Church by their holesome correction may be kept in order Moreouer the Minister going a side with some of the Seniors or Ancients of the parish shall take counsell how others whose maners are said to be naught and whose life is found out to be wicked first may be talked withall in brotherly charity according to Christs precept in the Gospell by sober and honest men by whose admonitions if they shall reforme themselues thankes is duely to be giuen to God But if they shall goe on in their wickednes they are to receiue such sharpe punishment as we see in the Gospell prouided against their contumacie Then followeth the 11. chapter how excommunication is to be exercised But when the sentence of excommunication is to be pronounced first the Bishop is to be gone vnto and his sentence to be knowne Who if he shall consent and put too his authoritie the sentence of excommunication is to be denounced before the whole congregation that therein so
Episcopall to be of Apostolicall and diuine Institution yet not as generally perpetually and immutably necessarie But the pretended discipline is held by the fauourers of it so to be enioyned by diuine right that it ought generally in all places and perpetually in all ages and also immutably to be obserued as being not chaÌ„geable by man And so farre doe they differ from the Kings iudgement that whereas the King thinketh the Church may be framed to the CoÌ„mon-wealth they say the gouernement of the Common-wealth must be fashioned to the Church But to fashion the Church to the Common-wealth is as much to say as if a man should fashion his house according to his hangings And thus much hath he gained by his third vntruth The fourth remaineth Lastly it is a doctrine contrarying the doctrine of the Church of England professed euen by the BB. themselues till of late daâ—es c. therefore vtterly false To this Antecedent I giue no credit though for proofe therof hee citeth B. Iewell and Archbishop Whitgift at randon For the doctrine of our Church appeareth best by the Articles and confession of our Church First therefore the booke of consecrating BB. Priests and Deacons which is approued Article 36. saith It is euident vnto all men diligently reading holy Scripture and Ancient Authors that from the Apostles time there haue beene these orders of Ministers in Christs Church Bishops Priests and Deacons Of which orders it is afterwards said that God by his holy spirit hath appointed them in his Church And againe the Bishop is required to correct and punish according to such authoritie as he hath by Gods word such as be vnquiet disobedient and criminous within his Diocesse Likewise the confession of the English Church collected out of the Apology thereof written by Bishop Iewel We belieue that there be diuerse degrees of Ministers in the Church whereof some be Deacons some Priests some Bishops c. And it is to be noted that our Church acknowledgeth nothing as a matter of faith which is not coÌ„tained in Gods word or grounded thereon Againe if it were true that the Bishops hauing better informed themselues concerning their functions had reformed their iugdemeÌ„ts according to the holy Scriptures and other writings of Antiquitie would it follow that their latter thoughts which commonly are the wiser according to the old saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were false and worthie to be confuted And lastly if this be a true proposition which in the refuters Enthymeme is vnderstood that what is repugnant to the doctrines formerly taught in the Church of England is euidently false though it agree with the present doctrine thereof how worthy then is the pretended discipline to be reiected which is contrarie to the perpetuall doctrine of this Church both former and latter especially the discipline of the newest stampe I meane the new-found parish discipline published by the challengers of disputation Anno 1606 maintained by this refuter which neither agreeth with our Church nor as I suppose with any other reformed Church in the world His second reason whereby hee would proue that the doctrine contained in my Sermon was needfull to be confuted is because he saw it to be daÌ„gerous And that he proueth by 2. reasons The former because howsoeuer he had said in the former reason that it is euidently false and so not dangerous now he saith the doctrine is by mee so handsomely and likely handled that it is so farre from being euidently false that euery word I speake hath such an appearance and promise of truth that in imitation of Bishop Iewel against Harding hee thinkes he may fitly vse Socrates his words against his accusers or as I thinke more fitly the words of Agrippa to Paul who had vttered no vntruth that I had almost perswaded him to be of my minde But more fitly may I alledge the very next words of Socrates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Among many things which my aduersarie hath obiected against me falsely I maruell much at this one that hee willeth the Readers take heed they be not deceiued by me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is as my aduersaries words may expound it one that can tell his tale so handsomely and carrie the matter so smoothly likely and confidently that although he vtter neuer a word of truth yet euery word hee speaketh hath an appearance and promise of truth For both my Sermons and writings shewe that I affect not the perswasorie words of humane wisedome and eloquence but the plaine stile of simple truth And therefore am no more then Socrates himselfe in that regard to be suspected 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as hee saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnlesse my aduersaries call him an eloquent man and powerfull in speech who speaketh the truth Secondly he proueth my doctrine to be dangerous by an induction or particular enumeration of the hurts which as he imagineth were like to come to the Church of God thereby if it were not confuted The Papists saith hee would be much aduantaged seeing that Antichristian doctrine euen after the renewing and reuiuing of their ceremonies among vs so freely preached and published tending to the vpholding of their Hierarchy from the Pope to the Apparitor as well as ours his reasons being indeed the very same with theirs as in the answere to them it shall appeare The aduantage which ariseth to the Papists by this doctrine preached and the ceremonies still retained among vs may through Gods blessing be this That when they see vs not so new-fangled as our Opposites nor so carried with hatred to their persons as to depart further from them then they haue departed from the primitiue Church but are content to obserue the ancient gouernement and lawfull Ceremonies vsed in the primitiue Church though retained by them they may be induced to ioyne with vs in reforming the Church according to the doctrine and example of the ancient and primitiue Church And whereas he calleth our doctrine defending the calling of BB Antichristian and the ceremonies vsed among vs Popish it is meerely spoken out of faction after the vsuall fashion of our Opposites who call their owne doctrine and pretended discipline though lately deuised Gods owne cause the Discipline of Christ their pleading for it a giuing testimonie to this part of the word of his grace but ours though truely Catholicke and Apostolicall they tearme Antichristian and in their late writings they call the Hierarchy of our church Dagon the tower of Babell the triple headed Cerberus the restoring of BB the building vp again the walles of Iericho my self other Ministers of the Gospel pleading for the gouernement established they compare to Achabs 400. prophets and such as plead for Baal Yea but our doctrine tendeth to the vpholding of the Popish Hierarchy from the Pope to the Apparitor as well as of ours God forbid In the Popish Clergy aboue BB. and Archbishops
is to their Parish Bishop a Consistorie of Lay or onely gouerning Elders Out of which words they frame this proposition They which haue not onely supreme but also sole authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall are absolute Popelings hereto they adde an assumption of their owne All Diocesan Bishops haue not onely supreme but also sole authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall and from thence inferre their victorious triumphing conclusion therefore all Diocesan Bishops are absolute Popelings And this they say is mine owne reason whereby I make Diocesan Bishops absolute Popelings Mine owne reason in which there is nothing mine but the proposition which also is stretched beyond not onely my meaning but euen my words this proposition I denie not may bee framed out of my words they who giue to a Bishop not onely supreme but also sole authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall doe seeme to set vp an absolute Popeling From which words if they had bene retained this might haue bene concluded if I did giue to our Bishops both supreme and sole authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall as I doe not that then I might seeme to set vp absolute Popelings But it were well with my aduersaries if to seeme and to bee were all one And yet I doe not so much as seeme to anie that is wise and indifferent to make our Bishops as they say absolute Popelings The application of this to the BB. is made in the assumption which is both false and foolish and is not mine but theirs They say it is not onely impleyed and intended but is one of the chiefe and principall points I vndertake to proue throughout my Sermon But their saying is false and friuolous How doe they prooue it For the question beeing saith our refuter whether the Churches should bee gouerned by Pastors and Elders or by Diocesan Bishops whereas they say by Pastors and Elders adioyning the Elders to the Pastors and making them both subiect to the whole congregation c. M.D. taketh all from them all and putteth the reynes into his Diocesan alone so making him by his owne rule the absolute Popeling Here I intreate the Reader to keepe in store for future vse the state of the question as it is here propounded by the refuter In the meane time let vs after his owne manner examine his argument The question being whether the Churches should be gouerned by Pastors and Elders for I will for your credites sake leaue out that Brownisticall and Anabaptisticall dotage concerning the chiefe authoritie of the people or by Diocesan BB. whosoeuer taketh all from Pastors and Elders and shall I adde the people too and putteth the reynes into the hands of the Diocesan alone he giueth him not onely supreme but also sole authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall and so maketh him an absolute Popeling But the question being as I said M. D. taketh all authoritie from the Pastors Elders and people and putteth the reynes into the hands of the Diocesan Bishop alone Therefore M. D. giueth to the Diocesan not onely supreme but also sole authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall and so by his owne rule maketh him an absolute Popeling Sect. 10. To let you see how the refuter climbeth a ladder of vntruthes to seat our Bishops in the Papacy I will begin with his assumption wherein are two vntruthes First that I take all authoritie from the Pastors Elders and people The Elders indeed I reiect as a new deuise in the parishioners I acknowledge some authoritie in choosing or consenting to the choyse of some Church-officers but authoritie to gouerne much lesse to ordaine depose and depriue their Pastor I know not any They are the sheepe which must heare their pastors voyce and be obedient to their spirituall guides They are the flocke which must be ruled and taught not followed and obeyed As touching the pastors of parishes I leaue to them that pastorall power which euer was granted to them since the first distinguishing of parishes and allotting of seuerall Presbyters to them that is to say both poâ—â—statem ordinis the power of order as they are Ministers potestatem iurisdictionis spiritualis seu internae a power of spirituall and inward iurisdiction to rule their flocke after a priuate manner as it were in foro conscientiae in the court of conscience as they are pastors of that flocke By which power they rule and guide their flocke not onely in their publike Ministery but also in their priuate attendance or if yee will so call it superintendence as occasion shal be offered For as touching their publicke ministery they are the leaders and guides of the people in Gods seruice they preach the word therein teaching confuting instructing reprouing correcting their hearers they administer the sacraments as the stewards of Gods house by the one admitting into Gods family those which belong to his couenant by the other nourishing the houshold of Christ in due season and both by the word and sacraments exercising so much of the power of the keyes as of right belongeth to them as well binding the notoriously scandalous and impenitent by denouncing the threatnings of God against them in the word and by repelling them for the time from the sacrament as also loosing the penitent belieuers by applying to them the gracious promises of the Gospell and adding thereto the sacraments as seales So that all power is not taken from the pastors neither is all giuen to the Bishop alone For in the gouernement of the Church others are ioyned with him some vnder him some aboue him Vnder him in the mother Church or Cathedrall the Deane and Chapter which in the ancient Church as hereafter wee shall shewe were called Archpresbyters and presbyteri ciuitatis in the other Churches of the Diocesse diuided into seuerall precincts the Archdeacons and rurall Deanes gouerning them as the Chorepiscopi were wont in the primitiue Church Not to speake of the Chancellers and Officials the former being adioyned to the Bishops the latter to the Archdeacons by reason of their skill in the Ecclesiasticall lawes Aboue him not onely the Archbishop and his courts but also the prouinciall Synodes assembling chiefly for ordaining Ecclesiasticall Canons and constitutions by which the Bishops are to rule and to be ruled In making whereof though the Ecclesiasticall authoritie especially appeareth yet neither all the Bishops alone and much lesse any one Bishop concludeth any thing but with the consent of the Presbytery And therefore this may to the former authoritie of Ministers be added that in making Ecclesiasticall lawes they haue a voyce either by themselues if they be sent to the Synode or by such as themselues shall choose Sect. 11. In the proposition likewise are two vntruthes For first it is not generally true as it is necessarily intended in the proposition for otherwise the Syllogisme is a meere Paralogisme that whosoeuer doth giue to the Bishop alone the power which is taken from the seuerall pastors with their Elders and parishes doth straightwaies
giue the sole authoritie Ecclesiasticall to the Bishop Indeed if we were so madde as to thinke that there were no Ecclesiasticall gouernement but parishionall there were something in his speech But when besides and aboue the gouernement not onely parishionall but also Diocesan we acknowledge a superiour authoritie in the Archbishop and his courts in the prouinciall synodes especially that authoritie of making Church-lawes whereby both Dioceses and parishes are to be ruled it is apparent that although I did take all authoritie from parish-parish-bishops and their Elders yet it would not follow that I giue the whole authoritie Ecclesiasticall to the Diocesan alone But that which hee saith of my ascribing the supreme authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall to the Diocesan Bishops that is the supreme and the loudest lye and maketh the assumption of his chiefe Syllogisme most euidently false Doe I or any of vs say that the Diocesan Bishop hath the supreme authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall doth not our Church subiect the Bishop to the Archbishop and prouinciall Synodes doth not appeale lye from the sentence of the Bishop to the Archbishop and likewise from him to the Kings Delegates doth not himselfe acknowledge pag. 69. the Bishops so to be subiected to the two Archbishops as that if we may iudge by the outward appearance and practise we may in his opinion seeme to haue but two Churches and those prouinciall the one of Canterbury and the other of Yorke doe wee not all with one consent acknowledge the Kings Maiestie to haue the supreme authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall and whereas the greatest authoritie of Churchmen is exercised in Synodes and the greatest authoritie of Synodes is the making of Church-lawes yet the ratification of them we submit to the King according to the Practise of the ancient Churches liuing vnder Orthodoxall Kings in so much that they and all our Church-lawes are called the Kings Ecclesiasticall lawe Now then if neither I take all authoritie from the pastors nor giue all to the Bishops nor ascribe vnto them◠sole nor supreme authoritie what haue the libellers gained by all their triumphing outcryes but the manifestation of their owne manifold vntruthes Yea but the title of absolute Popelings agreeth better to our Diocesan BB. then to their parish BB. Neither did I say that they are such but that if they did not ioyne vnto them a consistory of Elders they would seeme to set vp not onely a Popeling but an absolute Popeling in euery parish a petite pope indeed their pastor is in regard of that supremacy they ascribe vnto him making him the supreme Ecclesiasticall officer in euery Church which wee deny to our Bishops and were it not that hee hath a consistory ioyned to him as the Pope hath of Cardinals hee would bee more then a pope And againe whereas our Bishops are to be guided by lawes which by their superiors are imposed vpon them their pastors with their Elders and people hauing as the Pope saith he hath a supreme immediate and independent authoritie sufficient for the gouernement of their Churches in all causes Ecclesiastical and therefore for making of Ecclesiasticall lawes they are to be gouerned by their owne lawes For the chiefe thing in Ecclesiasticall gouernement is the authoritie to prescribe lawes Ecclesiasticall If therefore each parish hath as they say it hath sufficient authoritie within it selfe for the gouernement of it selfe in all causes Ecclesiasticall immediately deriued from Christ then questionlesse they haue authoritie to prescribe lawes Ecclesiasticall And as the Pope doth not acknowledge the superioritie of a synode to impose lawes vpon him no more doe they They will giue synodes leaue to deliberate of that which may be best and to perswade thereto but they will not be ruled by them As for the Kings supremacie in causes Ecclesiastical how it may stand with their maine assertion wherein they ascribe to euery parish an independent authoritie immediately deriued from Christ sufficient for the gouernement of it selfe in all causes Ecclesiasticall I will not dispute Serm. Sect. 3. pag. 5. Concerning the secōd viz. what was the preheminence of these BB. in the Churches in respect whereof they are called the Angels of the Churches others more wise and learned then the former granting they were BB. of whole cities the countries adioyning that is to say of Dioceses notwithstanding the sway of the gouernement they ascribe to the Presbyteries of those Churches consisting partly of Ministers and partly of annual or Lay-presbyters making these Angels or Bishops nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or presidents of those Presbyteries and such presidents as were not superior to other Ministers in degree c. to pag. 6. in their turnes Of the two points seruing to shew by way of explication of the text what manner of Bishops were meant by the Angels the latter I propounded in this section to be examined A reason whereof I alledge a controuersie betwixt vs and another sort of disciplinarians who are as I said more wise and learned then the former who though they grant that which the former denied yet doe greatly differ from vs concerning the preheminence which the Angels or ancient Bishops had in the Churches So that in this section are 2. things first the proposition of the second point concerning the preheminence of BB. in respect whereof they were called the Angels of the Churches secondly a reason thereof To the proposition he answereth that they had this name Angels in regard of their generall calling of the ministerie not because of any soueraignetie or supremacie ouer other their fellow Ministers as he saith I imply here and plainely but vntruely affirme afterwards In which fewe words are 2. vntruthes Whereof the former is an errour that they are to tearmed in respect of their generall calling of the ministery For though to be called Angels generally agreeth to all Ministers yet for one and but one among many Ministers in one and the same Church to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called the Angell of that Church is not a common title belonging to all Ministers in regard of their generall calling but a peculiar stile belonging to one who had singular preheminence aboue the rest that is to say a Bishop So saith D. Raynolds in the Church of Ephesus though it had sundry Elders and pastors to guide it yet among those sundry was there one chiefe whō our Sauiour calleth the Angell of the Church and writeth that to him which by him the rest should know And this is he whom afterward in the primitiue Church the fathers called Bishop As touching the latter where he saith that I doe here imply that the Bishops haue a soueraignety or supremacy ouer other Ministers and afterwards doe affirme it plainely that plainely is a plaine lie Soueraignetie and supremacy ouer other Ministers none but Papists giue to their Bishop and they to none but to the Bishop of Rome Superioritie indeed belongeth to
only Presidents of the presbyterie c. Nothing is more plaine The Presbyters saith Caluin in euery Citie chose one out of their number to whom specially they giue the title of a Bishop least from equalitie as is wont dissentions should arise But yet the Bishop was not so in honour and dignitie superiour that hee had dominion ouer his colleagues But what office the Consul had in the Senate to propound matters to aske voyces to goe before others in counselling admonishing exhorting by his authoritie to rule the whole action and to execute that which by common counsell hath bene decreed that office did the B. beare in the assemblie of the Presbyters Againe euery Colledge of Presbyters onely for preseruation of peace and good order were subiect to one Bishop who did so goe before others in dignitie that himselfe was subiect to the assemblie of the bretheren meaning the Presbyterie Caluin therefore maketh the Angels or ancient Bishops nothing else but presidents of the Presbyterie or moderators of the Assemblie Beza as by each of these Angels he vnderstandeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the President of the Presbyterie as before I noted So he will acknowledge the first Bishops to haue bene no other but presidents of the Ecclesiasticall Senate Presidents ouer the assemblies of Pastors to wit of diuerse Parishes belonging to one Church whose authoritie he will acknowledge to bee nothing else but the Dignitie of the first place in the sacred Assemblie with the right of ruling the common action without any dominion ouer those which sit with him And such a presidentship hee acknowledgeth to bee a Diuine ordinance And whereas Ierome saith there was a time when the Churches were gouerned by the common counsell of the presbyters hee would not haue him so vnderstood as if they had not alwayes a president And whereas D. Sarauia objecteth that in Saint Iohns time these 7. Churches of Asia had by Diuine ordinance 7. BB. set ouer them whome hee calleth the Angels Beza replieth Wherefore vrge you this against Ierome vs For when he saith that the Churches at the first were gouerned by the common counsell of Presbyters wee may not thinke he was so vnwise as to dreame that none of the Presbyters was President of the assemblie And most plainely in the next Chapter As touching the first Presbyter saith hee or Bishop of the Diocesse what his Dignitie was and wherein it did consist I haue often shewed that it was wholly of Order and not of degree Euery one of his fellow-Presbyters or Pastors ruling his own Parish and that first Presbyter or Byshop of the Diocesse hauing a super-intendencie or in-spection ouer all his fellow-Presbyters thus farre as to admonish them of their dutie as also hauing assembled his Presbyterie either on set dayes or extraordinarilie to propound matters to them concerning the Diocesse or the Censure of manners to aske their voices to pronounce what to the rest seemeth good From which iudgement it was lawfull to appeale to a Prouinciall Synode As touching the last point what the learned disciplinarians hold may be gathered by the practise of Geneua and other Churches which they did reforme as was pretended according to the discipline of the primitiue Church the Presidents of the presbyteries in those Churches being not perpetuall or for terme of life but for a short time But omitting the rest Beza often vrgeth this point that the ancient BB had this presidentship but for a short time and that by course And as hee professeth the presidentship in the Presbytery of euery Church to be a diuine ordinance immutable So hee acknowledgeth those BB alone for diuine who had this presidentship but for a short time and by course How be it hee confesseth that howsoeuer the order it selfe Namely that there should bee a president in each presbyterie is perpetuall and immutable as beeing essentiall Yet ordinis modum the manner of this order though it were a diuine ordinance that it should bee by course and for a short time was variable as being but accidentall But his wordes which most plainely testifie that which I deliuered are these In what sense it is to be taken that Ierome saith The Churches in the beginning were gouerned by the common Counsell of the Presbyters Ambrose teacheth namely so as there should bee one among them not superiour in degree but first in the dignitie of Order and Honour to which office euery one should succeede in their turnes Now what space of time was prescribed to this Presidentship Ambrose describeth not But it is probable that it was a weekely course such as that of the Aaronicall Priest-hood And after speaking of that change which Ierome noteth hee giueth this reason thereof That the Primacie of Order by course or turnes of mutuall succession was by experience found not sufficient for auoyding of Schisme the dignitie of this Primacie being communicated vnto each of the Pastors in their turnes Therefore that which had bene common to all in their turnes it was thought good to translate vnto one and that one chosen by the iudgement of the whole Presbitery Let the refuter therefore take home those foure vntruths to himselfe which hee obiected against mee whether out of vnmannerly ignorance or rather cunning-rudenes For it can hardly be thought that such bolde challengers of the BB. and so confident an vndertaker of this busines could simply be ignorant of these things but rather cunninglie sought to conceale the diuision which is among themselues fearing lest their fauourites whereof some followe some goe before them out of a zeale not guided by knowledge should take notice that the aforesaid challengers and this Champion stand for a Discipline neither taught by Caluin and Beza and such other learned men nor yet practised by the reformed Churches whereof I desire all men to take notice And verilie for my part I was of opinion till I sawe H.I. booke to the King and the vnmodest vnchristian offer of disputation that they who stand for the pretended reformation among vs had sought for no other discipline then that which Caluin and Beza taught and the reformed Churches especiallie of Geneua doth and Scotland did practise But when I saw the nouell Assertions wheron the new-found parish discipline is founded vrged with such bold vehemencie I must confesse I was much alienated from that side And so I hope will all moderate Christians when they shall consider how they make no ende of broaching more and more Nouelties Serm. Sect. 4 pag. 6. Now for the clearing of this matter which we haue in hand Forasmuch as both sorts obtrude Lay-Elders to extrude Bishops I would first proue against both c. to the end of pag 7. Hitherto the two Assertions contained in the explication haue beene propounded to be discussed Now in this Section I made way to the proofe hereof by enumerating distinctly the seuerall
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
though so much be signified without it No it will not serue the turne for though Presbyter doe alwaies and onely signifie a Minister and neuer signifie an onely gouerning Elder yet there might bee gouerning Elders who were signified by other names Why but then there were no Presbyters but Ministers which was the point to be proued And what then becommeth which is the chiefe scope of this place of all those testimonies wherein the word Presbyter is mentioned which T. C. and others doe alledge supposing the most of the places in the scriptures councils and fathers where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presbyter is mentioned to be so many proofes of your gouerning Elders call you this a weake proofe which doth not onely at once bereaue you of all those testimonies where Presbyter is mentioned and wherein your chiefe strength did lie but also proue that there were no Presbyters but Ministers This consequence therefore was not to be denied And much lesse the other For if there cannot be produced so much as any one pregnant testimonie out of the scriptures councils or fathers mentioning or meaning any lay annuall onely-gouerning Elders with what proofs will they vrge them or with what conscience can they obtrude them as the ordinance of Christ An argument taken from the scriptures alone negatiuè was wont to be a sufficient disproofe of any pretended ordinance of Christ and shall not an argument holde negatiuely from Scriptures Fathers Councels and all Notwithstanding the consequence must needs be infirme and weake for although there be no proofe of any Lay-annuall-onely gouerning elders yet may there be indeed is for all that proofe sufficient for such only gouerning Presbyters as are ecclesiâ—sticall and to be perpetuall Wherefore which way soeuer the proposition lye the consequence therof I flatly deny saith our ryming refuter But heere I intreat the Reader to trie the spirit of this Sophister For if himselfe acknowledge that my meaning is simply to denie the onely-gouerning Elders then can hee not be excused from this imputation of setting himselfe to wrangle against conscience But so much hee acknowledgeth when hee commeth to the assumption for otherwise he could not haue wrangled therewith M. D. meaing saith he is simply to denie all kinde onely-gouerning Elders therefore I denie the assumption His meaning was not to denie all but annuall and Lay-Elders therefore I flatly denie the consequence Thus you see how he is carried with a spirit of contradiction not caring to gaine say himselfe so hee may seeme to contradict mee But so farre was the consequence from being to be denyed because I mention Lay and annuall that rather it was to be graunted These words being added ad maiorem cautelam and distinctly propounded to make the consequence so much the stronger and to signifie that I spake of all Elders whatsoeuer that are not Ministers call them as you will whether Lay or annuall or onely gouerning Elders And here againe let the Reader obserue that the new sect of Disciplinarians will not haue such Elders as lately were in Scotland and still are at Geneua and the Low Countreys No they scorne such those be Lay annuall as you haue heard but these may not be so Therfore let the elder sort of Disciplinarians be accounted wise who though they were faine to yeeld that the greater part of their presbyteries should be of the Laitie yet they did foresee that the Ministers would beare the sway as indeed they ought because they were perpetuall the others annuall or but for a short time whereas these men making the Lay-Elders perpetuall and referring matters to be ruled by pluralitie of voyces absurdly subiect the Ministers to bee ruled and ouer-ruled by them who in the most Countrey-parishes are more fitte to holde the plough then to sit at the sterne of the Church And so desperate or franticke whether are they nowe growne that although they make their parish-parish-Bishop the supreme officer in the visible Church and doe holde that euery parish hath a sufficient and independent authoritie immediately deriued from Christ for the gouernment of it selfe in all causes Ecclesiasticall Notwithstanding offer to submitte their Bishop and his Consistorie yea their whole visible Church with their whole managing of causes Ecclesiasticall to the ouersight and superintendencie of each Iustice of peace Hauing thus wrangled with the proposition hee setteth himselfe also against the assumption containing the two aforesaide Assertions The former whereof viz that the word Presbyter noting an Ecclesiasticall person in the Church of Christ euermore in the Scriptures Councells and Fathers signifieth a Minister hee denyeth For if the word onely bee added it is vtterly false For I shall make it euident saith hee that the worde Presbyter doth sometimes signifie one that is not a Minister And if it bee left out it will be false neuerthelesse For it shall appeare that sometimes the word is vsed for an Ecclesiasticall person that is no Minister So that by his owne confession all is one whether the word onely bee inserted or omitted the contradictorie being one and the same that sometimes it signifieth one that is not a Minister But though hee delay the Reader for his owne proofes which I dare assure him will not satisfie his iudicious expectation yet seeing he setteth himselfe to catch and snatch at euery word he should not haue passed by those argumeÌ„ts â—hereby I proued my Assertion and I am perswaded would not if silence had not bene his best answere For a man of his Acumen might easily out of those fewe words haue raised three syllogismes which he could not so easily answere But the labour which hee thought best to spare I will vndertake for him For 1. If the word Priest freed as it is in our Church from the popish abuse and conceiued without all relation to reall sacrifices be the proper English of presbyter as it noteth an Ecclesiasticall person then presbyter signifieth a Minister onely and as well might question bee made whether there were any Lay-priests as Lay-presbyters but the former is true therefore the latter 2. That word which in the Scriptures is confounded with Episcopus or Bishop doth signifie a Minister onely But Presbyter by their owne confession is confounded with Episcopus or Bishop Therefore presbyter doth signifie a Minister onely 3. That word which being in the Scriptures confounded with Bishop doth also note such a person as by the Apostles rule must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 able to preach doth signifie a Minister of the word onely for in none but Ministers is that propertie required But Presbyter is such a word as beeing in the Scriptures confounded with Bishop doth also note a person who must by the Apostles rule be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or able to preach Therefore the word Presbyter doth signifie a Minister onely The latter part of his assumption saith he in case he vrge the words Lay and annuall
of my exposition there are two parts the one concerning the subiect or parties here mentioned whom I expound to be ministers onely the other concerning their duties in regard whereof double honour is due to them the one generall the other speciall in both respects the one text doth answere the other as face answereth to face in the water For first that Presbyters here are Ministers onely I proue thus The Presbyters to whom Paul speaketh Act. 20. were Ministers onely The Presbyters of whom he speaketh 1. Tim. 5.17 were the same to whom he spake Act. 20. Therefore the Presbyters of whom he speaketh 1. Tim. 5.17 were Ministers onely Secondly that the duties both generall and speciall are peculiar to Ministers I proue by this argument The duties which Paul requireth Act. 20.28 are duties required peculiarly of Ministers The duties for which double honour is due 1. Tim. 5.17 both generall and speciall are the same with those which Paul requireth Act. 20.28 therefore the duties for which double honour is due 1. Tim. 5 17. are duties peculiarly required of Ministers This latter Syllogisme my expert aduersarie obserued not the former he flingeth after his manner into a connexiue Syllogisme For though his forge doe scarcely afford any other yet hee hath gotten a pretie smacke of Syllogizing that way were it not that his Syllogismes for the most part are too long by the halfe But here he surpasseth himselfe for hee hath cast my whole Syllogisme into his connexiue proposition and in his minor repeateth at large both the proposition and assumption But let vs see what he saith to these Syllogismes In the first he onely denieth my proposition viz. that the Presbyters Act. 20. were none but Ministers which I must confesse in that breuitie I tooke for granted because I thought it needed not to be proued For seeing that verse is not onely generally vnderstood euen of them which stand for Lay Elders writing not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but commenting vpon or otherwise expounding that place of Ministers but also is alledged both by protestants and papists to iustifie the calling of BB. I did presume that it was to be vnderstood of such onely as are Ministers at the least But that which before was for breuitie omitted shall now be supplyed First therfore I argue thus All those that are called BB. in the acts and writings of the Apostles are Ministers of the word All the Presbyters to whom Paul speaketh Act. 20.28 are called BB. Therefore all the Presbyters to whom Paul spake Act. 20.28 were Ministers of the word Or thus Lay-Elders are no where called BB. All the Presbyters Act. 20.28 are called Bishops Therefore none of those Presbyters were Lay-Elders Shall I need to proue any of the premisses Are our Presbyterians of late growne so absurd as to denie them What are not all BB. Ministers and are your Lay-Elders growne of late to be Bishops did not our refuter pag â— affirme that these Presbyters Act. 20. are Angels and Bishops and that Angels are pastors and are Lay-Elders Angels and pastors too â—ie for shame and yet so absurd is our refuter as to say that some of these Elders whom Paul calleth Bishops were not Ministers but their lay or onely-gouerning Elders But if either reason or authoritie will preuaile with him he may easily be confuted my reason I frame thus All Episcopi or Bishops must by the Apostles rule which is generall be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 able to teach 1. Tim. 3.2 that is as he expoundeth himselfe Tit. 1.9 holding fast the faithful word according to doctrine that they may be able to exhort with holesome doctrine and conuince the gain-sayers But not Lay-Elders nor any but Ministers doe need by the Apostles rule to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 able to preach in that sense that he expoundeth it Tit. 1.9 For on those words Caluin obserueth that it is required in theÌ„ that they should be learned and indued with sound knowledge and that their doctrine should tend to edification c. Therefore not Lay-Elders nor any but Ministers are Bishops As for authoritie let him shew me any testimonie of scripture or of any sound writer old or new that is not a partie vsing the word Bishop for Lay-Elder or any one that is not a Minister and I will yeeld to him the bucklers Caluin though a partie plainly saith that the scripture vseth promiscuously these words Bishops Presbyters Pastors Ministers to signifie those who doe exercise the ministerie of the word And hauing intreated of them in conclusion he saith that as yet he had not spoken of any other functions but such as consist in the ministerie of the word And in another place although he collâ—teth out of 1. Tim. 5.17 two sorts of Presbyters yet he saith that the Presbyters mentioned Tit. 1.5 are by the context manifested to be no other but Doctors or Teachers because Paul presently after calleth them Bishops The author of the booke de Ecclesiastica disciplina and of the defence thereof ingenuously confesseth that onely pastors and teachers are Bishops and that ruling Elders are not comprehended vnder the name Bishop and so farre is he from comprehending them vnder the title of Bishop that although he were resolued to find a roome for them 1. Tim. 3. yet he durst not comprise them vnder the title and description of a Bishop though the Bishop be all one with Presbyter Tit. 1.5.7 but shrowdeth them vnder the title and description of Deacons as hereafter we shall shew Againe all pastors of Christs flocke are Ministers onely All the Presbyters of Ephesus were pastors of Christs flocke therefore they were Ministers onely Or thus Lay-Elders are not Pastors of Christs flocke of other flocks perhaps they may All the Presbyters of Ephesus were Pastors of Christs flocke Therefore they were not Lay-Elders That they were pastors I proue thus Bishops set ouer the flocke of Christ by the holy Ghost to feed the Church of God are pastors The Presbyters of Ephesus were such Act. 20.28 Therefore they were pastors And that Caluin confesseth more then once And our refuter also in the place before alledged from whose confession I argue thus The Angels were pastors saith our refuter The Presbyters of Ephesus were Angels therefore the Presbyters of Ephesus were pastors But why should so plaine a thing seeme to be made doubtfull with longer proofe for if such Presbyters as were also Bishops and pastors were any but Ministers then Presbyters Bishops and pastors were Lay-Elders also and Lay-Elders were all in all And whereas he obiecteth that Lay-Elders may be comprehended vnder the name Presbyter and Episcopus because D. B. saith that these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop Presbyter DeacoÌ„ or Minister are oft so largely taken as that they comprise all Ecclesiasticall functions I answere in a word by Ecclesiasticall functions he meaneth onely the functions of the Ministerie including neither your Lay-Elders nor
CleruÌ„ which is translated inheritance the sacred companie Euen as we now also do call it that is to say the Clergie Which exposition if we follow then those presbyters to whoÌ„ Peter writeth prescribing vnto them how they should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is saith Caluin Episcopatu fungi exercise the office of a Bishop and noting their authority ouer the Clergie were such as we call bishops But of that by the way Now if the presbyters Act 20. were ministers and teachers as I haue proued and as all writers almost euen those that are parties in the cause do teach then by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are to vnderstand the dutie of feeding which belongeth to pastors and teachers and wil neuer be proued to belong to Lay-Elders The refuter hauing with such successe as you see endeuored to maintaine that the presbyters Act. 20. were as wel Lay-Elders as ministers and that the duties both generall of attending to themselues the whole flocke and also special of feeding the Church were required as common to Ministers with Lay-elders which assertions I haue confuted with euidence of truth in this exposition or opposition rather he doth so please himselfe as that hee doubteth not to retort my Syllogisme vpon me after this manner If the presbyters spoken of Acts 20 28 be not onely ministers but gouerning Elders also and the same with those 1. Tim 5.17 then the presbyters spoken of 1. Tim. 5.17 are not onely Ministers but gouerning Elders also But the presbyters spoken of Acts 20 28 are not onely ministers but gouerning elders also the same with those 1. Tim 5 17 Therefore the presbyters spoken of 1. Tim. 5.17 are not onely Ministers but gouerning Elders also Heere this great Logick-maister that taketh vpon him to teach and to comptroll mee in matters of Logicke bewrayeth himselfe to bee a Logicaster or smatterer in Logicke For an entire and a better Syllogisme concluding the same question as I noted before in his Analyzing of mine is here tumbled into the proposition the proposition and assumption therof not only idlely but with disaduantage to himself if he had meant to haue proued it repeated But because he hath bene at some paines with me this way to shew his own ignoraÌ„ce I will teach him to make his sillogis thus The Presbyters to whom Paul did speake Acts 20.28 were not ministers onely but Lay or gouerning Elders also The Presbyters of whom hee speaketh I. Tim. 5.17 were the Presbyters to whom he spake Acts. 20 28. Therefore the presbyters of whome hee speaketh Tim. 5.17 were not onely ministers but Lay or onely gouerning Elders also This propositioÌ„ which is but part of his own assumption wheÌ„ he shal be able to make good by any sound proofe I will subscribe to his Lay-Elders For whereas hee for want of better proofe saith that hee hath already iustified it by the ouerthrow of mine it is a most vaine bragge as I hope it doth sufficiently appeare to the reader For what one reason or shew of reason hath hee brought or can bring to proue that the Presbyters mentioned Acts. 20. were Lay or onely gouerning Elders CHAP. VI. Maintaining the third reason that Lay-Elders are not mentioned nor meant 1. Tim. 5.17 Serm. Sect. 5. pag. 11. And that hee speaketh not there of Lay or onely gouerning-Elders it may further be prooued by plaine euidence out of the text For seeing by honour in that place the Apostle vnderstandeth honourable maintenance which by their owne confession is not due to Lay-Elders it is therefore certaine that this place acknowledgeth none such Thus therfore I argue To all those Elders who are mentioned or meant in this place the honour of maintenance is due for their worke sake To the Lay-Elders the honour of maintenance is not due for their worke sake Therefore the Lay-Elders are not mentioned nor meant in this place c to pag. 13. THe refuter hauing neither learning enough to beare the weight of this argumeÌ„t nor wit enough to forbeare it in answearing therto he vttereth more gall then would well become an honest man The virus and poison of his libelling speeches I leaue to himselfe The virâ—s and force of his arguments and answeres I will take vpon me plainely to confute and both here and euery where else by the helpe of God to put him to silence First as his manner is though he dares not deny the proposition of my syllogisme to be most true and vndoubted yet he must needs cauill with it And because hee hath nothing to say against it hee hopeth with it to wound some of our side who among other interpretatioÌ„s of this place haue thought the former part of this Text might more probably be vnderstood of not preaching Ministers or Deacons c then of Lay-Elders And although I would bee loth to become a Proctor for vnlearned Ministers especially when learned may be had yet thus much I will say that if the Disciplinarians doe rightly ground vpon this place a distinction of Presbyters into two sorts that there be some preaching Presbyters some not then this text doth without coÌ„parison fauour the not preaching ministers more theÌ„ the Lay-elders Because it is a most certaine truth which I haue manifestly proued and which the refuter will neuer be able to disproue that by Presbyters ministers only are meant As for DeacoÌ„s I meane not your Lay Deacons D. B. hath better reasons to comprise them vnder Presbyters then your W. T. had vnder the name of Deacons to vnderstand your Lay-Elders though T.C. himselfe did subscribe to his opinion And wheras you challenge those reuerend men for seeking by warraÌ„t of this place to surcharge the Church with maintenance of vnpreaching Ministers and Deacons I answere they do not hold that in euery parish such ought to be maintained as you would haue your Presbyterie erected in euery parish but where better more sufficient Ministers cannot be had which was the case of many parishes in England at the beginning of Q. Elizabeths raigne c. But all his spite is against the assumption though hee spend his spite neither in disproouing it with force of argument nor in answering my proofes with any substaÌ„ce of reason but in sophistical cauilling odious wrangling For wheÌ„ he hath said what he was able I cannot tell whether he doth denie the assumption or graunt it onely hee cauilleth with my proofes of it My assumption was this To Lay-Elders the honour of maintenance is not due for their worke sake Hereunto I require a direct answere If hee say that the honour of maintenance yea double honor that is as not only Theodoreâ— but T. C. also expound 〈◊〉 plentifull maintenance is due vnto them he should haue brought sufficient proofes both to confute the iudgement of those learned Diuines who reformed as directors other Churches and condemne the practise of all reformed Churches which hauing those Presbyters doe not
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
Ministers and Lay-Elders then it doth necessarily follow that as the Ministers haue the care and ouersight of doctrine and religion so the Lay-Elders haue the ouersight of manners and care of auoiding offences But the Antecedent is true 1. Tim. 5.17 Therefore the consequent To the assumption of the former Syllogisme I answere that Lay-Elders are no where 's said in the Scriptures to be Presbyters or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to gouerne or ouersee but all those places which be alleadged to this purpose are to bee vnderstood of Ministers onely Besides the same Author hath confessed that Lay Elders are not Byshops neither will he say that they be Pastors But the places which he quoteth are to be vnderstood of Bishops Pastors Of Act. 20.28 1. Pet. 5. I haue already spoken as also of 1. Thess. 5.12 Why Heb. 13.17 should be applpyed to Lay-Elders there is no reason vnlesse whatsoeuer is spoken of Spirituall gouernors is to be vnderstood of them The Writers both olde and new expound it of Bishops and Pastors The assumption also of the second syllogisme is vntrue neither hath it any thing to support it but their owne exposition of 1. Tim. 5.17 which I haue proued to be false Neither is that true which is presupposed in both syllogismes that there must be two sorts of Elders answerable to the two parts of ouersight For both the parts of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or ouersight belong to those which be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ouerseers that is Bishops and Pastors whose dutie is both to teach and to gouerne Their third Argument is taken from the practise of the primitiue Church next succeeding the Apostles Which of all their Arguments is most friuolous there being not anie testimonie of any writer or example of any Church to bee alledged that euer there was such an office in the Church But howsoeuer these duties to be performed by the Elders seuerally might be borne with so they were not obtruded as the ordinances of Christ yet the ioynt office of their Lay presbyteryes is intollerable For what reason can they alledge for their intruding into the sacred office of Bishops and Pastors vsurping the keyes of the kingdome of heauen which our Sauiour Christ committed to none but to the Apostles and their successors That Lay-men should haue authoritie and that by the ordinance of Christ to ordaine Ministers by imposition of hands to remit or retaine sinnes to excommunicate the obstinate or to reconcile the penitent is an opinion too absurde to be confuted Thus therefore I reason according to their owne principles No office in the Church is lawfull as themselues say which hath not expresse warrant in the scriptures which is all one as if they had said All lawfull offices in the church haue expresse warrant in Gods word The office of the Lay-Elders seuerally and of their Elderships yearely hath not expresse warrant in Gods word Therfore it is vnlawfull To their office wee will ioyne the consideration of their qualities for surely if the holy Ghost had prescribed in the scriptures an office of such importance it is to bee thought that he would also haue described what manner of men were to be chosen to it and how qualified for the performance of an office of so high a nature And although he omitted their qualities in other places yet mee thinks if it be a function that is in dignitie vnder the Minister but aboue the Deacon the Apostle could not haue forgotten them in 1. Tim. 3 where he describeth the qualities not only of Bishops and Ministers which be aboue them but of the Deacons also which are beneath them directing Timo 〈◊〉 and in him all Bishops what manner of persons to orâ—aâ—â— Ministers or Deacons Forgotten say they why are they not plainly expressed in that place Yes no doubt for that is agreed vpon among vs For some will needs comprise them vnder the Bishop or Minister and feare not to â—ay that they also must be suâ— modo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is able 〈◊〉 preach after their fashion Others acknowledge that they are neuer comprehended vnder the name Bishop and that it is necessarily required of Ministers alone to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 able to preach especially in that sense that the Apostle meaneth as appeareth by comparing that place with Tit 1.9 yet resolued to finde a roome for them in that place and not to suffer them to be excluded are faine to sâ—rowâ—e them vnder the name of Deacons though the name of Deacon neither in scriptures nor Fathers was euer attributed to them How they will compound these contrarieties I know not For if they be comprised vnder the name Bishop then are they not to be shrowded vnder Deacons and if they be contained vnder Deacons then are they not comprised vnder Bishops It shall 〈◊〉 me to alledge that forsomuch as the Eldership is in their conceit a different office both from the Minister and Deacon that it is comprehended in neither For who cannot conceiue this reason None but Bishops Ministers and Deacons are described in that place Bishops and Ministers in the former description and Deacons in the latter But Lay-elders are neither Bishops or Ministers nor Deacons but an imagined office distinct from both Therefore they are not described in that place The refuâ—â—â— hath solemnely proclaimed before and required all men to take notice of it that their Elders ought to be men religious of great grauitie and pietie and of good yeares also if it may be as the name importeth called with due examination chosen with consent of the congregation ouer which they are set with prayer and imposition of hands put a part to that Ecclesiasticall office All which I will not denie to haue beene politickely deuised so it may be acknowledged an humane deuise and not a diuine ordinance But why are not the margents filled with scriptures for the proofe of these things The truth is there is not one testimonie of scripture to be alledged prescribing the office or describing the qualities of Lay-Elders But perhaps there may be mention sufficient of them in the scriptures to warrant their calling though neither their office nor their qualities be described in the word of God Nor that neither as shall appeare when I come to answere the refuters allegations for them In the meane time I will not doubt to renew my former challenge if they can produce any one pregnant testimonie out of the scriptures whereby it may necessarily be concluded that either there were at any time or ought to be at all times in the Church of Christ such Elders and Elderships as they speake of that then I will yeeld to them in the whole controuersie betwixt vs. But vntill such proofe be produced for them which will neuer be they shall giue me leaue to esteeme their doctrine of Lay-Elders to be as it is a meere fiction how vehemently soeuer it be vrged and obtruded
the Monarchicall gouernement when Saul was set ouer them For vntill Saul God himselfe was the Monarch of the Iewes retaining iura Maiestatis the right of soueraignty in his owne hands chiefly in prescribing them lawes and in appointing their chiefe magistrates and gouernours especially the iudges whom he set ouer them to be as kings for a time But when the people would needs haue a king after the manner of other nations the Lord saith to Samuel they haue not reiected thee but me haue they reiected that I should not reignâ— ouer them And so farre is Samuel from commending the gouernement of the earâ—hly King in comparison of the Celestiall that describing vnto them the fashion of their future king he telleth them that whereas before God did rule them by his will and by his owne lawes onely they should now be ruled after the kings will and pleasure which would not proue very pleasant to them as he sheweth by many particulars § Sect. 8. As touching the third branch he saith the consequence thereof is of the same feather with the former If Ambrose could not endure that Bishops or Ministers should be subiected to Lay-persons then would he not complaine that Lay-Presbyters were out of vse It followeth not saith he there may be Presbyters wherein are Lay-Elders and yet the Bishops and Ministers not be subiected to them But say I where the farre greater part of the Presbyteries consisteth of Lay-men as alwaies it hath done according to the practise of Geneua and alwaies would doe according to the new Parish-discipline it cannot be auoided but that the fewer number of Ministers would be subiected to the farre greater number of Lay-Elders especially if they according to the wise conceit of our new disciplinarians may be perpetuall But whether these three branches seuerally doe inferre a necessary consequence or no it is not materiall seeing they were ioyntly propounded and seeing from them vnited a necessary consequence dependeth Wherfore the seuering of them to weaken the consequence and to breede matter of cauil was a sophisticall if not a leaud trick The leaudnes whereof will the better appeare if we consider his dealing with the assumption for he that hauing seuered the branches of the proposition exacted from euery one seuerally a necessary consequence in the assumption he will haue them all taken together For before he taketh the assumption in pieces meaning to cauill with euery part seuerally he vseth this Caution Prouided alwaies and be it remembred of the Reader that if any one of the three parts thereof proue false though the other two be neuer so true the whole assumption is in law of true reason vtterly void and of none effect But if in the proposition I be vrged to make good the consequence from each part seuerally the assuming of any one part will conclude the question As thus If I must be forced to maintaine this consequence If Ambrose were a Diocesan Bishop then would hee noâ— complaine of the want of Lay-Elders it wil be sufficient to assume thus but he was a Diocesan Bishop to coÌ„clude that therefore he would not complaine of the want of Lay-Elders It is true that it is required in my assumption as I propound it that euery branch must be true but the reasoÌ„ hereof is because they were ioyned in the proposition to make good the consequence For if they be seuerally propounded in the proposition they may also seuerally be assumed in the assumption Whiles therefore he chargeth me with a bad consequence himselfe is to be charged with a badde conscience But come we to the assumption with the first branch whereof the refuter playeth thus Ambrose saith M. D. was a Diocesâ—n Bishop Was he so indeed Had he not onely supreme but 〈◊〉 authoritie as our BB haue ouer I know not how many hundreds of Ministers in causes Ecclesiasticall Was he an absolute Pop linâ— indeed What a shame is this that he who eueÌ„ now charged so mâ—ny learned men to haue done Ambrose wrong should now be found the man â—uilty of that trespas Ambrose was no more like a Diocesan Bishop then he that is tyed by vertue of his calling to preach the word administer the sacrameÌ„ts in his owne Church c. Can a man of a sincere conscience professing as themselues terme it the cause of sinceritie be so malepartly confident in denying that whereof he is vtterly ignorant or rather can a man that taketh vpon him the defence of this controuersie as a chiefe champion of the pretended discipline and one I doubt not of the chiefe challengers of the Bishops to dispute with them in these causes be ignorant that Ambrose was a Diocesan Bishop doth he know that he was a Diocesan at the least and can he thus denie it and keepe his conscience sincere well though the taske be all one as if I should be required to proue that the Bishop of London or rather the Archbishop of Yorke is a Diocesan Bishop yet seeing my learned aduersarie denieth it and pretendeth some reason of his denyall I will first proue that Ambrose was at the least a Diocesan B and for the greatnes of his authoritie and largenes of his iurisdiction comparable with ours and in the second place I will answere his reasons First therfore you are to be aduertised that Mediolanum Millaine whereof Ambrose was Bishop not onely is a Metropolis or seate of a Metropolitan but was both in and before Ambrose his time Strabo saith it was a Metropolis wherein the gouernour of the prouince of Liguria and Aemilia kept his residence Athanasius speaking of Dionysius the Bishop of Millaine saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it also is a mother citie of Italy It is also euident and a thing confessed by Beza that the distribution of the Church into Dioceses prouinces was framed according to the diuision of the Dioceses and Prouinces vnder the Romane Empire Ambrose himself was a man of consular dignitie in Rome and being appointed gouernour of Liguria and Aemilia came to Millaine Where keeping his residence it fell out that Auxentius the Bishop being dead and the Emperour Valentinian hauing assembled as the manner was for the choise of a Metropolitan the Bishops of that uerendorum Episcoporum consueta lege Episcopus Ephesiorum est constitutus The honour and sublimitie Episcopall cannot be matched with any comparison if you compare it with the excellencie of Princes and ciuill Magistrates you shall compare gold with lead As for the people the Episcopall function hath not onely obtained to be preferred before them but also is enioyned by Euangelicall precepts with fatherly authoritie to gouerne them for they as the sheepe of Christ are committed to BB. as to rulers who together with Peter receiued that authoritie to gouerne them c. Againe these things I haue spoken saith he to shew that nothing in this world is more excellent then Bishops For his
offices and to the Councell of Carthage Ambrose therefore saith that the Bishop must not be offended if either a Presbyter or Deacon or any other of the Clergie doe by mercy fasting integritie learning or reading obtaine great estimation Gratia enim ecclesiae laus Doctoris est for the grace of the Church is the Doctors that is the Bishops praise But if any doe not obey the Bishop and desiring to aduance himselfe seeketh aâ— counterfeit affectation of learning humilitie or mercy he is lifted vp with pride going astray from the truth In the Councell of Carthage it was decreed that the people which neuer had a Bishop of their owne should not haue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Doctor or Teacher of their owne that is a Bishop for so is the title of that chapter that the parts of the Diocesse without the consent of the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should not receiue another Bishop But hereupon we may not inferre with T. C. that therefore the Presbyteri mentioned in the Councells Fathers and histories of the Church were no Ministers or that by the word of God they had nothing to doe with the word and Sacraments Farre be it from vs so to thinke for nothing is more euident then that they were Ministers The Fathers knew no Lay-Presbyters nor Lay-Deacons no more then Lay-Bishops but reckoned these three for sacred or consecrated persons calling them three degrees of the Clergie the Bishop answering to the high Priest the Presbyters to the Priests and the Deacons to the Leuites For proofe whereof there are almost as many euidences in the Canons of the councells as there be leaues But that it may most clearely appeare that the Presbyters were Ministers I will proue it first by their name SecoÌ„dly by their office thirdly by some lawes that peculiarly concerned them For their name as they are most vsually called Presbyters so oftentimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Sacerdotes and these names confounded with Presbyteri that is Priests In the Councell of Carthage continencie is committed to Bishops Presbyters Deacons as it becommeth holy Bishops Priests and Leuits Tertullian reprouing the disorder of Hereticks saith among them hodie Presbyter qui cras laicus nam laicis Sacerdotalia munera iniungunt he is to day a Presbyter who to morrow is a lay-man for euen to lay-men doe they inioyne priestly functions Cyprian speaking of Numidiuns to be chosen a Presbyter saith he was reserâ—ed that God might adde him to our Clergy and that he might adorne the decayed store of certaine Presbyters with glorious Priests And more plainely in another place he saith that the Presbyters are ioyned with the Bishops in priestly honour Dionysius termed the Areopagite insteed of Bishop Presbyter and Deacon into which three he distinguisheth the Clergie vseth the names 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Presbyters and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Deacons Sozomen also calleth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Priests Isidorus those who in the old Testament were called Sacerdotes are they who who are called Presbyteri And then hee setteth downe their office That to them is committed the dispensation of diuine mysteries they rule the Church and in the consecration of the body and blood of Christ are partners with the Bishops as also in teaching the people and office of preaching The Ancient Councell of Ancyra permitting the Presbyters who hauing once sacrificed did after refuse to retaine their place notwithstanding suspendeth them from the exercise of their function in these respects forbidding them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to offer the communion to preach or to minister in any part diuine seruice The learned Author of the vnfinished worke which goeth vnder the name of Chrysostome by the seruant which receiued fiue talents and gained other fiue vnderstandeth a Presbyter sent of God whome he calleth sometimes Teacher and sometimes Priest and sheweth how by his fiue talents he gaineth other fiue that is by the knowledge of Christ as a talent committed to him a godly life by the office of a Presbyter the careful gouernement of the Church by the word the sincere preaching of the word of truth by baptisme the begetting of worthy children to the Church by the sacrifice the offering of an holy and immaculate sacrifice for the people and making intercession for their sinnes More particularly for the ministerie of the Sacraments the Councell of Laodicâ—a determined that those which returned from the heresie of the Cataphrygians though of the Clergie among them though supposed great men must with all diligence be instructed and baptized either of the Bishops or Presbyters of the Church Tertullian saith the chiefe Priest which is the Bishop hath right to giue baptisme then Presbyters Deacons c. In the Canons called the Apostles in diuerse Councells it is presupposed that to Presbyters it belongeth to administer the coÌ„munion In the Councell of Nice the Deacons who are there said to haue no power to celebrate the Communion are forbidden to deliuer it to the Presbyter who hath power but must receiue it either at the Bishops or Presbyters hands To omit other of the Fathers doth not Ierome expressely testifie that the Presbyters prayers the body and blood of Christ are consecrated For the Leiturgie or saying of diuine seruice it is reckoned among the functions both of Presbyters and Deacons and such Presbyters or Deacons as without the consent of their Bishop doe remoue to other Churches and refuse to returne when they are called by their B. are forbidden 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to minister or serue any more As for the ministery of the word though Presbyters were for a time by reason of Arrius his fall restrained from preaching yet both before and after they were allowed to preach Among their functions as you heard the Councell of Ancyra reckoneth preaching The 58. Canon of the Apostles so called requireth them to instruct not onely the laitie but the Clergie also Ignatius requireth them to feede the flocke Origen testifieth that all BB. and all Presbyters or Ministers erudiunt nos do instruct vs c. Basil saith that to them and to Deacons in committed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the preaching of the Gospel Caluin speaking of the primitiue Church saith it was the dutie in those times of the Bishop as wel as of the Presbyters to apply themselues to the ministerie of the word and Sacraments Chrysost. hauing affirmed that there is no great differeÌ„ce betweene a Bishop and a Presbyter rendreth this reason for they also haue receiued 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 authoritie to teach 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gouernement of the Church and what things the Apostle hath said concerning Bishops doe agreâ— also to Presbyters In them therefore it is required that they should be 〈◊〉
refuter obiecteth that our BB haue not the like assistance of the Deane and chapter that the ancient BB had of their Presbyteries For Ambrose complaineth that euen in his time their counsell was neglected And yet in these times as the Bishop may vse their aduise if he please so in some cases their assistance is necessarily required the acts of the Bishop being void without their consent Besides sede vacante in the vacancy of the See the custodie of the Bishopricke Episcopall rights as also the election of the new Bishop is after a sort referred to them And as in times past so now the placing and displacing of the Presbyters of the citie whom we call Prebendaries appertaineth to the BB a few Churches onely among vs excepted And to conclude as Deanes and Chapters with vs are in a maner peculiar to Cathedrall Churches the seats of Bishops some collegiate Churches excepted so were the Presbyteries in the primitiue Church Insomuch that our new sect of disciplinarians might as well say there was in old time now should be a Deane chapter as a Presbyterie in euery parish If therefore they will sue for reformation according to the precedent of the primitiue Churches let them seeke and sue that the Bishops may vse the counsell and assistance of the Presbyterie of the citie which we call the Deane and Chapter and they may hope to preuaile if none of the reasons why their assistance is forborne be sufficient which now come to be examined Serm. Sect. 8. pag. 16. But howsoeuer Ambrose knew not what to say of this matter otherwise then by coniecture c to the end of the first point pag. 17. These reasons I added by way of surplusage or aduantage to giue satisfaction if it might be But nothing will satisfie them who set themselues to cauill for whereas I said I doubt not but the true causes c the refuter depraueth my speech as if the word I had beene vttered with an immodest Emphasis when as I meant no more by that speech then when we say proculdubio or dubium non est which kind of speech my aduersarie me thinkes should not so greatly mislike sithens their Lay-Elders which haue beene vrged with such heat haue no better warrant then dubium non est satis opinor constat probabile est as you shall heare when we come to their proofes They may say confidently there were Lay-Elders in the time of the Apostles yea from the time of Moses vntill Christ and that after the example of the Iewes who indeed neuer had such Presbyteries they are to be erected in euery parish and yet haue no better warrant for these things then their owne coniectures They may take vpon them to auow without reason that to haue beene done in the Apostles times whereunto neither scripture nor Father giueth testimonie and in me it is great immodestie to affirme that which but one of the Fathers seemed to doubt of though I alleage sufficient reason of my affirmation For in the first three hundred yeares after Christ when Christians neither had frequent Synodes to determine doubts nor Synodall constitutions to direct the Bishops nor the authoritie of the Christian Magistrate to rectifie what was amisse in the gouernement of the Church there was great necessitie that the Bishop should vse the aduise and counsell of other wise and learned men otherwise his will would haue seemed to stand for a law and his gouernement would haue beene subiect to ouersight in himselfe to remedilesse wrong towards the clergie and people and to the obloquy and scandall of all But when as prouinciall Synodes were frequently assembled to determine doubts to right the causes of them that were wronged to prescribe so many Caâ—ons and constitutions as to the BB assembling in Councell seemed sufficient for their direction wheÌ„ the authoritie of the christian Magistrate was helpefull to the Church then we may easily conceiue that as the Councell and assistance of the Presbyterie was not so needfull so both to the Presbyters desiring their ease and Scholasticall quietnesse and also to the Bishops desiring to rule alone it would seeme needlesse which reason I am well content it shall be put into the equall balance of the Readers iudgement against the cauills of the refuter wherewith he hath blotted more then a whole leafe It happened to the Presbyteries as after it did to the prouinciall Synodes For when by experience it was fouÌ„d to be very troublesome chargeable to the BB hurtfull to their churches tedious to suiters by reason of multitude of causes referred to Synodal audience that al the BB in euery couÌ„try should twice euery yeare for a long time be absent from their churches to be present at Synodes it was decreed both by the Emperours and BB that those causes wherewith prouinciall Synodes had vsually bene troubled should be referred to the audience and decisioÌ„ of the Archbishop or Metropolitan Euen so when it was found troublesome and tedious to the Presbyters and hurtfull to the Church that their time which might better be spent in studie of Diuinitie to furnish them for the publike Ministery should be taken vp in hearing brabbles and quarrels and also their assistance seemed not needfull to the Bishops for the causes aforesaid it is not to be maruelled that their assistance grew out of vse For whereas the refuter obiecteth and is the onely thing worth the mentioning which he obiecteth that the Presbyteries continued in Ambroses time and long after I answere that they continue to this day But as their assistance now in matters of gouernement is not much vsed so before Ambrose his time it began to be neglected And thus much concerning the testimonie of Ambrose which hauing cleared as well as that 1. Tim. 5.17 being the onely places of moment which vse to be produced in this cause I might safely conclude from all the premisses that therfore there were no Lay-Elders in the primitiue Church From whence besides the maine conclusion that therefore the primitiue Church was gouerned by Diocesan Bishops the two particular assertions concluding against our new sect of disciplinarians will necessarily follow The first that therefore there were no parishionall Presbyteries the second that therefore parish Bishops or pastors were subiect to the Diocesan Bishops Against the former he obiecteth a speech of D. Bilson affirming that euery Church in the Apostles times had many Prophets Pastors and Teachers which as the refuter saith might make a Presbyterie But the Churches D. Bilson speaketh of were not in seuerall parishes but as he saith in populous cities such as that of Ephesus Act. 20 and those prouided not for any one parish but for the whole citie and countrey adioyning that is to say the Diocesse For when my aduersarie shall produce any one pregnant testimonie that in such congregations as we call parishes there was a Presbyterie of Ministers I will also grant
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
because hee calleth great Churches after the diuision of them into many parishes not onely in the Country but euen in the Cities by the name of Paroecia To which purpose let vs conferre a few places in Eusebius concerning the Church of Alexandria whereby his meaning when he speaketh of this argument wil easily appeare For hauing said lib. 6. cap. 1. that Laetus was the president of AlexaÌ„dria the rest of Aegypt he addeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the Bishoprick of the paroecia or Churches there in Alexandria and Aegypt Demetrius had lately receiued In the eight chapter he saith that Demetrius was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the president or Bishop of the paroecia that is the Church there For so he explaneth himself chap. 26. calling him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bishop of the Church of the Alexandreans and what he meaneth by that speech he sheweth chap. 35. Where speaking of Dionysius his next successor but one hee vseth these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hee taketh vpon him the Bishopricke or charge of being president of the Churches belonging to Alexandria So that when he saith Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the paroecia or church his meaning is all one as if hee had said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is of such a Bishopricke as contained many Churches And in the same sense he speaketh though in the plurall number when hee mentioneth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. the paroeciae or churches of Pontus the churches of Asia the paroecia of the holy catholike church Thus then wee see that in antient writers the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greeke and paroecia corruptly parochia in Latine is vsually taken for the whole diocesse consisting of many parishes when it betokeneth a Bishops whole charge § 8. Sometimes it signifieth but a part of the Bishoprick as wheÌ„ the whole diocesse is diuided into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying the city or chiefe seate or see of the Bishop and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the rest of the diocesse in the countrie or countries thereto belonging For manifestation whereof those two places mentioned in the sermon are sufficient The former is one of the ancient Canons called the Apostles in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Bishops of euery naÌ„tion it behoueth to agnize him that is Primate or first among them and to esteeme him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as their head or chief and to do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing that exceedeth the bounds of their owne charge or iurisdiction without his consent and that euery one doe deale in those things alone 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which belong to his owne Paroecia that is see or Church the couÌ„â—ries which be subiect onto it Neither may he that is the Metropolitan do any thing without the consent of all So shall there bee concorde and God shall bee glorified through the Lord in the Holy Ghost Which canon is renued and explained in the councill of Antioch the canons whereof were part of the ancient code or book of canons receiued in the ancient church recited some of them in the great councell of Chalcedon and ratified all of them in the generall councell of Constantinople held in Trullo the Emperours Palace The canon is this It behooueth the BB of euery Prouince to acknowledge the Metropolitane B. and that he taketh vpoÌ„ him the cure of the whole Prouince because there is a concourse of all men who haue businesse from all places vnto the Metropolis on mother Citie Wherefore it hath beene thought good or decreed that he should excell in honour and that without him the rest of the Bishops should doe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing exceeding the bounds of their owne charge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the ancient receiued Canon of our Fathers meaning the afore cited Canon of the Apostles which it reciteth as you see word for word but those things alone which concerne his owne Paâ—oecia that is his owne See or Citie and the Countries which be vnder it For euery Bishop hath authoritie ouer his owne Paroecia and doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 administer according to the feare of God wherewith he is endued and hath a prouident care 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the whole region or countrey which is vnder his Citie vsing the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Paroecia and Citie indifferently so that hee may ordaine Presbyters and Deacons and order all things with iudgement 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but beyond his bounds hee may doe nothing without the Bishop of the Mother Citie neither may he without â—he consent of the rest Then which testimonies nothing can bee alleged more pregnant either for the signification of the word or for the proofe of our assertion that the Churches or charges of Bishops were not parishes but dioceses Sometimes indeede the word Paroecia doth signifie that which we call a parish but then either it is vsed with such reference to a Bishop as it is plainely noted to bee but one among many belonging to his charge and is commonly vttered in the plurall number or else it is referred to a Presbyter as his proper charge To which purpose consider these testimonies The Councell of Carthage which is so much alleged by the Disciplinarians speaketh as of the Bishop of the diocesse so of a Presbyter qui Parochiae praeest who is set ouer a parish The Councell of Toledo speaketh of Presbyters ordained in parochijs per parochias Innocentius the first writing to Florentius a Bishop blameth him for vsurping a parish which belonged to the diocesse of Vrsus another Bishop And elsewhere he speaketh â—â— As for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or dioecesis I hope I shall not neede to prooue that it also signifieth a diocesse Neither do I greatlie neede to shew that in the signification of a diocesse it is giuen to Bishops seeing the sense of it being diuersified according to the varietie of the persons to whom it is attributed in the sense of a diocesse as we tearme it it is properly ascribed to Bishops The word indeede seemeth generally to signifie the circuit of any mans charge or administration who hath gouernment in the Church For as there is Ecclesia a Church of a Patriarch and of a Metropolitan of a Bishop and of a Presbyter so there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or dioecesis of a Patriarch which we may call a Patriarchall diocesse of an Archbishop which we call a Prouince of a Bishop which we call a Diocesse and of a Presbyter which we call a Parish For the two first these few examples may suffice The Emperour Iustinian appointeth that a Clergy man should not be accused at the first before the
Patriarch of the Diocesse but first according to the sacred constitutions before the Bishop of the City in which the Clergy man liueth then if he be suspected as partiall let him bring the party accused before the Metropolitane Bishop But if he also shall not allow of the accusation let him bring him before the Synode of that prouince but if still hee thinke himselfe wronged let him appeale to the Patriarch of the Diocesse from whose sentence there lieth no appeale c. Afterwards he addeth this exception that wheras there are two sorts of Patriarches some who in the Prouinces wherein they are beare the office of Metropolitanes their See being of ancient time the Metropolis of the Prouince such were the Bishops of Antioch Rome and Alexandria others per totam Diocesin throughout the whole Diocesse doe ordaine the Metropolitanes and other Bishops who are vnder them as the Bishop of Constantinople and perhaps Ierusalem therefore the causes which happen in the Prouinces of the former sort are immediately from the Bishops to be brought to them as to Metropolitanes In the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or disposition of the Churches subiect to the Patriarch of Constantinople made by the Emperour Leo the Philosopher it is noted that seuen Metropolitane Churches were withdrawn from the Romane Diocesse with the Bishops vnder them one also viz. Seleâ—cia in Pamphylia from the Diocesse of the East meaning of the Bishop of Antioch for he as Theodoret saith was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the ruler or chiefe of the Bishops in the East together with 26. Bishopricks subiect thereto Epiphanius as you heard before testifieth this to haue beene the custome that the Bishop of Alexandria should haue the Ecclesiastical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Diocesse or Administration of all Egypt Thebais Mareot Libya Ammoniace Maraeotis and Pentapolis It is said of Gregory the Great that vnto the Bishopricks of his Diocesse hee inuited Bishops of another Diocesse vacantes being voided of their Bishoprickes as the Bishop of Smyrna hee inuited to a Bishopricke in Sicilia The circuit also of an Archbishops iurisdiction is sometimes called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Dioecesis and the Archbishop himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in the Councell of Chalcedon where Archbishops are reckoned as a middle degree betweene Metropolitanes and Patriarches the name of Patriarch being also giuen sometimes vnto them If any haue a controuersie with the Metropolitane of the Prouince let him goe vnto either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Primate of the Diocesse or to the patriarch of Constantinople The same Councell appointeth the Metropolitanes of the Dioceses of Pontus Asia and Thracia to bee ordained by the Patriarch of Constantinople and the BB. of euery prouince in those Dioceses to bee as they were wont according to the Canons to bee ordained of their Metropolitans So that according to this sense a prouince is but part of a Diocesse Socrates speaking of the first Councell of Constantinople saith that they established Patriarches meaning Archbishops diuiding vnto them prouinces Thus of the Diocesse of Pontus Helladius the Bishoppe of Cesarea Gregorius the Bishoppe of Nyssa Otreius the B. of Metileno obtained the Patriarchship The Patriarchship of the Diocesse of Asia was assigned to Amphilochius of Iconium and Optimus of Antioch in Pisidia and Gregory writing to Constantius the Archbishop of Millaine mentioneth diuers BB. of his Diocesse as you heard before But we are briefly also to shew that a Bishops charge is called Dioecesis The first Councell of Constantinople decreeth as it is commonly vnderstood that BB. should not goe out of their Diocesse vnto Churches without their bounds and that they should not confound the Churches Where a Diocesse is attributed to a Bishop as the circuit and bounds of his iurisdiction and Churches which the Councell forbiddeth to be confounded are confounded with Dioceses Againe that BB. being not called may not goe without their Diocesse to ordaine Ministers or to exercise other ecclesiasticall administrations In the Councell of Africke it was decreed that those people which neuer had a Bishop of their owne should not haue a Bishop but by the decree of the whole Synode of the prouince and the Primate and by the consent of him in whose Diocesse the said Church is Againe that one Bishop doe not inuade the Diocesse of another Thus Dioecesis signifieth the whole Diocesse But where we find it opposed to the City or to the Cathedral church then doth it signifie the rest of the Diocesse as in the Africane Councell it was ordained that the Churches in the Diocesse conuerted from Donatisme should belong to the Cathedra or See of the Catholicke B. Againe the BB are forbidden to leaue their chiefe seat or See to remoue themselues to another church in their Diocesse Thus in the plural number it signifieth sometimes al the churches in the Diocesse meaning the couÌ„try somtimes any of theÌ„ seuerally It was concluded vpon in the Councel of Carthage that the BB. which liue in the vnity coÌ„munion of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that hee should not onely iustly retaine his owne See but also possesse such Dioeceses that is parts of the Diocesse as had gotten to themselues a a schismaticall Bishop of their owne Againe it was decreed that Dioceses that is parts of the Diocesse in the country which neuer had a Bishop should not haue any and that Diocesse which sometimes had should haue their owne B. And if in processe of time the faith increasing the people of God being multiplied shall desire to haue a peculiar gouernour with the consent or liking of him in whose power the Diocesse is let them haue a Bishop Wee haue heard it ordained saith Honoratus and Vrbanus in the 3. Councell of Carthage that Dioceses meaning but parts of the Diocesse in the Country should not obtaine a Bishop but with the consent of him vnder whom they are placed But perhaps some in our Prouince when they haue beene ordained Bishops in such a Diocesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the grant of the B. who originally holdeth the Dioceses haue challenged other Dioceses this ought to be amended Epigonius answered that which is meet is reserued to euery Bishoppe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that out of the company or combination of Parishes iointly possessed no part should bee taken to haue a Bishoppe of her owne but by the consent of him who hath authority meaning the Bishoppe of the City vnto which the Country belongeth But if he shall grant that the Diocesse meaning part of his owne Diocesse permitted shall enioy a Bishop of their owne hee that is so preferred may not encroch vpon other Dioceses that is other parts of the Diocesse because that one being taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the body of many was vouchsafed alone to receiue a Bishopricke of their owne
The which sentence when Aurelius the Bishop of Carthage and president of that Councell had consented vnto was decreed by the whole Councell And that wee may know the Parishes in the Country together with the seuerall Presbyters set ouer them belong to the Diocesan Bishop euen they also sometimes are called by the name of Diocesse In the councell of Toledo Bishops are required per cunctas Dioeceses parochiasque suas to goe yearely through all their Dioceses and Parishes And againe so to rule their Dioceses that is Parishes that they doe not presume to take any thing from their right but according to the authority of former Councels they take onely a third part of the offerings and tithes But in an other Councell it was determined that no B. walking per suas Dioeceses through his Dioceses shall take any thing besides the honour of his chaire that is 2◠shillings or require the third part of the oblations in the parish churches Sometimes it is vsed for a parish Church In which sense a parish Presbyter is said in the Councell of Agatha Dioecesin tenere In the Councell of Orleans dioecesis Basilica are vsed promiscuously as Synonyma To which purpose it is said that if any man hath or desireth to haue Dioecesin that is a Church in his ground he must assign sufficient land vnto it prouide a Clerke for it CHAP. IJ. Prouing by other Arguments that the ancient Churches which had Bishops were not Parishes but Dioceses ANd thus much may suffice to haue spoken of the names about which the testimonies which I haue brought haue beene almost so many euidences for the Diocesan and against the parishionall Bishops Now I proceede to other arguments desiring the Reader to remember that the question is concerning such Churches as were endued with power of Ecclesiastical gouernment and iurisdiction to wit whether in the Apostles times and the ages following they were Parishes as we cal them or Dioceses And first I will shew they were not Parishes and after that they were Dioceses For if Parishes then the Parishes either in the Countries or Cities were such but neyther the parishes in the Country nor in the Citie had a Bishop of their owne and a Presbytery Which is so euident a truth to them that haue read the Councels Histories and Fathers of the antient Church that it is to be wondred how men of learning and reading being also men of conscience can deny it But seeing it is denied I must be content to proue it viz. that regularly lawfully ordinarily Bishops and Presbyteries were not placed in the seuerall parishes For these words I hope may be added with the Refuters leaue seeing neither it can be preiudicious to mee what was at any time vnlawfully done nor aduantagious to him vnlesse hee will vrge a reformation according to the paterne of the Churches if there were any such which were irregularly extraordinarily and vnlawfully gouerned First therefore for Country parishes because I maintaine the negatiue and the proofe of the affirmatiue lieth vpon my aduersary I challenge him to produce some proofe if he bee able within 400. yeeres after Christ of Country parishes lawfully regularly ordinarily furnished with power of ecclesiasticall gouernment and gouerned by their owne Bishoppes such as they speake of assisted with their Presbyteries Which if hee bee not able to performe as I am well assured hee is not hee must acknowledge his parish Bishoppe to bee of the same stampe with his lay-presbyters that is to say a meere counterfet But not expecting his proofe J will prooue that neither they had Bishoppe of their owne nor yet Presbyteries As touching the former it cannot be denied but in some places the Presbyters of parishes growing ambitious haue desired to bee Bishoppes of their parish and their people vaine glorious haue seconded their desire But in all well ordered Churches their presumption hath been resisted and their vaine desires frustrated I doe confesse that in Africke which alwaies bringeth forth some noueltie and from whence all T. C. his newes in this cause doe come some parts of the diocesse being very populous haue obtained a Bishoppe of their owne But when when the charge was so great as that by it selfe it seemed to deserue a Bishop And how First with the leaue of the Bishop of the city in whose diocesse it was Secondly with the approbation of the Metropolitane and the prouinciall Synode Thirdly hee which obtained the honour of beeing a bishoppe was aduanced to a higher degree then himselfe had before or other country pastors haue and was ordained a Bishop by the Metropolitan and two other Bishops at the least But it shall not bee amisse both to recite the decrees of the Africane councels in this behalfe though touched before and also to acquaint you with the determinations of godly Bishoppes and canons of holy Councels elsewhere In the second councell of Carthage it was decreed that the Dioceses meaning as I haue said parts of any diocesse in the Country which neuer receiued Bishoppes of their owne may haue none and that diocesse which sometimes had may still haue a Bishoppe of their owne And if in processe of time the faith increasing the people of God being multiplied shall desire to haue a gouernour of their owne that then they may haue a Bishoppe with his leaue in whose power the diocesse is In the third Councell of Carthage it is said that it had beeen determined in many Councels that the people which be in the parishes or diocesses held by the Bishoppes which neuer had a Bishop of their owne should not receiue gouernours of their owne that is to say Bishoppes but with the consent of the Bishoppe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by whom from the beginning they haue been inioied But forasmuch as some hauing obtained this honor abused it tyrannically and withdrew themselues schismatically from the communion of other Bishops and forasmuch as also certaine Presbyters lifting vp their neckes against their BB. vsed indirect meanes to allure their people that themselues might be made Bishoppes therefore it was ordained that such a people in the paroecia or diocesse which is subiect to the antient Bishoppe and neuer had a Bishoppe of their owne should not obtaine a proper Doctor meaning Bishoppe And as touching those which had attained to this honour vnlawfully and withdrew themselues from the synods of Bishoppes it was determined that they should not onely lose their diocesse but also their owne Church For it is fit the Bishops which are vnited to all their brethren and to the whole synod should iustly retaine not onely their owne Cathedra or See but also that they should possesse such dioceses And whereas some being made Bishops in part of other mens dioceses with their leaue and consent did incroach vpon parts of the diocesse not granted vnto them it was concluded that he which in the diocesse is preferred to be
Bishoppe by the consent of the antient Bishoppe who holdeth the mother or cathedrall Church shall only retain that people vnto which he was ordained Finally in another Councell of Africke it was decreed that such people as neuer had B. of their own should in no wise obtaine a B. vnlesse it be by the decree of the whole synod of euery prouince and of the primate and also by the consent of him vnder whose diocesse the said Church is placed Out of which canons we may obserue these things First that the Country churches belonged to the iurisdiction of the Bishop in the Citie Secondly that euer from the beginning they haue belonged to the Bishop of the Citie Thirdly that those parts of dioceses which then had no Bishop of their owne neuer had Fourthly that the number of Bishopricks was not wont to be diminished or the circuits of them inlarged but contrariwise if there were cause the number was increased and the circuits or dioceses lessened Fifthly that when a new Bishopricke was to be erected it was erected in some Bishops diocesse but not without his leaue and liking and also approbation of the Primate and Prouinciall synod Sixthly that when a new Bishopricke was erected that part wherein it was erected was taken as before I noted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from all the parts iointly possessed and as it were from the body of the rest Seuenthly that hee which was preferred to such a Bishopricke was not a parish Bishoppe For besides his owne Church hee had a diocesse Neither were they appointed according to the new conceit to euery parish but to such populous parts of dioceses as might seeme worthy of a Bishop Eighthly that when a new Bishopricke was erected the Presbyter who obtained this honour was anew ordained thereto as Bishoppe and so placed in a superiour degree of the Ministerie then that which hee had when he was the Pastor or Presbyâ—er onely of a parish To these canons wee might adde the decrees of Clemens and Anacletus ordaining that Bishoppes should not bee ordained in Villages or Townes or small Cities lest the names of Bishoppes should grow vile but in such places Presbyters were seuerally to bee placed in each of them But I need not the testimonies of such as are supposed counterfet and yet it is to bee confessed that the Epistle of Clemens was aboue one thousand two hundred yeeres agoe translated by Ruffinus and that which in this point either of them decreed agreeth with the generall and perpetuall practise of the Church from the Apostles time to our age But to let them passe the Epistle of Leo the Great is without suspicion which he wrote to the Bishops of Africke requiring that this among all the statutes of the Canons be obserued that not in any places or townes Bishops should be consecrated nor where heretofore they haue not been seeing where the lesse people or smaller companies are the care of Presbyters may suffice But episcopall gouernment is onely to be set ouer greater people and more frequent or populous Cities lest what the decrees of the holy Fathers inspired of God haue forbidden the height of priesthood should be giuen to villages and parishes or obscure and solitary townes and the episcopall honour whereto more excellent things ought to bee committed it selfe should grow vile or contemptible by the multitude thereof The canons whereof he speaketh that I may also come to them were the Canons of the councels held at Sardica and Laodicea The councell held at Sardica not long after the councell at Nice assembled by the authority of the two Emperors Constans and Constantius celebrated by 341 BB. as Balsamo saith among whom some of the chiefe had bene present at the councill of Nice as Hosius and Athanasius c. which also confirmed the faith before concluded in the councel of Nice at that time much oppugned by the Arians â—this councell I say determined that it is simply vnlawfull to constitute a Bishop in a village or small City vnto which euen one onely Presbyter doth suffice For it is not needfull that Bishops should bee placed there lest the name authority of a Bishop grow into contempt But the Bishops of the prouince being assembled as before was said by the Metropolitan must ordaine Bishops in such Cities as where before had beene Bishops But if there shall any Citty bee found so abounding with multitude of people that it may seeme vvorthie of a Bishopricke let it haue a Bishop For that of Laodicea though it were but a prouinciall Synode yet the decrees thereof were receiued into the ancient Code of canons and were confirmed by the generall councell held in Trullo In that councill therefore it was decreed that Bishops ought not to bee placed in villages and countrey townes but visitors and that those which before that time had beene ordained might doe nothing without the consent of the Bishop who is in the Citty 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The same hath Photius Ne sit omnino in parua ciuitate vel vice Episcopus To these we may ad the decree of the councell of Toledo which though it were of latter times then the councels before mentioned yet was held aboue 9. hundred yeares agoe beeing ratified and confirmed by Eringius the King which I doe the rather mention because whereas the Bishop of Merida by the commandement of their late King Bamba had ordained a Bishop in a monastery standing in a small towne the said councell finding it to be a nouellous attempt contrary to the canons of the councels and practise of the Church decreed that there should not continue in the place aforesaid an Episcopall See neither should any Bishop afterwards bee placed there As for him that was ordained not by his owne ambition but by the Kings compulsion they grant to him this fauour to bee remooued to the See of some Bishoppe deceasing And in the end they make this generall decree If any man shall cause a Bishop to bee made in those places where a Bishop neuer was let him be anathema in the sight of God almighty and moreouer let both the ordainer and the ordained lose the degree of his order because hee hath presumed to ouerthrow not onely the decrees of the ancient Fathers but also the Apostolicall ordinances This therefore is my first argument against parish Bishops in the countrey That which was iudged vnlawfull by the canons of approoued councils and decrees of godly Bishops was neuer lawfully regularly ordinarily practised But the placing of Bishops in countrie parishes was iudged vnlawfull by the canons of approoued councels and decrees of godly Bishops as I haue shewed Therefore the placing of Bishops in country parishes was neuer lawfully regularly ordinarily practised It may be that my aduersary who is ready to catch at euerie syllable will from the canon of the councill held at Laodicea before cited obiect that
before that time there were Bishops placed in country townes and thereupon conclude that therefore there had beene before that time parishionall Bishoppes To this obiection I answere by denying the consequence or the proposition which is vnderstood viz. that the country Bishops which had beene before ordained were parish Bishops For those Bishops because they were placed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Countries were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as you would say Countrie-Bishops to distinguish them from the other Bishops whose See was in the Citie Now these Chorepiscopi were not in all Dioceses much lesse in all parishes nor assigned where they were to one parish as they were Bishoppes but where the Diocesse was large were ordained in some places remote from the citie to supply the absence of the Bishop in some such circuits as our rurall Deanries are wherein diuers parishes were contained These Chorepicsopi at the first had Episcopall ordination by the imposition of the hands of three Bishops insomuch that of the three hundred and eighteene Bishoppes assembled at the Councill of Nice there were fifteeene Countrie-Bishoppes For which fifteene if all pastors of parishes had beene Countrie-Bishoppes there might haue beene I doubt not fifteene hundred if not fifteene thousand But when these Countrie-Bishoppes beeing but the Bishoppes suffraganes and substitutes placed in the Countrie to supplie the Bishoppes roome and to exercise some matters of lesse moment appertaining to the Episcopall function began to encroach vpon the Bishoppes right and to vsurpe Episcopall authoritie and jurisdiction beyond their commission they were by little and little restrained and when they would not be kept within their compasse their order at least as they were Bishops beeing but an humane-ordinance deuised for the ease of the Bishoppes in the citie was in most places abolished But forsomuch as that which is recorded concerning these countrie Bishops doth giue great light to this present controuersie it will not be vnprofitable nor I hope vnpleasing to the reader if I acquaint him with that which is written concerning them First therefore in the councel of Neocesaria wherunto among other BB. two Chorepiscopi subscribed we find this difference betweene country presbyters country Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presbyters or Ministers of the countrey may not offer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the cathedrall Church of the City the Bishop or Presbyters of the citty beeing present neither may they at the time of prayer deliuer the bread nor the cuppe but if they bee absent and one of them alone bee called to prayer then hee may because hee is of the same Church or Diocesse as some note 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but countrey Bishops who are indeede after the manner of the 70. yet beeing honoured as fellow Ministers they doe offer Vpon which words Balsamo noteth two things First where the councell saith they were as the Seuentie it seemeth to deny that they had power to ordain ministers and deacons Secondly that among other vses for which they were appointed they were ordained to distribute the money to the poore which appertained to them Besides we may obserue that both the country Bishops and country Presbyters belong to the diocesse of the Bishop in the city which heereafter wil more clearely appeare and that the countrey Bishop was in a degree of honour superiour to country Ministres and yet inferiour to the Bishops The councel of Ancyra which is more ancient thē the former and both of them elder then the councill of Nice perceiuing the country Bishops to encroch vpon the Bishops right determined it to be vnlawfull for contrey Bishops to ordaine Presbyters or Deacons The councell of Antioch though it gaue liberty to countrey Bishops which were blamelesse to send canonicall letters as the manner of Bishops among themselues in those times was which it denied to country presbyters yet for so much as the Chorepiscopi stil presumed to ordaine alleging that they might lawfully doe it because they had beene ordained as Bishops Jt therefore determined that Bishops placed in the Townes and Countries called Chorepiscopi although they had receiued the ordination of BB yet they should know their owne measure and gouerne the Churches subiect vnto them and content themselues with the care and ouersight thereof and hauing authoritie to ordaine Subdeacons and Exorcists should satisfie themselues with preferring of them and not presume to ordaine Presbyters or Deacons without the Bishop in the Citie whereunto both himselfe and the Country are subiect But if any shall presume to transgresse this decree hee shall be depriued of that honour which hee hath And whereas they pretended that they had episcopall ordination and therefore as BB might ordaine Ministers to take away that pretence it determined also that the Country B. should be ordained not of the Metropolitan and two or three other Bishops as a Bishop but as other Presbyters or Ministers of the Bishop of the City vnto which he is subiect So that whereas before Chorepiscopi were Suffragan Bishops afterwards according to this decree they were but Presbyters in deede though they had the title of Bishops neither were they acknowledged for any more by the Fathers and Councels of latter times There is an Epistle which goeth vnder the name of Damasus the Author whereof supposeth that Chorepiscopi are but Presbyters because they are found to haue beene ordained at the first after the example of the 70. But now because they are not necessarie in regard of their diligence towards the poore and because they presumed aboue that which was lawfull for them to doe therefore they are remooued from Episcopall offices Wee know saith hee there were but two orders among the Disciples of Christ that is to say of the 12. Apostles and 70. Disciples whence this third came we know not for neither are they Bishops because they be not ordained of three Bishops but only of one neither may Bishops by the Canons bee placed in Country townes neither may they be in the Citie because in one Citie there may be but one Bishop Neither will they bee called Presbyters but will be accounted more then Presbyters Whether Damasus were Author of that Epistle I know not but this I am sure that Leo the great in his Epistle to the BB. of Germanie and France doth shew himselfe to bee of the same iudgement a good part of his Epistle differing little from the aforesaid Epistle which beareth the name of Damasus And this iudgement of Leo was so approued of the Councell of Ciuill whereof Isidore was President that it followeth the same almost word for word Now because my Aduersarie shall not say that what I haue alleged concerning Country Bishops is impertinent hee shall vnderstand that as the maine question concerning dioceses in the primitiue Church is from hence most manifestly prooued as you shall heare in due place so this present
the Bishop in euery diocesse had for terme of life A few testimonies therfore shal suffice in this place In the Church of Rome there were many not onely Presbyters besides the one onely lawfull Bishop but also diuers parishes and titles soone after the Apostles times whereunto Presbyters were assigned seuerally the Bishop being the Superintendent ouer them all About the yeere 250. Cornelius being chosen Bishop of Rome Nonatianus a Presbyter of Rome discontented with the election by the instigation of Nonatus a fugitiue Bishop lately come out of Africke not only broached the heresie of the Nouatians or Catharists but procureâ—â— three simple B shops fetched from the vttermost parts of Italie to ordaine him Bâ—shop of Rome hauing also inueigled by his subtilties certaine famous men that had beene Confessours to bee of his partie and to ioine with him in the schisme against Cornelius Of this fact what was the iudgement of Cyprian of Cornelius and other Bâ—shops and finally of the Confessours themselues you shall in few words heare For when Nouatianus had sent his Messengers as to other chiefe Bâ—shops so to Carthage to procure the approbation of Cyprian hee disswadeth them from the schisme telling them that a Bâ—shop being ordained and approoued by the testimonie and iudgement of his fellow Bâ—shops and of the people another may not by any meanes be ordained And writing to some of those Confessours hee signifieth his great griefe because he vnderstood that they contrary to the order of the Church contrary to the law of the Gospell contrarie to the vnity of Catholike discipline had thought it meet that another B. should be made that is to say which is neither right nor lawfull to bee done that another Church should be erected the members of Christ dismembred c. Cornelius hauing called together diuers Bishops besides his owne Clergie deposed the Bishops who ordained Nouatianus and writing of these matters to Fabius the B. of Antioch he saith this Patron of the Gospell forsooth meaning Nouatian did not know that in a Catholike Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there ought to bee but one B. in which notwithstanding he could not be ignorant but that there are 46. Presbyters and 108. more of the Clergie The Confessors afterwards acknowledging their fault among other things in their submission confesse that as there is but one God and one Lord so in a Catholike Church there ought to be but one Bishop Now whereas Cornelius testifieth that there were besides the Bishop who ought to be but one 46. Presbyters in the Citie of Rome and 108. others of the Clergie if any man notwithstanding it bee also testified by diuers that there were diuers Churches in Rome whereunto seuerall Presbyters were assigned will needes hold that the whole Church of Rome was but one parish and that all these Presbyters and Clerkes attended but one particular ordinary congregation I cannot let him from being so absurd Howbeit this is certaine that in the next age in Optatus his time when there were in Rome aboue fortie parish Churches whereunto seuerall Presbyters were deputed there remained still but one only Bishop The like is to be said of Alexandria wherein as Epiphanius testifieth were before the time of Constantine many parish Churches all which at least so many as were Catholike were vnder one Archbishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and ouer them seuerally are Presbyters placed for the ecclesiasticall necessities of the inhabitants who might each of them bee neere vnto their owne Church c. Now saith Epiphanius besides the Church called Caesaria which was burnt in Iulians time and reedified by Athanasius there are many others as the Church of Dionysius of Theonas of Pierius of Serapion of Persaea of Dizya of Mendidius of Amianus of Baucalis and others In one of these was Colluthus Presbyter in another Carpones in another Sarmatas and Arius in another namely that which is called Baucalis The same is testified by Nicetas Choniates affirming that in Alexandria there were of old many Churches subiect to the B. of Alexandria committed seuerally to Presbyters as that which is called Baucalis and those which haue their names from S. Dionysius Theonas c. and that Arius being the gouernor of the schoole in Alexandria was by Achilles the B. the predecessour of Alexander set ouer the Church called Baucalis And although there be not the like euidence for multitude of parishes in other Cities immediately after the Apostles times yet is it not to be doubted but that in euery City when the number of Christians was much increased the like diuision of parishes was made vnto which not BB. but seuerall Presbyters were appointed there remaining in each Citie but one Bishop as the practise of all Churches in the Christian world from the Apostles times to our age doth inuincibly prooue But now suppose that the Church of each Citie had beene but one parish which is most false yet forsomuch as to euery Citie there was as Caluin truly saith a certaine region allotted which belonged to the Bishops charge and was from the Presbyterie of the Citie to receiue their Ministers who seeth nor that the charge of a Bishop was not a parish but a diocesse And that is the second thing which J promised to prooue For Churches containing within their circuit not onely Cities with their Suburbs but also whole Countries subiect to them were dioceses But the Churches subiect to the ancient Bâ—shops in the Primitiue Church contained within their circuit not onely the Cities with their suburbs but also the whole Countries subiect to them Therefore they were dioceses The assumption is prooued by these reasons first The circuit of a Bishops charge was anciently diuided into these parts the Citie with the suburbs and Country subiect to it For proofe whereof you heard before two most plaine testimonies The former in one of the Canons of the Apostles so called charging the Bishop with his owne Paroecia and the Countries which be vnder it The other in the Councell of Antioch which reciting the same words addeth this reason For euery Bishop hath authoritie ouer his owne Paroecia and doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is performe the dutie of a Diocesan hauing a prouident care or superintendencie of the whole Countrey which is vnder his Citie so that he may ordaine Presbyters and Deacons and order all things with iudgement To the same purpose is the diuision of Churches subiect to each Bishop into the Church of the Citie called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Nâ—trix Ecclesia and all other parish Churches within the diocesse called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And hence ariseth the distinction of Presbyters subiect to the same Bishop that others were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presbyters of the citie or as in some Latine Councels they are called Ciuitatenses others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Countrey Ministers or dioecesanâ— Ministers of the diocesse Secondly
neither was the iurisdiction ouer the parishes in the Countrey by vsurpation of the latter Bishops but a right from the beginning belonging to the very first Bishoppes of the Citie For euidence whereof call to mind what before was prooued that dioceses were not wont to be enlarged or the number of Bishoppes lessened but contrariwise those parts of the Country which euer had a Bishop were still to retaine him and those which neuer had if they were so populous as that they seemed to deserue a Bishopricke a Bishop was with the consent of the ancient Bishoppe of the Citie and the authority of the prouinciall synod and the Metropolitane set ouer them This is sure that all Countries were vnder their seuerall Cities and whosoeuer were from the beginning Bishopps of the Cities were Bishops also of the Countries belonging vnto them Neither might the Bishop of one Citie encroach vpon the Country or parishes subiect to another Citie but they were to bee gouerned by them to whom they had belonged from the beginning Jn the generall Councell of Ephesus when complaint was made that the Bishop of Antioch had encroached vpon them of Cyprus for the ordination of their Metropolitan who euer from the Apostles times were in that and other matters of greatest moment ordered by their owne prouinciciall synods his attempt was censured as an innouation contrary to the ecclesiasticall lawes and Canons of the holy Apostles And therefore this generall decree was made by the Councell for all dioceses and prouinces that no Bishop shall take vpon him any other prouince or countrey 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which for the time past and from the beginning hath not been vnder him or his Predecessors And againe that to euery prouince or countrey their right should be kept pure and vnuiâ—lable which had belonged to them for the time past and from the beginning according to the custome antiently receiued Likewise in the Councell of Carthage that the people in the Country which neuer had a Bishop of their owne should not receiue a Bishop but by the consent of the Bishop by whom and his antecestors they haue bin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the begâ—nning possessed And where some had schismatically seized vpon some part of a diocesse and being guilty of their wrong would sequester themselues from the meetings and synods of the Bishops it was decreed that the lawfull Bishop should inioy not only his See but also such dioceses And againe it was demanded what course should be taken if a Bishopricke being erected in a part of the diocesse by the consent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Bishop who hath held the dioceses from the beginning the new Bishop should encroach vpon other parts of the diocesse which were not intended to him Answer was made that as that part which he had was taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the company of parishes ioyntly possessed and as a member 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the body of many by the consent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Bishop who had authority or power so the new Bishop should not encroach vpon any other The great councel of Chalcedon determined that countrey parishes should vnremoueably remaine to the Bishops which held them Which Canon was renewed in the councell of Constantinople with this addition if the said Bishops held them quietly and without contradiction for the space of thirty yeeres But nothing doth more euidently proue that in the primitiue Church dioceses were subiect to Bishops then the antient institution of country Bishops called châ—repiscopi Who where the country seemed larger then that the Bishop by himselfe could performe all episcopall offices were for the more ease of the Bishops and commodity of the country Churches appointed in certaine places as their suffragans or vicegerents and to performe vnder them and for them some episcopall duties of lesse moment but yet so as the chorepiscopâ—â— might doe nothing of weight without the appointment of the Bishop neither might he ordaine without the Bishop of the citie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnto which both himselfe and his Country is subiect Fourthly this truth is also demonstrated partly by the perpetuall successions of Bishoppes in all the Apostolicall Churches singularly succeeding from the Apostles times to the latter ages plainly euincing that euen in the greatest Cities and Churches where there hath alwaies been a great multitude of Presbyters there hath been but one only lawfull Bishoppe at once successiuely and partly by the vniuersall consent of all Churches not onely in former ages both catholike and hereticall for euen the Nouatians the Donatists the Arians c. retained the gouernment of the true Church by Bishops but also of all almost at this day being established in peace retaining for the most part the antient distinction of Churches according to dioceses and prouinces which hath continued euer from the first conuersion of them not any one example being to be produced in the whole world neither in nor since the Apostles times vntill our age of any Church gouerned according to the new-found parish discipline Yea the Church of Geneua it selfe which hath been a paterne to others though it hath abolished the episcopall gouernment notwithstanding it remaineth a diocesse vnder their one onely Presbytery as well as it was wont vnder their one onely Bishoppe the authoritie and iurisdiction of their Presbyterie beeing not confined to any one parish nor any one parish allowed a Presbytery but is extended to all the parishes both in the citie and territory thereto belonging hauing the same circuit that the Bishop was wont to haue Finally it may be alleaged that as with vs Bathe and Wels Couentry and Lichfield London and Coâ—chester so in the primitiue Church more cities then one with the countries thereto belonging haue sometimes made but one diocesse For when to the general Councell of Ephesus petiton was made by certaine Bishops that whereas it had bin an antient custome in the prouinces of Europe that diuers Bishops should haue each of them two cities vnder them as the Bishop of Heraclea had both Heraclea and Panion the Bishop of â—yze had also Arcadiopolis the Bishop of Câ—â—la Callipolis the Bishop of Sabsadia A phrodiâ—ias and the latter of these Cities neuer had a proper Bishop of their owne but euer from the beginning were subiect to the aforesaid Bishops and whereas now they feared some innouation they referred the cause to the Councell The Councell therefore determined that there should not then nor afterwards bee any innouation but the aforesaid Bishops should according to the antient custome which hath the force of a law retaine the said Cities And likewise it may be added that some whole nations in the primitiue Church were subiect to one Bishop not as the primate or Patriarch for that was ordinary so was Ignatius Bishop of Syria Liberius of Italy Cyprius of Africke Diodorus
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
meÌ„bers into one body which in the name of church doth not appeare But after the people were taught to distinguish of the word Church and to vnderstand it for the mysticall body of Christ the latter translations vsed that terme not that the other was any corruption or the latter any correction but to declare that both is one Is it not plaine that he by congregation vnderstandeth the vniuersall Church which is a gathering together of all the members into one body but of the Church of Ephesus speaketh neuer a word In the 4. place the notes of M. Perkins sermons on the Apocalypse taken from his mouth are alleadged wherein it is said that the seuen Churches were particular congregations meaning thereby that which I doe not deny particular churches and that euery particular congregation is a Church and hath priuiledges of a Church belonging to it which is also true Fiftly the great Church Bible readeth thus Iohn to the seuen Congregations Lastly D. Bilson saith that the church is neuer taken in the old or new Testament for the Priests alone but for the congregation of the faithfull From which allegations to inferre that each church is but one particular congregation is as I said most childish But those 2. out of Tindall the one that a Bishop was the gouernour but of one congregation the other that hee was the ouerseer but of a Parish to preach the word to a parish was not a childish mistaking but a wilfull misalleadging of the Author who in the former place hath no such thing Or if hee haue any where he vseth the word Congregation in as large a sense as Ecclesia wherof it is the translation In the latter speaking of such a Bishop as is described 1. Tim. 3. that is of such a one as in his conceit was but a Presbyter hee saith by the authority of the gospell they that preach the word of God in euery Parish and performe other necessary ministeries haue right to challenge an honest liuing Neither is the Refuter content once to haue falsified the testimony of this holy Martyr but againe in the end of his booke hee alleadgeth him to the same purpose After hee hath thus doughtily proued his Assumption concerning these 3. Churches he bringeth a new supply of testimonies out of Ignatius Tertullian and Eusebius concerning others Ignatius exhorteth the Magnesians that they would all come together into one place to praier all as with vs that belonged to the same congregation And perswading the Philadelphians to vnity exhorteth them that they would vse one faith one preaching one eucharist because the body of Christ is one and his bloud one one cup and one bread one Altar for the whole Church and one Bishop with the Presbytery and Deacons for there is but one God the Father c. one faith one baptisme and one Church which the Apostles haue founded from one end of the world to another c. In which words none fauoureth the Refuters conceit but that of one altar seruing for the whole Church the word Altar being expounded for the Communion Table which is not likely and too much sauoureth of popery But by one altar is meant Christ who sanctifieth all our sacrifices or oblations and maketh them acceptable to God as Ignatius expoundeth himselfe in his Epistle to the Magnesians all as one runne together into the Temple of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnto one Iesus Christ as it were vnto one altar But that which he alleageth out of the same Epistle that they were to gather themselues together into one place to chuse their Bishop if it were rightly alleaged would proue not their ordinary and parishionall but extraordinary and panegyricall meeting to such an end but this needed not their Bishop at this time was come to Ignatius in his iourny towards Rome as appeareth by the beginning of the Epistle as it were vpon an honourable ambassage from the Church as were the BB. of other Churches But he saith it becometh you as being a Church of God to doe as other Churches haue done that is as he sheweth in the words following to appoint a Bishop that he may 〈◊〉 Antioch performe the â—mbassage of God that it may be granted to them being gathered together into one place to glorifie the name of God From whence also the Reâ—uter gathereth that a Bishop is Gods Ambassador to a people that are together in one place Which is true so oft as he preacheth But Ignatius meaneth nothing lesse then that they should appoint the Bishop of Antioch but onely willeth them to send a Bishop as it were vpon ambassage thither His meaning is more plainly expressed in his Epistle to the Sâ—yrneans where he writeth to the same purpose that seeing the Church of Antioch after his departure had some peace the persecutors contenting themselues to haue taken him who was their ringleader from among them he exhorteth them to ordaine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a sacred Ambassador who when he should come into Syria should reioice with them because they had peace Tertullâ—â—â— also is made to speake for them as though he said the Christian Churches were all one body and came all together into a company and congregation By which testimony if it were truely alledged all Christian Churches as they are one body of Christ so all should meet together to make one parish His words be these I will now set forth the practises of the Christian party That hauing refuted the euils obiected I may declare the good We are a body consenting in the knowledge of religion in the truth of discipline or doctrine and the couenant of hope We come together into a company and coÌ„gregation Which words may be verified of the Christians of these times which in euery Church are diuided into seuerall congregations Out of Eusebius hee hath nothing to alledge but that which before I came to his arguments I sufficiently answered that he calleth the Church of Ierusalem the parish of Ierusalem the Church of Alexandria the parish of Alexandria c. To which J answere that Eusebius indeed calleth each of the Churches by the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but he calleth none of them a parish as we vnderstand the word parish In the place which hee quoteth concerning Ierusalem Eusebius saith that after the martyrdome of Iames who no doubt from an Apostle had been preferred to bee a parish Bishop because he was Christs kinsman the Apostles and disciples of Christ which yet remained did from all places come together with those who were of Christs kinred to consult whom they might thinke worthy to bee Iames his successor and that with one consent they made chuce of Simeon the sonne of Cleophas as worthy the throne of that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Church because he also was our Sauiours kinsman All this was done no doubt in a parish meeting to set a parish B.
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
their owne peculiar dioceses and yet hauing a generall superintendencie ouer the whole prouince I cannot deny but that long before the Councell of Nice there were Patriarches aboue Metropolitanes whose originall as it seemeth proceeded from humane policie as the cause of their ratification and continuance is ascribed to antient custome But the superiority of Metropolitanes was either intended by the Apostles as I thinke when they appointed Bishoppes ouer mother Cities who though at the first actually were but Bishoppes of their owne diocesse yet vpon the conuersion of other Cities in the prouince were to be ackowledged the chiefe or at least as Beza supposeth they were ordained not by authority of Councels but sâ—â—dente natura necessitate flagitante nature aduising and necessitie requiring it For it was conuenient or rather necessary that there should be consociation of Churches within the same prouince and that the gouernours of the seuerall dioceses should meete for the common good as also that the wrongs offered to any by the Bishoppes within their dioceses might bee remedied By consequent therfore it was necessary especially before there were Christian magistrates that one in euery prouince should be held as chiefe or primate who should assemble the synods moderate them being assembled see the decrees executed and haue a generall superintendencie ouer the whole prouince Beza therefore speaking of the aforesaid Canon of the Apostles saith quid aliud hic statuituâ— quam ordo ille quem in omnibus ecclesiis restitutum cupiâ—â—â— What other thing is here ordained but that order which in all Churches wee desire may be restored That there were Metropolitane Bishoppes within the first 200 yeeres it is euident by those prouincial councels which in the second Century were held concerning the feast of Easter being assembled and guided by Metropolitanes As the president of the prouinciall synode held at Rome was Victoâ— the Metropolitane Bishoppe of Rome of those in Palestina Theophilus the Metropolitane of Caesarea and Narcissus Bishoppe of Ierusalem of that in France Irenaeus the Bishoppe of Lyons of that in Achaia Bacchylus the Bishoppe of Corinth of that in Asia Polycrates the Bishoppe of Ephesus And so of that in Osroene and of diuers others Now it is to be noted that Eusebius speaking of the synode held in France saith there was a meeting of the Churches in France 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which Churches Irenaeus was B. Such a parish B. was he That there haue been Metropolitanes and prouinciall Churches euer since the Apostles times this one euidence among many which might bee alleaged may sufficientlie euince In the time of the first Ephesine Councell Dionysius the gouernour of the East whose chiefe seat was Antioch hauing appointed Theodorus to bee the Lieutenant of the Isle of Cyprus the Patriarch of Antioch because the ecclesiasticall iurisdiction for the most part followed the ciuill challenged authority ouer the Isle of Cyprus and power of ordaining the Metropolitan Bishop of Constantia the mother city of Cyprus To which end the clergy of Antioch procured from Dionysius letters both to the clergy of Constantia and to the Lieutenant of Cyprus to interdict them from chusing their Metropolitane the See being then void or if they had already chosen their Bishop that both he and they should repaire to the Councell at Ephesus hoping that by the Councell they should be ouerruled according to the Bishop of Antioch his desire Reginus therefore who was chosen Bishoppe with other Bishoppes of Cyprus put vp a Supplication to the Councell complaining that the Bishoppe and clergy of Antioch had sought contrary to the Apostles Canons and contrary to the determination of the Councell of Nice to bring them in subiection to them and therefore requested that as euer since the Apostles times the prouinciall synod had ordained their Metropolitane so their antient right might not now be infringed Whereupon the Councell hauing censured the attempt of the Bishoppe of Antioch as 〈◊〉 innouation contrary to the lawes ecclesiasticall and caâ—â—â—s of the holy Apostles decreed not onely that the Bishoppes of Cyprus but also of all other dioceses and prouinces should retaine their antient right and that no Bishop should challenge vnto himselfe any prouince which had not bin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in former times from the beginning vnder his predecessors iurisdiction It hath seemed good therefore to the sacred and economical synod that to euery prouince her right which â—â—er from the beginning it hath had shall bee kept pure and iâ—â—iolable according to the antient receiued custome Euery Metropolitan hauing good lâ—aâ—â— to take a copie of this Act for his owne security Whereby it appeareth that the Isle of Cyprus had a Metropolitane from the Apostles time And that no Metropolitane had or ought to haue the gouernement of any prouince which had not alwaies from the beginning been subiect to his Seâ— And that Metropolitanes were either actually appointed or at the least intended by the Apostles appeareth hereby That euer since their times in all prouinces throughout the Christian world there haue been Metropolitanes neuer misliked or contradicted by any vntil this our age And whereas the Refuter obiecteth that this maketh against Diocesan Bishops I say it maketh for them For euery Metropolitan is also a diocesan Bishop hauing a peculiar diocesse of his owne whereof he is Bishop as the Archbishop of Canterbury hath Canterbury and part of Kent besides some other peculiar Churches the Archbishop of Yorke hath Yorkeshire excepting the County of Richmond which belongeth to the Bishop of Chester and the County of Nottingham To his question therefore demanding where then are our Diocesan Churches become I answere there remaine 24 of them where they were wont to be for any thing that he can say to the contrary besides the Churches of Canterbury and Yorke which as they be prouinciall Churches in respect of the 2. prouinces so are they Diocesan in respect of the peculiar dioceses belonging vnto them And where he saith the Cathedrall Churches are as it were parishes he saith he knowes not what For Cathedral Churches which are the mother Churches of euery diocesse neither are nor euer were parishes nor the Bishop nor Presbyteries of them euer intended to one parish And if it so fall out that to some part of the Cathedrall Church a particular parish belong therto a seuerall Presbyter is appointed as to other Parishes The meetings in Cathedral Churches whereof the Bishops haue beene presidents were neuer Parishionall but rather Panegyricall euen in the most ancient and purest Churches vnder the best and most renowned Bishops since the Apostles times In the conclusion the Refuter pusheth at me with a Dilemma as it were with a paire of rams hornes For such is his wisdome that he thinketh diocesan prouinciall Churches which are subordinate one to the other to be so opposite as that to hold the one is to deny the other And therefore if I
to shew that the dioceses or circuits of Churches were vsually lessened but that they were any wheres inlarged he will hardly shew Therefore looke what the circuits of the Churches or Bishops charges were in Eusebius or Epiphanius his time the same at the least they were in the first two hundred yeeres And whereas I alleage one of the antient canons called the Apostles nor that I thinke they were of the Apostles owne penning but that for their antientnesse and authority they are so called and by all sorts of writers so alleaged he chargeth me with seeking to bleare mens eyes with the name of the Apostles Canons In that I said they were so called it doth sufficienttly both here and where after I cite them shew my meaning But let vs heare what he can say against them for my mind giueth me he will leaue them in better credit then hee found them If wee were so simple saith he as to take them for their doing yet should not a man of his profession so abuse our simplicity He knoweth there was a time when Rome her selfe saw too much in them to acknowledge them for the Apostles See Gratians decree dist 15. c. sancta Romana dist 16. cap. canones In both places it is said that they are apohryphall as we call the bookes of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdome not because they are either false or counterfet but because they are not acknowledged to be of the Apostles owne writing for if they were they ought to be esteemed of canonicall authority like the other scriptures Notwithstanding they are ecclesiasticall canons which for their great antiquity and authentike authority are commonly called Apostolicall receiued of antient Fathers and approoued by Councels And although some of them may be suspected as foisted in or depraued by heretikes yet those which are specially cited by Fathers and Councels as authentike are without exception being of as great credit as any other ecclesiasticall writings whatsoeuer Such is the canon wee speake of the words whereof which I cited being verbatim recited in the Councell of Antioch I will not discusse this controuersie wherein much may be said on both sides Only this J will say that as Damascen exceeded the truth in reckoning them with the canonicall scriptures so some learned and iudicious men haue been much ouerseene in too much censuring of them as first that they are condemned in the canon law when indeed the very scope of the 16. distinction is to authorize them and to acknowledge them though not as canonicall scriptures yet as authenticall canons Secondly that Isidor condemneth them Whereas indeed the words of Isidor in the true copy are these That by reason of their authority we prefixe before the other councels the canons called the Apostles although of some they are called apocryphal because the greater part receiue them and the holy fathers haue by synodall authority ratified them and placed them among canonicall constitutions Thirdly that they are condemned by the Councell in Trullo when as indeed that Councell reiecting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the constitutions of Clement which also were called Apostolicall because they were depraued by heretikes authorized the canons decreeing that the 85. canons shall remaine firme and sure which of their holy and blessed fore-fathers were receiued and confirmed and deliuered vnto them in the name of the holy and glorious Apostles And whereas some thinke that Epiphanius is the first that mentioneth them I finde it to bee otherwise For diuers of them are cited before his time being sometimes called absolutely the canons sometimes the ecclesiasticall canons sometimes the antient receiued canons of our Fathers sometimes Apostolicall canons as I haue partly noted before Neither is the authority of the generall Councell held at Ephesus though after Epiphanius his time to be neglected which calleth them the canons of the holy Apostles So much of those canons and also of this section which though it doe most directly and necessarily conclude that Bishops were set ouer dioceses yet he calleth it a needlesse discourse which because he knew not how to answere he taketh leaue to passe by it Serm. sect 5. pag. 26. These three points whereof hitherto I haue intreated are of such euident c. to page 28. line 6. In this section I conclude the three first points with the testimony of Caluin whom I produce not as this sophister cauilleth as a captiue by way of triumph but as one that taketh part with vs against our new sect of Disciplinarians especially in the second and third point which their dissenting from Caluin Beza and other learned Authors of discipline he alwaies cunningly dissembleth And that his authority may be of more weight as I confesse him to haue bin a worthy seruant of Christ whose memory with me is blessed so I professe him to haue bin the first or chiefe founder of the Presbyterian or Geneuian discipline in setting vp whereof the Bishopricke being dissolued and the common weale reduced to a popular State I acknowledge him to haue dealt very wisely his proiect of discipline being the best that that Citie did seeme at that time capable of there being no hope that either a Bishop or a Presbytery consisting wholly of Ministers would be admitted But he cannot indure to heare that Caluin should bee esteemed the first founder of this discipline For coÌ„futation whereof he telleth vs what we haue heard an hundred times but neuer shall see proued that this discipline was both practised in the Apostles times and primitiue Church and hath testimony from many learned men Ignatius Tertullian Cyprian Ambrose c. Wickliffe the Waldenses Luther and diuers others hereafter to be named that liued before Caluin writ hee should haue said that writ before Caluin liued and then not one word of all this goodly speech had been true which as I haue manifested already in respect of Ignatius Tertullian Cyprian Ambrose Luther so farre as they haue been alleaged so shall I in respect of Wickliffe and the Waldenses whoneuer once dreamed of their lay presbyteries and much lesse of their new-found parish discipline Neither can he abide that Caluin should be said to agree with vs in these three points but he must abide it for truth will preuaile But that were exceeding strange saith hee that he should ouerthrow that discipline which he was so carefull to establish Let him not abuse the Reader his agreeing with vs in the second and third point ouerthroweth the new-found parish discipline but agreeth with the doctrine of the learned Reformers and with the practise of Geneua vnderstanding by B. as they doe the President of their Presbytery their Church being a diocesse consisting of many parishes ouer which one Presbytery only is appointed Of which Presbytery if the President were perpetuall â—as he was in Caluins time and as alwaies he was in the primitiue Church there being not one instance to be giuen to the
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
shall bee lawfull to take another The vntruths therefore which the Refuter hath bestowed vpon me here he must be intreated to take to himselfe To proue their dissent from vs in this fourth point I alleaged Beza his distinction of Bishops into three sorts and because it is an odious distinction I conceaâ—â—d his name and to salue his credit J shewed that although hee came farre short of Caluins moderation yet he is more moderately affected towards our Bishops then the Disciplinarians among vs vsually bee who as they speake despitefully of them calling them Antichristian pettite Popes c. so doe they wish and labour for the extirpation of them whereas Beza speaking reuerently of them praieth for their continuance But both his distinction and his wish by the Refuter are peruerted expounding him as though he had accounted for humane those which had onely a priority of order whereas indeed he acknowledgeth such a presidentship as you haue heard to be a diuine ordinance and vnderstandeth his praier where he wisheth the continuance of the Bishops as if he had wished that so long as England hath Bishops they may bee such as may giue their liues for the truth as they did Where whiles hee vnderstandeth Beza as wishing our Bishoppes to be Martyrs he indiscreetly maketh him to wish that our Princes may bee persecutors which God forbid That which he addeth concerning my saying Amâ—â— to the like wish for the Churches of France and Scotland and yet be no maintainer of their presbyteries is meerely idle for I did not bring in Beza as a maintainer of Bishops bvt rather did note him as one of their chiefe opposites citing his differences from vs and mentioning that distinction of Bishops howbeit I acknowledge his proposition to be with more moderation then is commonly to be found in the Disciplinarians among vs. Now I am to descend with him into the particulars which I propounded to be handled first to shew that the Bishops or Angels of the primitiâ—e Church were as well as ours superior to other Ministers in degree and secondly to declare more particularly wherein their superiority did consist But before he entreth the combate distrusting himselfe and his cause he seeketh as such champions vse to doe which way if need be he may make an escape and hauing to this purpose looked well about him he hath found out two starting holes whereby he hopeth to finde some euasion The former hath these windings and turnings in it 1. That the primitiâ—e church is to be confined to the Apostles times and not extended to the whole 200 yeares 2. That the question is â—â— be â—nderstood of the Angels of the 7. Churches 3. That I must pâ—â—â—â—e these Angels to haue had sole power of ordination and iurisdiction The first of these argueth extreame diffidence for Caluin and others in this question within the limits of the primitiue Church include the times of Constantiâ—e at the least yea Caluin includeth all the time aâ—tepapaâ—â—m before the Papacy in which time he acknowledgeth the forme of Church gouernment to haue had nothing in it almost dissoâ—ant from the word of God And whereas saith he euery prouince had among their Bishops an Archbishop and whereas also in the Councill of Nice there were established Patriarchs who in order and dignity were superior to the Archbishops that appertained to the preseruation of discipline And although he misliketh that the gouernment so established was called Hiera â—hy notwithstanding if omitting the name saith he we looke into the thing we shall finde that the ancient Bishops would not frame a forme of Church gouernment differing from that which God prescribed in his word And Beza confesseth that those things which were ordained of the antient Fathers concerning the seats of Bishops Metropolitanes and Patriarches assigning their limits and attributing vnto them certaine authority were appointed optimo zelo out of a very good zeale And therefore no doubt out of such zeale as was according to knowledge otherwise it would haue been far from being optimus the best Zanchius intreating of the diuers orders of Ministers in the primitiue Church as Presbyters Bishops Archbishops c. faith they may be defended Against which some learned man I will not say Beza hauing taken exception Zanchius maketh this apology When I wrote this confessioÌ„ of the faith I did write all things out of a good conscience and as I beleeued so I freely spake Now my faith is grounded chiefly and simply on the word of God Something also in the next place on the common consent of the whole antient Catholike Church if that bee not repugnant to the Scriptures I doe also beleeue that what things were defined and receiued by the godly Fathers being gathered together in the name of the Lord by the common consent of all without any gainsaying of the holy scriptures that those things also though they be not of the same authority with the holy Scriptures proceeded from the holy Ghost Hence it is that those things that be of this kind I neither will nor dare with good conscience mislike But what is more certaine out of histories Councels and writings of all the Fathers then that those orders of Ministers whereof I spake were established and receiued by the common consent of all Christendome Quis aâ—tem ego sim qui quod tota Ecclesia approbauiâ— improbem And who am I that I should disallow that which the whole Church allowed c. Neither doe I see any reason why the Church in Constantines time should not rather bee propounded as a pateâ—â—e for imitation to Churches that liue vnder Christian princes and flourish through Gods blessing in peace and prosperitie then the Churches of former times which were not in all things established and setled according to their desires but were hindred by persecutioÌ„ For in time of persecution their gouernment was not alwaies such as they would but such as they could attaine vnto And vnlesse we would haue the Churches to liue alwaies vnder persecution it is madnesse to require them to be imitated in all things But what was by generall consent receiued and practised in the time of peace and prosperity was that which in their iudgements ought to be done and is of vs being in the like case to be imitated Now that in Constantines time the Bishops had superiority ouer other Ministers in degree and a singular preheminence of power and authority it is most euident Neither was their superiority and authority increased by the accession of the Christian Magistrate as their wealth was but rather diminished seeing while there was not a Christian Magistrate they were faine to supply that defect and by their owne authority did many things which afterward were done or assisted by the Magistrate But though there can no colour of a good reason be giuen why the superiority and authority of Bishoppes as they were diocesan should haue been greater
in the fourth century then in the third or in the third then in the second or in the second then the first the first Bishops in all likelihood hauing had rather a more eminent then lesse authority yet our new Disciplinarians for a poore shift and euasion deny this superiority of Bishops in degree and maiority in power to haue been in the first two hundred yeeres because they conceiue there is not the like euidence for the second as for the third Now our Refuter perceiuing there is better euidence then he imagined for the second century will needs haue the times of the primitiue Church restrained to the time of the Apostles And when they are driuen from that they were best to flie to the time of Christs conuersation vpon the earth For my part I make no doubt but that Anianus who succeeded S. Marke at Alexandria being a man beloued of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euery way admirable had the same episcopall authority which S. Marke had before him and that he and those which succeeded him euen in the Apostles times viz. Abilius and Cerdâ— had no lesse authority as diocesan Bishops then those which came two hundred yeeres after them Indeed when the Churches multiplying there was a consociation of dioceses in the prouince the Bishop of Alexandria became actually a Metropolitan Bishop which from the first might bee intended and when there was a consociation of prouinces subiected to him he became a Patriarch the antient Fathers in godly policie so thinking it necessary Now if any man shall thinke that the Bishop of Alexandria was but a parish Bishop at the first and vpon consâ—ciation of parishes subiected to him became a diocesan he is to vnderstand that the diocesse and the mother Church of the diocesse was before any parish that parishes arise out of the distribution of the diocesse that thâ— Bishop and his Presbytery of the mother Church were appointed not for one parish but for the whole diocesse that at Alexandria in and from S. Marks time who constituted the Churches there there haue been more Churches then one subiected to the Bishop of Alexandria Vnlearned therefore and vngrounded is that distinction of Bishops into six sorts viz. 1. Parishionall 2. Diocesan titular Bishop being the President or Moderator ouer the Pastors of a diocesse 3. Diocesan ruling Bishop though not solely 4. Diocesan L. Bishop 5. A Patriarchall Bishop 6. An vniuersall Bishop Of the first sort it is said all were in the first two hundred yeeres Of the second there beganne to be some in the end of the second century The third began about the yeere 260. The fourth shortly after Augustines time The fifth for he knew not how to distinguish betwixt Metropolitans whom hee outskippeth and Patriarches sometimes before the Councell of Nice And how is all this proued It is strange to see how strong some mens conceits can be when their reasons are full weake The proofes for the parish Bishop J haue before disproued How is the second proued Such perhaps first of all was Iulianus the tenth Bishop of Alexandria Perhaps But why he rather then S. Marke or Anianus or any other of his predecessors Because in his time first mention is made by Eusebius that there were diuers Churches in that Citie and hee Bishop of them This would haue gone for a stout reason no doubt had not Eusebius himselfe testified that Saint Marke constituted the Churches in Alexandria it selfe which euer from S. Marks time had but one Bishop at once How is the third demonstrated It may be this began at Alexandria with Dionysius the thirteenth Bishop of that place Very well perhaps it may be these are very good proofs But why may it be It seemeth to be Ieromes meaning where he saith that some priority in Bishops continued there from Marke to Heraclas and Dionysius Heare Ieromes words Euen at Alexandria from Marke the Euangelist vnto the Bishops Heraclas and Dionysius the Presbyters alwaies hauing chosen one from among themselues and placed him in a higher degree called him Bishop euen as an army chooseth a Generall Which words Ierome wrote to magnifie the calling of Presbyters and to prefeâ—re them before Deacons both because they chose their Bishop as also because they did elect him from among themselues vntill Heraclas and Dionysius But it is a world to see what is collected from these words both by that Author and also T. C. By that Author first That some priority in Bishops continued there from Marke to Heraclas and Dionysius As if Ierome had giuen any the least signification of the lesse authority of Bishops before Heraclas then after and had not signified some difference onely in their election For Heraclas and Dionysius who had been Origens schollers and succeded him one after the other in his office of Catechist or Teacher in Alexandria in respect whereof they were no more Presbyters then Origen himselfe had been notwithstanding for their excellent learning the Presbyters who till then had euer chosen one out of their owne number to be Bishop made choice of these two one after the other although at the time of their election they were not Presbyters But what followeth At Heraclas it is probable was a period of one sort viz. of titular diocesan Bishops and with Dionysius began another viz. of ruling diocesan BB. Priority of order in one Bishop ouer a parish seemeth to haue continued exclusiuely from Marke to Iulianâ—â—s for he was ashamed to say that Saint Marke who as the same Ierome testifieth was the Bishop of Alexandria was but a parish Bishop ouer a diocesse from Iulianâ—â— to Heraclas 〈◊〉 and the maiority of ruling in the diocesse to haue 〈◊〉 with Dionysius O acumen But the proofe is admirable and the conclusion passeth all The proofe is this Nothing lâ—â—teth vs but that thus we may probably thinke More is the pitie For true learning and a sound iudgement would haue let you from entertaining and much more from broching such vnlearned and vngrounded fancies Yea but by this meanes Eusebius and Ieromes relation shall well agree I answere though these fancies had neuer beene heard of there had not beene so much as any shew of disagreement betwixt them The conclusion Howsoeuer it is this is certaine that neither the one nor the other was knowne before these times As if he had said Perhaps Iulianus was the first titular Bishop It may be the ruling diocesan Bishoppes beganne at Alexandria with Dionysius At Heraclas it is probable was a period of one sort c. Nothing letteth vs but that thus wee may probably thinke But how soeuer vncertaine our premisses be wee are resolued vpon a certaine conclusion it is certaine c. Is it not strange that so certaine a conclusion should be inferred vpon so vncertaine premises especialle seeing it is most certaine that before Dionysius his time there were not onely diocesan but also Metropolitan BB. But
Ierome denies it as well as he For that which he addeth of diuers others consenting in iudgement is a vaine flourish let him name but one other in the first six hundred yeeres I thinke I might say 1000. and I wil yeeld the cause And those latter Writers which consent with him vse his words build vpon his authority so that the whole weight of this cause lieth on Ieroms shoulders whoÌ„ if I can disburdeÌ„ thereof there can nothing at all be produced out of antiquitie against the superioritie of Bishops First then I say that they abuse Ierome who match him with Aërius for besides that Aërius was a damned hereticke being a most perfect Arian as Epiphanius saith who liued at the same time liuing in a Church of Arians standing in election for the Bishopricke against Eustathius who also was an Arrian out of a discontented humor the common sourse of Schisme and heresie broached this heresie as Epiphanius Augustine censure it Presbyterum ab Episcope nulla differentia debere discerni 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denying the Superiority of Bishops both de Iure as Augustine reporteth his opinion and de facto as Epiphanius alledging that there is no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter For there is one order saith he of both one honor and one dignitie The Bishop imposeth hands so doth the Presbyter the B. giueth the lauer of Baptisme so doth the Presbyter the B. doth administer Gods worship so doth the Presbyter the B. sitteth on the throne so also doth the Presbyter But Ierome was not so mad to vse the refuters words of Aërius who indeed as Epiphanius saith was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a franticke fellow as to deny the Superioritie of BB. de facto which oftentimes he doth auouch neither doth he deny it de Iure And therfore the refuter here hath deliuered two vntruthes the one that he saith Aërius did not deny the Superioritie of BB. de facto which most manifestly he did and did it no doubt with this mind that though he missed of the Bishopricke which ambitiously he had desired yet he would be thought as good a man as a Bishop The other that he saith Ierome denied the Superiority of BB. de Iure For it is most euident by many testimonies alledged in the Sermon that Ierome held the Superiority of Bishops to be lawfull and necessary For though somewheres he saith that Bishops are greater then Presbyters rather by the custome of the Church then by the truth of Diuine disposition yet he acknowledgeth that custome to be an Apostolicall tradition and therefore either he may be vnderstood as holding the superioritie of BB. to be not Diuini but Apostolici iuris or he may be interpreted as speaking of the names prouing by diuers testimonies of the Scripture that Presbyters are called Bishops But heereof wee may not conclude that therefore Presbyters and Bishops are all one for not onely Bishops but also Apostles are called Presbyters and the Apostleship is called Bishopricke For howsoeuer all Presbyters are in the Scriptures called Angels and Bishops yet that one among many who had singular preheminence aboue the rest is by the warrant of the holy Ghost called the Angell of the Church and by the same warrant may be called the Bishop Now whereas Aërius for denying the superiority of Bishops was by Epiphanius and Augustine iudged and heretike hereby it appeareth that this alleagation not onely proueth the superiority de facto but de iure for seeing there is no heresie which is not repugnant to Gods word it is euident that they who iudged this opinion of Aerius to be an heresie did also iudge it contrarie to Gods word Neither did Epiphanius and Augustine alone condemne Aërius for an heretike but as Epiphanius reporteth all Churches both in City and Countrey did so detest him and his followers that being abandoned of all they were forced to liue in the open fields and in wods And whereas some obiect against Epiphanius and Augustine in defence of Aerius that his opinion is not heresie because Epiphanius did not sufficiently answer one of Aërius his allegations out of Scripture where Presbyters seeme to be called Bishops and that Augustine followed Epiphanius himselfe not vnderstanding how farre the name of an heretike is to be extended these are very slender exceptions to be taken by so learned a man For be it that Epiphanius did not sufficiently answere some one of Aërius his allegations is that sufficient to excuse Aërius from being an heretike seeing that testimony may be sufficiently answered as J haue shewed and seeing euery testimony alleaged by each heretike hath not alwaies beene sufficiently answered by euery one that hath written against them The Allegation which Aërius bringeth out of Phil. 1.1 doth onely proue that the Presbyters were called Bishops at what time he which was the Bishop of Philippi namely Epaphroditus was called their Apostle And it is confessed by many of the Fathers that howsoeuer there were many in Philippi which in a generall signification were called Bishops yet there was but one nay that there could be but one which properly was called the Bishop of Philippi And as touching Augustine I maruell that learned men could derogate so much from him as that he at that time especially would write vpon the authoritie of others what himselfe vnderstood not For Augustine was no youngling or nouice at that time but hee wrote that booke in his elder age euen after hee had written his bookes of Retractations at what time hee had written 230. bookes besides his Epistles and Homilies Neither doth Augustine write any thing in his preface of that booke whereby it might bee gathered that hee was in doubt whether any of those particulars which he noteth were to be judged heresies onely he saith that what maketh an Heretike can in his judgement hardly if at all be set downe in an accurate definition Notwithstanding he distributeth his intended Treaâ—ise into two parts The first of the heresies which after Christs ascension had been contrarie to his doctrine and which he could come to the knowledge of among which the heresies of Aërius haue the 53. place in the latter hee promiseth to dispute what maketh an Heretike But though he came not to that or if he did what he wrote of that point is not come to our hands yet in the conclusion of his Treatise which is extant he saith thus What the Catholike Church holdeth against these meaning all the 88. heresies which before he had recited it is but a superfluous question seeing it is sufficient in this behalfe to know Eam contra istâ— sentire nec aliquid horum in fidem quenquam dâ—bere recipere that the iudgement of the Church is contrary to these and that no man ought to receiue any of these into his beleefe And again Omnis itaque Christianus Catholicus istâ— non debet credere
c. wherefore it is the duty of euery Catholicke Christian to beleeue none of these But it will be said doe you then hold euery one to be an heretique who is of Aërius iudgement in this point Whereunto I answeare first that although I hold them to be in an error yet I doe not judge them to be heretiques who do not with pertinacy defend their error And secondly I make great difference betweene errors in the articles of faith and fundamentall points of Religion such as was the error of Aërius as he was an Arrian and such as is the error of those who deny our iustification by Christs righteousnes and in matters of Discipline for these though they be dangerous yet they are not damnable errors and it is no great disparagement to men otherwise learned and orthodoxall to haue been ouerseene in matters of Church gouernment so that they doe not for the same leaue the Church and make separation for such also be counted heretikes by the Councels 1. Constant. ca. 6. As for the refuter it is at his choice whether he will be accounted an heretike or not In my iudgement he were best to say Errare possum I may erre as in this controuersie hitherto to hath done sed hâ—reticus esse nolo but I will â—e no heretike by obstinate defending of that wherein his conscience is conuicted Now to helpe the Refuter because I desire to giue the Reader satisfaction I will not conceale that somewheres I finde besides Ierome the testimonies of Chrysostome Augustine and Ambrose obiected as fauouring the opinion of Aërius but vnworthily Chrysostome is alleadged as if he should say There is in a manner no difference betweene a Bishop and a Presbyter Indeed Chrysostome vnderstanding by Episcapus 1. Tim. 3. him that is properly called a Bishop asketh why Paul speaking of Bishops and Deacons maketh no mention there of Presbyters Whereunto he maketh answeare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because there is no great difference for they also haue receiued doctrine and gouernment of the Church and those things which Paul said concerning Bishops agree to them But doth it hence follow that in Chrysostomes judgement there was no difference betwixt a Bishop and a Presbyter doth not Chrysostome in the next words acknowledge that the Bishops are superiour to Presbyters in respect of ordination And as touching singularitie of preheminence doth not he teach that in one Citie or Church where are many Preâ—byters there ought to be one Bishop and so he â—old Sisiâ—â—ius the Nouatian Bishop at Constantinople 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And though he ascribe gouernment of the Church to the Presbyters vnder the Bishop doth he not acknowledge the Bishop to be the gouernor of the Presbyters and when he was Bishop himselfe did he not exercise great authority ouer them But what saith Augustine Quid est Episcopus nisi primus Presbyter what is a Bishop but the first Presbyter doth he not expound himselfe primus Presbyter h. e. 〈◊〉 Sacerdos the first Presbyter that is the high Priest such a one therefore in Augustines judgement is the Bishop to Presbyters as the high priest was to the other priests for in the same place also he compareth the Deacons to the Leuits and the Presbyters to the Priests Yea but Ambrose saith Of a Bishop and a Presbyter there is one order for either of 〈◊〉 a Priest but the Bishop is the first The words are not in his booke de dignitate Sacerdotali as it is quoted for there I find the contrarie for Ambrose saith There is one thing which God requireth of a Bishop another of a Presbyter another of a Deacon And againe he signifieth that as Bishops do ordaine Presbyters and consecrate Deacons so the Archbishop ordaineth the Bishop But they are found in his commentarie on the first to Timothe cap. 3. Where asking the same question with Chrysostome why after the mention of the Bishop he presently addeth the ordination or order of Deacon because saith he of a Bishop and Presbyter there is one ordination or order for either of them is a Priest but the Bishop is the first so that euery Bishop is a Presbyter but not euery Presbyter a Bishop for among the Presbyters the Bishop is the first Now what he meaneth by the first Presbyter may else where be shewed in his writings In the Bishop saith he are all orders because he is primus Sacerâ—â—â—s hoc est Princeps est Sacerdâ—tum the first Priest that is the Prince of the Priests and in the place alleaged he signifieth that Timothe the Bishop was the first Presbyter at Ephesus And such presbyters I doe confesse our BB. to be So much of Aërâ—us concerning whom I haue often maruelled what some learned men doe mean to go about to salue the credit of such a frantique fellow as Epiphanius describeth him being also an absolute Arian and schismaticke or Separatist from the true Churches Now saith the refuter let vs take a view of his great army of antiquity the whole number of them is but fiue and 4. of them almost 200. yeares vnder age Marke here either the skill or conscience of this great Analyser The first argument which indeed is vnanswerable that he swalloweth And in stead of analysing and answearing the rest he cauils at the number and at their age I will therefore propound my arguments and withall answere his cauils And first for their number besides the fiue he speaketh of I produced the testimonies of Epiphanius and Augustine deliuering not only their own opinions but the iudgement of the Church Epiphanius reporting that all Churches did reject and condemne Aërius and Augustine testifying that the Catholike Church did hold the contrary to Aërius his assertion that as I said was my first argument My second argument is this Antiquity did distinguish the ministers of the Church into 3. degrees viz Bishops Presbyters Deacons answerable to the high Priest the Priests and Lâ—â—ites vnder the Law Therefore it giueth testimony to the superiority of BB. ouer other ministers in degree The antecedent I proue by the the testimony of the Councill of Sardica of Optatus of Ignatius and generally by the testimony of Fathers in Councils in which as I said nothing is more vsuall then the distinction of Ministers into these 3. degrees That clause if it had pleased the refuter to haue taken notice of it might haue preuented his cauill concerning either the number or the age of my witnesses But he such is his conscience passing by it bâ—aggeth wiâ—h what face I know not that I haue no antiquitie which distinguisheth the ministrie into 3. degrees Here therefore 3. things are to be shewen which are so many arguments 1. That antiquity distinguisheth the Clergy into 3. degrees 2. That it termeth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 degrees 3. That they compare them to the high Priest Priests and Leuits As touching the first
Reader then by Aâ—ticus preferred to the Deacon-ship afterwards when he was Presbyter he was by the same Atticâ—â— made Bishop of Cyzicum Opâ—aâ—us as I alleaged in the Sermon assigneth to Deacons the third ministerie to Presbyters the second to BB whom he calleth principes omnuiâ—Ì„ the first Burchardus citeth this saying of Augustine being a Bishop You Presbyters know ye that your degree is the second and next to ours for euen as Bishops haue the place of the Apostles in the Church euen so the Presbyters of the other disciples the former haue the degree of Aaron the high Priest the latter of his sonnes In which words the third point also is testified Whereunto Ierome himself in more places then one giueth testimony affirming that in the Church the Bishops Presbyters and Deacons are answerable to the high Priest Priests and Leuits Now to reject these testimonies as being vnder age as though they did historically relate only what was in their own times and not dogmatically set downe the orders and degrees of the ministerie perpetually obserued in the Church of Christ is a verie vnlearned shift If any one of these as namely Ierome shal but seeme to fauor any of their assertions though in their sense he contradict himself and gainsay all others both Councils fathers against such a testimonie no exception either of minoritie of age or singularitie of opinion will be admitted but that authoritie must ouerweigh all that himself and others say to the contrarie It is a world to see how Ierome in this case is magnified and preferred before all antiquitie Who can tell better then Ierome who better acquainted with the historie of the Church then Ierome c. But when most pregnant plain testimonies are produced out of Ierome prouing the superioritie of Bishops agreeable with al antiquity then Ierome is a youngling and vnder age But where I said in the judgement of antiquitie Bishops Presbyters Deacons are answereable to the high Priest Priests and Leuits he saith This gay reason Cardinall Turrâ—cremata Bellarmine out of him bring to proue that there must be one Pope ouer the whole church as there was one high Priest among the Iewes and it proueth that as substantially as it doth this The which is wickedly spoken and desperately as many things of late haue been vttered by that faction as that the Papists arguments for the Popes Supremacie were as good as ours for the superioritie of Bishops But of these blasphemous speeches whereby they match the ordinance of Christ by his Apostles with the height of Antichrists pride I hope this Refuter his consorts will one day haue the grace to repent I confesse it is ordinary with the Papists to alledge out of the Fathers for the Popes supremacy what they testified for the superioritie of Bishops But will any be so desperate as to say the same testimonies abused and detorted by Papists do as substantially prooue that for which they are alleaged besides the true meaning of the fathers as that for which they are truely and faithfully alleaged Good reason therefore had Caluin and the rest to refute that argument because as Caluin saith There is not the like reason betweene one small people and the whole world The whole Church hath no head or vniuersall Bishop but Christ But each seuerall Church may haue their head and seuerall Bishop answerable to the high Priest of the Iewes as diuers of the Fathers haue taught Therfore Ignatius requireth the Smyrneans to honor the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the high Priest and it is an vsual thing with the Fathers not only to apply those things which were spoken of the high Priest to Bishops but also to call the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 poâ—tificem Sacerdotem summum c. and Bishoprick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There remaine yet the testimonies of Ignatius to be discussed which I produced in this 2. argumeÌ„t The authoritie wherof the refuter first calleth in question Wherin he may seeme to preiudice his own cause for T.C.W.T.D.F.H.I. and others of that alphabet haue oft times dragged some testimonies out of him yea this refuter himselfe oft times doth cite him and once I remember he threatned to prooue his lay Presbyters out of Ignatius when he should come to answere my allegations out of him which how it will be performed the reader is now to expect In the meane time little reason had he so much to cleuate the authority of those godly and learned epistles for his own confession that they are recorded in Eusebius is a good proofe they are not counterfeits But he is pleased to heare him speak And whereas Ignatius teacheth that the lay 〈◊〉 must be subiect to the DeacoÌ„s they to the Presbyters the Presbyters to the Bishop the refuter denieth the Presbyterie and Deaconship to haue been degrees of the ministery but vnderstandeth such Deacons as were only imployed in looking to the poore and such Presbyters as were only gouerning elders The vanity of which conceipt J haue sufficiently declared before if anything will suffice And I am ashamed for the refuter that he should be either so ignorant as not to know or so vnconscionable as not to acknowledge that these three Bishops Presbyters and Deacons haue alwaies since the Apostles times been esteemed three degrees of Ministers by the vniuersall and perpetual consent of all Christendome vntill our age Notwithstanding his arguments such as they are must be answered And first for Deacons he saith they were no Ministers of the word but imployed only in looking to the poore and that he proueth by the confession of D. Bilson What maner of men the Deacons were of whom Ignatius speaketh Ignatius himselfe sufficiently declareth in his Epistles to the Trallians where he calleth the Deacons the ministers of the mysteries of Christ and to the Smyrneans Deacons of Christ vnto the word of God to the Philadelphians ministring to the Bishop in the word to the Antiochians the sacred Deacons Neither doth D. Bilson deny it Only he maketh question of the 7. which were elected Act. 6. whether they were such as properly were called Deacons and are the third degree of the ministry or such as were chosen onely to be ouerseers of the poore to which purpose he citeth the generall Councill held in Trullo correcting the Canon of the Council held at Neocaesaria which appointeth that in euery Church there should be 7. Deacons in imitation of the act of the Apostles in ordaining 7. But say they we comparing the sense of the Fathers with the speech of the Apostles do finde that they spake not of men seruing at the mysteries such as properly be called Deacons but at tables alledging Chrysostome who enquiring what the office of these 7. was plainely denieth that they were Deacons whereupon they denounce as D. Bilson hath alledged that the foresaid 7. Deacons
must not be taken for those that serued at the mysteries but for such as were trusted with the dispensation of the common necessities of those that were assembled togither And verily to me it seemeth more then probable that these 7. were not such as S. Paul speaketh of 1. Tim. 3. were in vse in the primitiue church being a degree inferior to Presbyters for these 7 or the most of them were as Eâ—â—phaenius others do testifie chosen out of the 70. Disciples were no doubt principall men among them full of the holy Ghost wisdom being before this ministers of Gods word For as the Apostles the chiefe and principal ministers thought it to appertain to their duty to take care of the poore so wheÌ„ the Apostles were disburdned therof that care was committed to 7 others who were chief men among the disciples Neither may it be doubted but that as Steuen was a worthy preacher so the rest wheÌ„ their teÌ„porary function at IerusaleÌ„ was ended by the dispersion of the faithful vpoÌ„ the death of Steuen gaue theÌ„selues to the preaching of the word as appeareth in Philip who was one of the 7. And wheras the Refuter saith that D. Bilson coÌ„fesseth the Deacons to haue bin only imploied in looking to the poor the coÌ„trary is euideÌ„t for speaking eueÌ„ of those 7. he collecteth by S. Pauls precepts coÌ„cerning DeacoÌ„s that their office was not only a charge to looke to the poore but also to attend the sacred assemblies seruice of the Church euen a step to the ministery of the word meaning as I suppose to the Presbytery As for those who properly are called Deacons it is most euident by innumerable testimonies that they were the third degree of the ministery whose office was a sacred ministery helping the Bishop or the Presbyter in the diuine seruice offering the bread and the cup performing as it were the office of a cryer in the Church which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in dismissing those which were to depart in commanding silence and exciting the people to deuotion and attention In the Council of Nice fault is found with Deacons who in some Cities did giue the Eucharist to the Presbyters but they are commaunded to containe themselues within their bounds knowing that they be the Bishops ministers are inferior to the Presbyters and to receiue the Communion after the Presbyters at the hands either of the Bishop or the Presbyters Iustine Martyr speaking of the Eucharist saith after the president hath giuen thanks and the people hath blessed they who with vs are called Deacons do giue and communicate to euery one that is present of the bread wine and doe carie it to those which are absent And hauing repeated the same againe he speaketh of the collections for the poore shewing that what was collected was coÌ„mitted not to the Deacon but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the President by him to be distributed Tertullian saith The chiefe Priest which is the Bishop hath the right of giuing Baptisme then the Presbyters the Deacons but yet not without the authority of the Bishop Cyprian euery where speaketh of theÌ„ as being of the sacred ministerie The ancient Councill of Eliberis hath this canon If any Deacon ruling or hauing the charge of a people without either Bishop or Presbyter baptize any those the Bishop by his blessing must accomplish The council of Carthage speaking of BB. other inferior orders which do handle the sacred mysteries reckoneth Subdeacons Deacons Presbyters Ierome hath these words If at the prayer of the Bishop alone the holy Ghost descendeth they are to be lamented who in villages and townes other remote places being baptized by Presbyters and Deacons do sleep or depart this life before they be visited of the Bishop The safetie of the Church dependeth vpon the dignitie of the chiefe Priest meaning the Bishop To whom if a power peerelesse and eminent aboue all be not giuen there will be as many schismes in the Church as Priests Hence it is that without the Chrisme which the Presbyters Deacons were wont to receiue from their own Bishop and commandement of the Bishop neither Presbyter nor Deacon hath right to baptize In the 4. Councill of Carthage which is so oft alleaged by the Disciplinarians ther is direction giueÌ„ for the ordination of the Bishop Presbyter and Deacon other of the Clergie The Deacon is taught to acknowledge himself to be the minister aswell of the Presbyter as of the Bishop The Deacon is authorized euen in the preseÌ„ce of a Presbyter if ther be necessity he be coÌ„maÌ„ded to deliuer the Eucharist of Christs body to the people to wear an Albe only in time of oblation or reading To conclude Cyprian and other of the fathers when they terme the Deacons Leuits make them answerable to the Leuits as they do the Presbyters to the Priests do euideÌ„tly declare what they thought coÌ„cerning the office of Deacons That the Presbyters were not ministers of the word the refuter proueth thus They who might not preach nor baptize nor doe any pastorall duty without the Bishops licence were not ministers The Presbyters might not preach nor baptize nor do any pastorall dutie without the Bishops licence Therefore they were not Ministers The proposition is proued by 2. reasons First because it were a mockery of a ministerie to deny Ministers power to execute their office Secondly because euery popish Priest had potestatem ordinis that is power to do all things that belong to his order First to the proposition it selfe I say it is very false and that the contradictorie in all the parts of it is true viz that they who might yea ought to preach baptize administer the Lords supper and performe any other pastorall dutie being therto licensed of the Bishop were ministers From which we may assume and conclude thus But the ancient Presbyters might yea ought to preach baptize administer the Lords supper and performe any other pastorall duties being therto authorized by the Bishop Therefore they were ministers And that the proposition is false it may appeare by the practise of our owne Church and of all the antient Churches whose Presbyters are and were Ministers as I haue sufficiently prooued before for the conuiction I doubt not of the refuters conscience and yet neither may nor might preach baptize administer the Lords Supper and performe other ministeriall functions but by leaue or authority from the Bishop Neither yet is the ministery of our clergy now nor of the Presbyters in times past a mockery because it agreeth not with his fancy but his fancy is a meere nouelty disagreeing from the generall practise of the most antient Churches For howsoeuer afterwards he malepertly chargeth mee with not vnderstanding the distinction of ecclesiasticall power in potestatem ordinis et iurisdictionis into the power of
order and iurisdiction yet doth he both here and there bewray himself not to vnderstand it For though euery Minister as hee is a Presbyter hath potestatem ordinis yet it doth not follow that hee may at his owne pleasure exercise that power We must therfore take knowledge of two distinctions the one of the power of order and of iurisdiction for euery minister hath the power of order as hee is a Presbyter simply but the power of iurisdiction as he is praelatus or pastor The former he hath giuen him in his ordination the latter in his institution By the former hee is qualified and authorized to preach and administer the sacraments and to doe other â—spirituall actions peculiar to his order which another man who is not of that order neither can doe nor may haue leaue to doe But hee may not performe these duties which belong to the power of his order to any congregation as the Pastor therof vnlesse that flocke be assigned and committed to him by the Bishop who hath the charge of the whole diocesse A presbyter therefore though he haue potestatem ordinis may not perform pastoral duties to any congregation which are part of the Bishops charge vnlesse hee be authorized therto by the Bishop from whom hee receiueth potestatem iurisdictionis curamque animarum et regimen ecclesia parochialis in his institution Againe we must distinguish betweene the power it selfe and the exercise execution of it For although euery minister hath thesame power of order which is common to them with Bishops in respect of preaching the worde and administring Baptisme and the Lords Supper yet the exercise of their power is and alwaies hath been subiected to the authority of the Bishop to be permitted directed restrained and suspended by him This subordination and subiection of the presbyters to the Bishop for the exercise of their power which euer hath beene practised in the Church doth not make either their function to be a mockery of the ministery as the refuter malepertly speaketh nor themselues to be no ministers But plainly proueth the contrary as I haue shewed For whereas he obiecteth out of Tertullian that any lay man might baptize by the Bishops 〈◊〉 he falsifies his testimony His words be these Dandi baptismum ius â—abâ—t summus sacerdos qui est episcopus c. The cheif Preist which is the Bishop hath the right to giue baptisme Then the presbyters and deacons but not without the authority of the Bishop for the honor of the Church which being safe peace is safe Otherwise euen laymen haue right Where Tertullian sheweth that the ordinary right of baptizing appertaineth to Bishops Presbyters deacons as belonging to the power of their order though for the honour and peace of the Church the Bishop bee superiour in the exercise of that power which the Presbyters and Deacons are not to exercise without his authority otherwise that is extraordinarily and in case of necessity the lay man euen without the Bishops leaue hath right in Tertullians iudgement to baptize Where he saith That in Tertullians time who was himselfe a Presbyter Presbyters and Deacons were not ministers and much lesse in Ignatius time I hope he wil râ—call this foule error proceeding from extreme ignorance when he hath read what before hath been alledged to the contrary And whereas the last testimony which I alledged out of Ignatius for these three degrees of the ministery plainely excludeth their lay Presbyters and lay Deacons reckening Presbyters and Deacons as degrees of the clergy he answereth two things the first That the Epistle strongly sauoureth of corrupter times then those Ignatius loued in by that very word clergy apprâ—priated therein to the ministers which is of a far latter breed He should haue done well to haue shewed how late the breed is For I am well assured that Cyprian vseth the word clerus for the clergy ordinarily who was little more then a hundred yeares after Ignatius And Origen before him mentioneth this distinction of the clergy and laity Tertullian who liued in the same century with Ignatius distinguisheth each company of Christians as sometimes into gregem duces the flocke and the guides ecclesiâ— ordinem laicos the order of the Church meaning those which were in orders and the lay people so sometimes in ecclesiaÌ„ cleruÌ„ the assembly and the clergy The clergy also or guides he distinguisheth into these three degrees Deacons Presbyters Bishops The antient Canons called the Apostles often mention those of the clergy as opposed to the laity But if I should say that S. Peter vseth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same sense when writing to Bishops whom he calleth Presbyters himself their Compresbyter he willeth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not exercise lordship ouer the clergy I should deliuer that which is agreeable to the interpretation of the antient Writers and as I am perswaded to the truth Neither doe I doubt but the vse of the word clerus was first taken from that place of Peter who therein followed the phrase of the old Testament wherein it is oft said that the Lord was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the portion or the inheritance of the Priests and Leuites For therefore are they called Clerici saith Ierome vel quia de sorte sunt Domini vel quia ipse Dominus sors i. pars clericoruÌ„ est Either because they are the Lords portion which notatioÌ„ some late writers do mislike not without cause the people also being Gods inheritance or because the Lord is their portion which is agreeable with the scriptures His other answer is that though the Presbyters and Deacons were of the clergy yet they were not Ministers for there were many of the clergy which were not Ministers Let him therefore tell me whether there were any Ministers in the clergy adioined to the Bishop or not if he say no hee is worthy to be hissed at if yea who were these Ministers if the Presbyters and Deacons were not Besides it is plaine that the Clergy of the antient Churches consisted wholly of schollers which were trained vp in learning the Clergie belonging to each Bishoppe being the seminary of the whole diocesse out of which not only euery parish both in the Citie and Country was to be furnished with Ministers but also the Bishop himselfe in the vacancie of the See was to be chosen Moreouer ordinarily those of the clergy ascended by degrees from the lower to the higher the Bishop being chosen out of the Presbyters Deacons for euen Ignatius his successor was his deacon Herâ— the Presbyters deacons out of the inferior orders as of sub deacons or readers c. Wherby it is most euideÌ„t that presbyters deacoÌ„s were not such as the lay-elders and lay-deacons which are now adaies in some reformed Churches but men brought vp in learning and seruice of the Church hauing attained degrees
of the sacred Ministery such as Presbyters and Deacons are with vs. And so much of my second argument The third is taken from the testimony of the great Councell of Chalcedon and may thus briefly be framed It is sacriledge to reduce a Bishop to the degree of a Presbyter Therefore BB. were superior to Presbyters in degree not onely de facto but also de iure But what is this saith he to the Apostles times and the age following Indeed if the Councell had testified the superiority of Bishops de facto onely there had been some colour for this exception especially if he could haue proued an alteration in the state of Bishops and the aduancement of them to a higher degree to haue begun after the first two hundred yeeres But seeing no such matter can truly be alleaged and seeing also that famous Councell giueth testimony to the superiority of Bishops not only de facto but also de iure and that in such sort as it deemeth it sacrilege to reduce a Bishop to the degree of a Presbyter it cannot therefore bee denied but that this is a most pregnant testimony if it bee rightly alleged Let vs therefore coÌ„sider the occasion of those words which in the copie whereon Th. Balsamo doth comment and in some manuscript Greeke copies is the twenty nine canon of that Councell When Eustathius Bishop of Berytum for so I find him termed diuers times in the Acts of that Councell in Euagrâ—m in Photius and Balsamo and not of Tyre as in Tilius his Greeke edition it is corruptly printed when Eustathius J say had withdrawne diuers Bishopricks from the Metropolitan Church of Tyrus deposing the Bishops whom Photius the Bishop of Tyrus had ordained and bringing them downe to the degree of Presbyters complaint was made to the great Councell of Chalcedon and the matter therein in propounded by the Princes in these words Concerning the Bishops ordained by Photius and degraded by Eustathius and after they had been Bishops commanded to be Presbyters what is the senteÌ„ce of this holy Synod Whereto Paschasinus and Lucentiuâ— Bishops and Bonifaciuâ— Presbyter vicegerents of the Church of Rome answered To reduce a Bishop to the degree of a Presbyter it is sacrilege if any iust cause depose them from their Bishopricke neither ought they to retaine the place of Presbyters But if without any crime they haue beene remoued from their honour they shall returne againe to their episcopall dignity Anaâ—olius the Archbishop of Constantinople said These Bishops who are said to haue descended from the episcopall dignity vnto the order of Presbyters if for iust cause they are condemned neither are they worthy of the honour of Presbyters But if without any reasonable cause they haue been deiected to a lesse degree they are worthy if they be blamelesse to recouer againe the dignity and priesthood of their Bishopricke If you thinke that these were but the priuate opinions of these men heare the censure of the whole Councell All the reuerend Bishoppes cried Righteous is the iudgement of the Fathers wee all say the same things the Fathers haue decreed iustly let the sentence of the Archbishops hold My fourth argument is drawne from the testimony of Ierome whose authority in this cause ought to be of greatest weight because he is the onely man almost among the fathers whom the Disciplinarians can alledge against the superiority of Bishops Ierome therefore saith that at Alexandria from Marke the Euangelist vnto Heraclas and Dionysius Bishops euermore the presbyters hauing chosen one from among themselues and placed him in exceâ—siori gradu in an higher degree called him Bishop euen as an armie chooseth a Generall This testimony the Refuter eleuateth in two respects The first because Ierome is vnder age Which is a very simple euasion For Ierome doth not onely testify what was in his time but also giueth plaine euidence that in the first two hundred yeeres euen from S. Marke vntill Heraclas Bishops were placed in a superior degree aboue Presbyters Secondly because Bëllarmine alleageth the sâ—me testimony to the same purpose whose allegation is answered by Châ—mier whose answer if I like not he bids me try what I can say in defence of Bellarmine against it To omit how odiously this is set downe I doe professe that I may with better credit agree with Bellarmine wherein he consenteth with all antiquity then the Refuter and his consorts can agree with Aërius wherein he dissenting from all antiquity was by Epiphanius Philaster Augustine and all the Catholike Church in his time condemned for an heretike But let vs heare his answers First that Ierome proueth by the practise of the Church of Alexandria that which before he had demonstrated out of the Scriptures to wit that a Presbyter and a Bishop differ not Neither doth he call Marke a Bishop but an Euangelist This answere might become our refuter better then Chamier For first it is vntrue that Ierome in these words proueth that a Bishop and a Presbyter differ not For doth hee not plainly say that the Bishop was placed in a higher degree and doth hee not compare him in respect of the Presbyters which chose him to the Chieftaine or Generall chosen of the Army Secondly he faileth in setting downe Ieromes purpose which was not to prooue there was no difference betwixt Bishoppes and Presbyters but to prooue that Presbyters were superior to Deacons That he proueth by many arguments First because the name Episcopus Bishop in the Scriptures is giuen to Presbyters Secondly because the Apostles and Bishops are in the Scriptures called Presbyters to which purpose he alleageth 1. Tim. 4.13 1. Pet. 5.1 2. Iohn 1. and 3. Iohn 1. And thirdly whereas it might be obiected the Bishops were set ouer Presbyters he confesseth it was done for auoiding of schisme but yet so as by the Presbyters the Bishop was chosen out of the Presbyters euer since S. Marks time vntill Heraclaâ— and Dâ—â—â—ysius as a Generall by the Army or the Arch-deacon by the Deacons out of their owne company Whereby he would also insinuate that a Presbyter is so much better then a Deacon as a Bishop is superior to an Arch deacon Thirdly where he saith that Ierome doth not call Marke a Bishop but an Euangelist and saith else where that he planted that Church It is plaine that in another place he confesseth Marke to haue been the first Bishop of Alexandria If Marke therefore were superiour in degree to the Presbyters at Alexandra as no man wil deny then must the same be confessed of Anianus and the rest of his successors as Ierome plainely testifieth Secondly he answeareth That the order by which the Presbyters chose a Bishop from among themselues continued to Heraclas and Dionysius time whom he therefore calleth Bishops to the end he might signifie that in their daies after one hundred and forty yeers were expired from Marks comming to
Alexandria that order was changed Then at the soonest saith the refuter began M. D. superiority of Bishops to creep in c. Which answere if his meaning be as our refuter conceiteth is vnsound For first where he saith the order was changed in Heraclas and Dionysius that is spoken but by ghesse because Ierome nameth them Vpon which coniecture T. C. and H. I. as you haue heard did build their two diuers fancies For Ieromes meaning was not to signifie that the superioritie of Bishops was altered but as I haue shewed that vntill Heraclas and Dionysius who were not Presbyters but Teachers of the schoole in Alexandria the Presbyters euer since S. Marks time did chuse one out of their owne number That which the Refuter addeth is absurd and against Ieromes plaine words Then at the soonest began M. D. superiority of Bishops to creepe in for the superiority I spake of is superiority in degree And Ierome saith that euer from Saint Marke and therefore euen in the Apostles times the BB. had been placed in a higher degree My fift argument is also from the authority of Ierome which yeeldeth a double proofe the former that the superiority of Bishops ouer Presbyters and Presbyters aboue Deacons is an ordinance or tradition apostolicall Secondly that as the high Preist was in degree superiour to the other Preists and they to the Leuits so by an apostolicall ordinance the Bishop is superiour to the Presbyters and the Presbyters to the Deacons That wee may know saith he the apostolicall traditions are taken out of the old testament looke what Aaron and his sonnes and the Leuits were in the Temple the same let the Bishops Preists and Deacons challenge in the Church To this testimony containing two impregnable proofs for the superiority of BB. not onely de facto but also de iure the refuter thought it his wisest course to say nothing To these arguments this may be added That as the new ordination of a Deacon when he was made a Presbyter doth proue that he was aduanced to a higher degree of the ministery euen so when a Presbyter was chosen to be Bishop he was by a new ordination promoâ—ed to the Bishopricke as to a higher degree The two first canons among those which are called the Apostles appoint that a Bishop should be ordained of two or three Bishops but let a Presbyter say they be ordayned of one Bishop and likewise a Deacon and the rest of the clergy Valeriuâ— the Bishop dealth with the Primate the Bishop of Carthage by letters intreating him that Augustine who then was Presbyter might be ordained Bishop of Hippo which being obtained Augustine tooke vpon him the care of the Bishopricke maioris loci 〈…〉 and ordination of a greater place The councell of Sardica taketh order that before a man may be a Bishop he must first performe the ministery of a Reader then of a Deacon then of a Presbyter that so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by euery degree if hee be worthy he may arise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnto the height of the Bishopricke Theadoret testifieth that Iohn Chrysostome hauing been the chiefe of the Presbyters at Antioch a long time oft times might haue been chosen to the Bishopricke which he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apostolicall presidency but alwaies did flie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that principality So that though he were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the chiefe of the Presbyters yet he was no Bishop neither durst he for a long time take vpon him that degree of principality So much of the superiority of Bishops in generall CHAP. III. Shewing wherin the superiority of Bishops did and doth consist and first of the singularity of preeminence Serm. sect 3. page 32. But let vs consider more particularly wherein the superioritie of Bishops did and doth consist c. ad lin a fine 6 THe superiority of Bishops ouer other Ministers I place in three things singularity of preeminence during life the power of ordination and the power of iurisdiction all which I ground on Tit. 1.5 But where I say during life hee saith This addition needed not seeing it is grounded vpon an erroneous conceit of mine owne whereby I charge them as holding the contrary Secondly that it is not proued out of the place alleaged In the former hee sheweth how audacious he is seeing Beza the chiefe patron of the pretended discipline holdeth that the Presidents of the Presbyteries which afterwards as he saith were called Bishoppes ought to be but for a short time and that by course and esteemeth them which had a perpetuall presidenship to be Bishops humane as I haue shewed before The practise also of those Churches where the discipline is vsed doth prooue what their Founders thought was agreeable to Gods word This their conceit is euidently confuted by the Epistles to Titus and to Timothy For seeing they doe confesse that they were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Churches of Creet and Ephesus it is euident that they continued in this Presidentshippe whiles they liued there For it is absurd to imagine that Titus was sent to Creet and Timothy to Ephesus to be presidents there in their turnes and when their turnes were ended to be subiected to other of the Presbyters there in their course But these things the refuter doth but cauill at by the way For he granteth that Titus had this superioritie which we speake of his maine answer is that Titus was not a Bishop Which afterwards J proue in the Sermon by the common consent of the antient and most approoued Writers of the Church with whose affirmation in a matter of fact if this Refuters deniall shall be weighed in the ballance of an vnpartiall iudgement it will be found as light as vanitie it selfe But of this question more hereafter In the meane time J will but desire the Reader to take this for granted because it cannot be denied that if Titus was Bishop of Creet then Bishops had this threefold superioritie which I speake of Where I commend this order of Church gouernement consisting in the superiority of Bishoppes and inferioritie of other Ministers this graue and learned Refuter maketh a scorne at it saying It is a toy to please children and a gay Epiphonema wanting a note of exclamation he would haue said acclamation to grace it The which argueth his spite against the gouernment of Bishoppes rather then his might being neither able to endure the iust commendation of episcopall gouernment nor yet to confute it For what hath he but trifles and toies to obiect against it For where hee saith I begge the question supposing ech Church to be a diocesse the conscience of the Reader I hope also of the Refuter will testifie that what I suppose in this behalfe hath beene before sufficiently prooued Besides those with whom I principally contend in this point doe confesse the Churches indued with power of
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
For first is not this a plaine lie and a notorious falsification of my words to say I plainly auouch a necessity of retaining the gouernment of diocesan Bishops c Where doe J mention or mean that necessity he speaketh of Could those words so is it for the same cause to be retained no otherwise be expounded then as implying an absolute necessity That is to be retained which is meet or fit expedient or conuenient profitable or needfull to be reteyned Secondly let the reader remember how oft the refuter hath charged me for saying the Bishops calling to be holden d iure diuino implying a perpetuall necessity thereof and chargeth the doctrine of my sermon to be in that respect contrary to the lawes of our land which make the forme of Church gouernment to be alterable by the King and yet here acknowledgeth for aduantage that I holde no such matter Thirdly let it be obserued how vnder this pretence of amazement he shifteth of the testimony of Cyprian which sitteth so neare to him and his consorts But the reader I hope will beare in mind the words off Cyprian noting the source of all schismes to be this when the Bishop who is but one and gouerneth the Church by the proud presumptioÌ„ of some is contemned c. And in the same epistle you ought to know saith he to Pupianus that the Bishop is in the Church and the Church in the Bishop and that whosoeuer are not with the Bishop are not in the Church and that they doe flatter themselues in vaine who haue not peace with the Priests of God that is the Bishops c. To this purpose Cyprian often writeth Neque enim aliâ—â—de haereses c. Neither haue heresies or schismes any other beginning then this that Gods Priest meaning the Bishop is not obeied Neither is one Bishop for the time nor one Iudge in Christs steed acknowledged c. Againe haec sunt initia haereticorum these bee the beginnings of heretikes these the risings and indeuors of ill minded schismatikes that they please themselues and contemne their B. with swelling pride Sic de ecclesia receditur thus doe men depart from the Church c. And in another place Hence doe men rush into heresies and schismes when they speake euill of Priests and enuy their Bishops c. The Lord open their eies who are faulty in this behalfe that they may see their sinne and touch their hearts that they may repent thereof Out of Ierome who is the onely man among the Fathers on whose authority the Disciplinarians in this cause doe relie I produce three most pregnant testimonies the first affirming that vnlesse this singularitie of preeminence be yeelded to the Bishop there will be as many schismes as Priests The second that euer since Saint Marks time the Presbyters hauing elected one placed him in a higher degree and called him Bishoppe The third that when some beganne to say J am of Paul I of Apollo which was in the Apostles time it was decreed by the whole world that one being chosen from among the Presbyters should be set ouer the rest in euery Church vnto whom the care of the whole Church should appertaine Of these allegations the first giueth testimony to this superiority de iure the other two testifying de facto beare witnesse that it hath been so in and euer since the Apostles times These testimonies are featly auoided with a promise to answere them afterwards when he will say neuer a word to the present not almost to any purpose The second part of this section wherein I prooue against Beza and the better sort of the Disciplinarians that the BB. had this singularitie of preeminence neither for a short time nor by course but were elected for terme of life this Refuter reiecteth as not worth the mentioning hee hath so oft refuted it alreadie Refuted oft I would bee sory that hee should bee able with soundnesse of reason and euidence of truth to refute any one sentence in the Sermon All the refutation of this point which hitherto wee haue had was this that I charged them with vntruths that I threaten kindnesse on them that I had need to be as eloquent as Pericles if I could perswade that any of them haue said this when as I haue brought foorth most plaine and euident allegations to this purpose And although I forbeare to mention Beza tendering his credit yet what I heere confuted is auouched by him in his twenty third chapter of his booke concerning the degrees of Ministers chiefly in the 141.142.143 pages Now because this point is of great moment though the Refuter haue tripped ouer it so lightly like a dog ouer a hot hearth as if I were afraid to touch it I will therefore endeuour to giue the Reader some further satisfaction therein by adding some other proofes What antiquity thought of the singularity of Bishops may appeare first by these two testimonies out of Cyprian and Theodoret. For when Nouatian was ordained a second Bishop in Rome besides Cornelius some of the Clergy hauing ben before Confessors who also had consented to him mooued with repentance and returning from schisme vnto the Church confessed their error saying Nos errorem nostrum confitemur c. Neithâ—r are we ignorant that there ought to be one God one Christ the Lord whom we haue confessed one holy Ghost one Bishop in a Catholike Church Likewise when Constantius being intreated by the godly Matrons in Rome gaue consent that Liberius should returne but withall appointed that hee and Felix should rule the Church in common the faithfull people deriding that sentence of the Arrian Emperor with one voice cried as Theodoret reporteth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one God one Christ one Bishop After these speeches of the true Christian people adorned with pietie and iustice Liberius returned and Felix departed to another Citie and shortly died Which came to passe by Gods good prouidence saith Sozomen that the seat of Peter should not be diffamed as gouerned at once by two rulers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a note of dissension and repugnant to the law ecclesiasticall 2. And that the adding of a second Bishop was iudged vnlawfull and esteemed as a note of schisme Cyprian in some other places besides those which before I cited doth testifie Writing therfore to the foresaid Confessors who had ioined with Nouatian Granat me saith he it greiueth me c. When I vnderstood that you there against ecclesiasticall order against the Euangelical law against the vnity of Catholicke institution haue thought that another Bishop was to be made that is to say which is vngodly and vnlawfull to be done that another Church should be instituted the members of Christrent asunder the minde and body of the Lords flocke which is but one to be torne with schismaticall emulation And in another place Where a Bishop is once
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
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
question Perhaps his conscience told him that he knew of no testimony nor example of the Presbyters concurrence with the B. in ordination before that time and that in the foresaid Councell their assistance to the B. in ordaining was first ordained which if it did as worthily it might then had he no reason to vrge that canon to proue the practise of the Church in the first two hundred yeeres in a particular which by that canon was first appointed Hauing thus remoued their two maine obiections which stood in my way I proceeded in the proofe of my former assertion that the right of ordination was in the iudgement of the antient Church appropriated to BB. As first that the Councels and Fathers speake of the ordainer as of one and consequently presuppose the right of ordaining to bee in one which I proued by foure testimonies This reason because the Refuter did not well see how to answere he passeth by it as if hee had not seene it To make it therefore more conspicuous I will inlarge it affirming that both Scriptures Councels and Fathers speake of the ordainer as of one Timothy was ordained by the imposition of Pauls hands Paul left Titus in Creet that he should ordaine Presbyters and chargeth Timothy that he should not lay hands hastily on any man c. The Canon called the Apostles appointeth that a Presbyter and so a Deacon be ordained of one The Councell of Antioch acknowledgeth euery Bishop within his owne diocesse to haue authority to ordaine Presbyters and Deacons The Councell of Africke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one Bishop may ordaine many Presbyters The Councell of Hispalis or Ciuill A Bishop alone may giue to Priests and Deacons their honour Chrysostome describeth the Bishop by this property 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that is to ordaine vs. The people of Hippo wanting a Presbyter lay hold on Augustine and as it was wont to be done bring him to Valerius the Bishop desiring him to ordaine him To these adde the penaltie inflicted vpon the B. alone when any ordination was irregular Sozomen reporteth that Elpidius Eustathius Basilius of Ancyra Eleusius among other faults obiected against them were deposed because euery of them had ordained contrary to law The aforeâ—aid Councell of Carthage decreeth that if a B. wittingly ordain a penitent he shall be depriued of the power of his Bishoprick at least from the power of ordaining And to the like penalty doth it subiect a Bishop who shall ordaine such a one as hath married her that is diuorced c. But you shall neuer reade that the Presbyters were fouÌ„d fault with for vnlawfull ordinations vnlesse that any of them did encroach vpon the Bishops right in ordaining which is a plaine euidence that the power of ordaining was in the B. and not in the Presbyters When Epiphanius being at Constantinople ordained a Deacon he was blamed as offending against the Canons not because hee wanted the presence of his Presbytery but because hee did it in Chrysostomes diocesse Secondly that the power of ordination was peculiar to the Bishop in the iudgement of the Fathers J proue first by the authority of Councels then by the testimonies of Epiphanius and Ierome To the former he answereth It is to no purpose to meddle with these allegations out of the Councels which were well nigh three hundred yeeres after the Apostles times and some of them such as deserue neither imitation nor approbation Here let the Christian Reader iudge what credit he deserueth that so contemptuously shaketh off the authority of antient Councels euen the second among the foure antient generall Councels which are and haue been from time to time receiued in the Church as it were foure Gospels But let vs examine the particulars consider whether they deserued to be so lightly reiected The first testimony was taken out of an Epistle written by the Presbyters and Deacons of Mareot in the behalfe of Athanasius the Great their Bishop who was accused for that by his appointment Macarius had disturbed one Ischyras a pretended Presbyter in the administration of the Communion and had broken the sacred cup. They testifie these things to be false and among the rest they deny that Ischyras was a Presbyter because hee was ordained of Colluthus the Presbyter who was but an imaginary or phantasticall Bishop and afterwards by a generall Councell to wit by Osius and the BB. who were with him commanded to remaine a Presbyter as he had been before For which cause all that were ordained of Colluthus among whom was Ischyras returned to their former place and order The like is testified by the Synod of Alexandria which denieth that Ischyras could be ordained Presbyter by Colluthus seeing Colluthus himselfe died a Presbyter and all his ordinations were reuersed and all that were ordained by him were held as lay men Hereunto we may adde another most pregnant testimony expressed in the acts of the same generall Councell of Sardica wherein it was decreed that forsomuch as Musaeus and Eutychianus were not ordained Bishops that therfore such Clerks as they had ordained should be held as lay men My second testimony is out of the second generall Councell concerning Maximus who being by birth an Alexandrian by profession a Cynick Philosopher before hee was conuerted to Christianity and receiued into the Clergy by Gregory the Diuine against whom he ambitiously sought the Bishopricke of Constantinople bribing the BB. of Egypt Who being come to Constantinople and excluded out of the Church went into a certaine minstrels house and there vnlawfully chose Maximus the Cynick to be Bishop of Constantinople The generall Councell therefore assembled at Constantinople determineth thus concerning Maximus that he neither was nor is a Bishop neither they Clerks who had been ordained by him in what degree so euer of the Clergy And to this I will adioyne another testimony out of the fourth generall Councell where Bassianus who had been Bishop of Ephesus and now sought to recouer it alleaged for himselfe that if he were not Bishop then were not they clerks which had been ordained by him Neither were ordinary Presbyters alone forbidden to ordaine but Chorepiscopi also that is country BB. sometimes were restrained and sometimes forbidden altogether to ordaine Presbyters and Deacons Restrained whiles there were such as had receiued episcopall ordination that they might not ordaine without the leaue of the Bishop of the Citie whereunto both the Chorepiscopus himselfe and his Country is subiect Forbidden altogether when they ceased to haue episcopall ordination and were ordained as other Presbyters by the B. of the Citie alone It seeemeth to me that Chorepiscopi vntill the Councel of Antioch had sometimes episcopall ordination being ordained by two or three Bishops And therefore to the Councell of Neocaesaria and Nice they subscribed among other BB But forasmuch
as they being but for matters of lesse importance vicegerents in the Country to the Bishop of the diocesse whose seat was in the Citie being after the maner of the seuenty disciples Presbyters rather then BB. did incroach vpon the Bishoppes rights and prerogatiues not knowing their owne measure therefore they were restrained as in other matters of importance so in ordinations to doe nothing without the leaue of the Bishop Thus the ancient Councill of Ancyra determined That it was not lawfull that Countrie Bishops should ordaine Presbyters or Deacons vnlesse they had leaue granted vnto them by the Bishop with his letters for so Theod. Balsam expoundeth that Canon the Fathers of this Synode determine that the Countrie Bishop may not ordaine Presbyters or Deacons without the letters of the Bishop The Councill of Antioch thus It seemeth good to the holy Synode that those which are placed in villages and countrey Townes called Countrey-Bishops although they haue receiued the ordination of BB. should know their owne measures and administer the Churches subiect to them and content themselues with the charge and care of them and to ordaine Readers Subdeacons and Exorcists and to content themselues with preferring of them But that they should not presume to ordaine a Presbyter or a Deacon without the Bishop in the citie whereunto both himselfe and his countrey is subiect If any shall dare to transgresse this definition he shall be deposed from that honour which he hath and that the countrie Bishop should be made of the B. in the citie wherto he is subiect Which last clause as I suppose was added to take from them that colourable pretence whereupon they had presumed before to ordaine Presbyters and Deacons viz. because they had Episcopall ordination by the Metropolitane and two or three other BB. To preuent this the Councill decreeth that from that time forward they should be ordained not as other BB. by the Metropolitane and two or three other Bishops but as other Presbyters by the Bishop of the citie and so hauing not so much as an Episcopall ordination to make them as they were before titular Bishops they might acknowledge themselues to haue no right of ordination of Presbyters and Deacons Harmenopulus in his abridgement of the Canons setteth this downe as the summe of both these Canons 13. Ancyr and 10. Antioch Let not a Countrey Bishop ordaine a Presbyter or Deacon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the licence of the Bishop To the like purpose the Councill of Laodicea determined that Bishops may not be ordained in villages and Countrey townes but visiters and that those which were before ordained may do nothing without the consent of the Bishop in the citie By these two Councils therefore as Episcopall ordination for the time to come was denied to the Countrey Bishops so also power of ordaining Presbyters and Deacons To the same purpose I quoted Damasus and Leo who proue that Chorepiscopi were not indeed Bishops but Presbyters and therefore had no right to ordaine Presbyters and Deacons Chorepiscopi saith Leo according to the Canons of Neocaesaria and decrees of other Fathers are the same with Presbyters bearing the figure of the sonnes of Aaron and being after the maner of the 70. Disciples And although in respect of the ministerie they haue a common dispensation with Bishops notwithstanding some things are forbidden them by the authoritie of the old law some of the new and by Ecclesiasticall Canons as the consecration of Presbyters and Deacons c. And to his sentence the Councill of Hispalis subscribed Basil likewise plainely signified to the Chorepiscopi that if any without his appointment were receiued into the ministerie he should bee held for a lay man These testimonies plainely euince that in the primitiue Church the power of ordination was so in Bishops as that either themselues did ordaine or if this power were communicated to others it was by leaue and permission from them And little reason had the refuter so lightly to esteeme these testimonies as being vnder age For vnlesse he be able to shew that in the first 200. yeares the Presbyters either had de iure the power to ordaine or that de facto they did vse to ordaine which he will neuer be able to shew the worst of these testimonies for the Bishops is of more worth then all that he shall be able to say against them Let him produce if he can any one testimony of Scripture any one sentence out of Councils Histories or Fathers prouing that Presbyters without a Bishop had right to ordaine and I will yeeld to him But he doth not goe about by sound learning and euidence of truth to refell my assertions which indeed he cannot doe but by vnlearned shifts and sophistiall cauillations to elude them as he can either not doubting but such refutations would serue his turne to reteine the people in their preconceiued alienation from Bishops or else hoping that J would not vouchsafe him an answere But to returne to my proofes For one there remaineth yet out of the Councils shewing that in ancient times they were so far from permitting Presbyters without a Bishop to ordaine that when as a certaine Bishop in the ordination of one Presbyter and two Deacons vsed only the help of a Presbyter to reade the words of consecration and to blesse them himself laying on his hands but being not able for the paine of his eies to reade the Councill of Hispalis reuersed the ordination as vnlawfull This is the Councill which the refuter judged to deserue neither imitation nor approbation by which censure of this one though he durst not giue it of any of the forenamed Councils yet it being indefinitely propounded he discrediteth the rest with the vnlearned who are not able to distinguish But let vs heare more particularly his graue censure of this Councill What a toy was it for the Councill of Ciuill in Spaine to reuerse the ordination c. What a boy is this might these Fathers say that presumeth thus to censure vs was not Isidor the Archbishop of Ciuill the president of this Councill and author of these Canons one of the most learned writers which haue beene in the Church within this 1000. yeares with whom this Refuter for learning is not to be named the same day was not this Council held against the Heretickes called Acephali did it not learnedly and judiciously confute them did these graue fathers toy when by graue censures they sought to preserue the discipline and canons of the Church to maintaine the lawfull authoritie of BB. and to preuent the presumptuous vsurpation of Presbyters contrarie to the Canons of the Church had not the ancient councill of Orenge decreed That if any Bishop should by any infirmitie or weaknesse either fall into the dulnesse of his senses as this Bishop did or loose the facultie of speech he should not suffer
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
the Fathers had thought the power of ordination to haue bin peculiar to BB. by any ordinance of God they would not haue allowed any such ordination as I speake of without a B it followes not For though they held the right of Baptizing to beloÌ„g to the Ministers of the Church by Gods ordinance though they held the right of imposing hands to be peculiar to the Apostles and their successors yet in a case of necessity they held baptisme without a Minister and confirmation without a B. to be lawfull In like maner though they held that the right of ordination was peculiar to Bishops by Apostolical institution therefore taught that none but Bishops could regularly and ordinarily ordaine notwithstanding in a case of necessity we may well thinke they would haue allowed of such an ordination as J spake of though as I said not as regular according to the rules of ordinary Church gouernment yet as effectuall and iustifiable in the want of a B. If he still say they wouâ—d not then must he confesse that the practise of the Disciplinarians is such as the Fathers of the Primitiue Church would in no case haue allowed and that is all the inconuenience that can come to our cause if my defence of them be not sufficient As for his cauill at my supposall of the right of ordination to belong to the power of order in BB. I haue answered before To such obiections one answer is enough two is too many And thus much of the Bishops right in ordaining CHAP. V. That Bishops were superior to other Ministers in the power of iurisdiction Serm. sect 9. pag. 45. Now I am to shew that the B. is superiour also in the power of iurisdiction The Presbyters indeede c. to the end of the page HEre the Reader is to obserue what is by me propounded to be proued not that the BB. had or haue the sole power of iurisdiction the defence whereof the Refuter euery where would faine force vpon me but that they are and were superiour in the power of iurisdiction or gouernment I deny not the Presbyters which haue charge of soules to haue iurisdiction both seuerally in their parishes and iointly in prouinciall synods And I haue confessed before that Presbyters haue with and vnder the Bishops exercised some iurisdiction I grant that godly BB. before they had the countenance and assistance of Christian Magistrates and direction of Christian lawes vsed in all matters of moment to consult with their clergy imitating therein as Ierome speaketh the example of Moses Quâ— cùm haberet in potestate solus praesse populo who when it was in his power to gouerne the people alone hee chose seuenty with whom to iudge the people This was practised by Cyprian who resolued from the beginning of his Bishopricke to doe nothing of importance alone because he would preuent dissension and scandals Ambrose also teacheth that there was a time when nothing was done without the aduice of the Presbyters who therefore by Ignatius are called the counsellours and coassessours of the B. Which course if it were vsed still as it would ease the Bishops burden very much so would it nothing detract from their superiority in gouerning the sway of their authority being no lesse when they vsed the aduice of their Presbyters then when they vsed it not For the assistance of the Presbyters was to helpe and aduice but neuer to ouerrule the Bishop Neither will any man say that the authority of a Prince who vseth the aduice of his counsell is the lesse for it but the moâ—e aduised But what the authority of BB. was in the primitiue Church in respect of gouernment I will first shew absolutely and then by way of comparison with Presbyters What the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Councell of Carthage calleth the authority of BB. was may first appeare by this that they were accounted the gouernours and rulers of the Churches meaning thereby dioceses For though there were many ministers who were Angels Pastors Bishops yâ—t there was but one in euery Church who was the Angel the Pastor the Bishop the gouernour of the Church bearing as Ignatius saith the sway of authority aboue and ouer them all But I delight to heare Ierome the onely pretended patron of the Disiplinarians who confesseth as wee haue heard that of necessity a peerelesse power and eminent aboue all is to bee attributed to Bishoppes and that the safety of the Church dependeth thereon Hee therefore in his Commentary vpon Esay chap. 60. verse 17. reading according to the Septuag I will giue thy Princes in peace and thy Bishops in righteousnesse saith Herein the Maiestie of the holy Scriptures is to bee admired which calleth principes futuros ecclesiae episcopos the Princes or Rulers which should bee of the Church Bishoppes whose visitation is all in peace and the name of their dignitie meaning their superintendencie in righteousnesse And on those words of the 45. Psalme In stead of fathers children shall be borne vnto thee O Church saith he the Apostles were thy fathers for they begate thee Now forasmuch as they are gone out of the world thou hast BB. who were borne of thee For these also are thy fathers because thou art gouerned of them And on the words following whom thou shalt make Princes in all the earth for saith he in the name of God the gospell is spread in all ends of the world in which Principes ecclesiae i. episcopi the princes of the Church that is to say the Bishops are placed On which words Augustine also doth comment to the like purpose In stead of the Apostles sonnes are borne to thee BB. are ordained thinke not thy selfe forsaken because thou seest not Peter and Paul who beg at thee of thine owne issue is sprung a fatherhood Agnoscant qui prâ—cisi sunt veniant ad vnitatem c. Let them which are precise or cut off by schisme acknowledge it and come vnto vnity The Church hath borne sonnes and in steed of her fathers hath made them princes ouer all the earth Optatus likewise calleth the BB apices principes omnium The Councell of Carthage decreed that when the Donatists returned to the Church they should be receiued each one in their degrees according to the will and pleasure of the B. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who gouerneth the Church in the same place if he shall thinke it expedient for the peace of the Church Cyprian though he had approued Cornelius his courage in that Felicissimus a wicked schismaticke attended with a troope of desperate fellowes was by him vigore pleno quo episcopum agere oportet pulsus de ecclesia with full vigour of auâ—hority and courage wherewith it behoueth a B to deale driuen out of the Church yet perceiuing him to be somwhat daunted with the threatnings of those lewd companions if this be so saith he that the
and were Pastors thereof And secondly because if I prooue they gouerned the Presbyters who were the gouernours of the seuerall flockes then much more their iurisdiction did extend to the flockes themselues Where he saith J must prooue that the censuring the people is their onely right I answer it is sufficient to prooue their superioritie in iurisdiction which I intended and that none in the Diocese doth exercise externall iurisdiction but from the B. and vnder him A notable euidence whereof wee haue in Siluanus the famous Bishop of Troas who perceiuing those of his Clergie to make gaine of mens suits appointed others whom he thought good to bee the Judges of mens causes whereby he got himselfe great renowne And as for the power of binding and loosing in the court of conscience it is common to Bishops with all Presbyters howsoeuer in respect of the vse and exercise thereof they are subiect to the Bishop Where hee saith that Bishops haue their iurisdiction jure humano because they haue it not potestate ordinis by the power of their order he seemeth to harpe vpon something which hee doth not well vnderstand For although the Schoolemen and Papists teach that to the power of order belongeth a character and grace which God alone doth giue in their ordination yet they grant also that the jurisdiction which is conferred to them by the will of man doth also mediately proceede from God And howsoeuer it be true that Bishops with vs are assisted iure humano to exercise their publike and externall iurisdiction and to iudge in causes ecclesiasticall by the Kings ecclesiasticall Law yet this doth not hinder but that they are authorized thereunto iure Apostolico as is manifest by the Apostles themselues by Timothie and Titus and all the ancient Bishops of the Primitiue Church who by authoritie deriued to them from the Apostles did exercise the ecclesiasticall censures ouer the people and clergy before there were any lawes of Christian Magistrates to authorise or assist them thereunto But he is pleased to see how I proue the BB. to haue been superior to the Presbyters in iurisdiction though not pleased that I speake in generall of BB. for here his Coccysme againe hath place that I should haue proued the Angels of the seauen Churches to haue had iurisdiction ouer ministers vnder them Which is a miserable poore shift indeed Was not this the thing propounded to be proued that the BB. of the primitiue Church were superior in iurisdiction doth not himselfe confesse that the ancient Churches were all of one Constitution And is not the proofe of the generall a proofe of the particular also If I should say these seauen Angels had this iurisdiction some such exception of singularity in them would with as great reason be taken as against Timothy and Titus But when I proue that BB. in generall had this superiority I doe more then proue that these seauen Bishops had it The reason which I vse is an induction The Bishop had superiority in iurisdiction both to the Presbyters that were parts of the Presbytery assisting him and to the Pastors assigned to seuerall cures Therefore he had superior iurisdiction to all the Presbyters in the diocesse But the Refuter maketh me reason thus If the Bishoppes had maiority of rule both ouer the Presbyters that assisted them and also ouer the Pastors allotted to their seuerall charges then had they power of iurisdiction But they had maiority of rule ouer the Presbyters assisting them and the Pastors c. Therefore they had power of iurisdiction Why Needes this to be proued that Bishops had power of iurisdiction which euery parish Minister hath Or doth the Refuter deny that Bishops had power of iurisdiction Or if he cannot but grant the conclusion what a folly is it to wrangle with the premises And yet for feare of granting the conclusion first hee pickes a quarrell with the proposition For though they had maiority of rule c. yet wâ—ll it not follow they had sole power of iurisdiction Whence commeth this sole I pray you that hath so oft been foisted in I feare greatly from an euill conscience resolued to oppugne and deface the truth Cannot the B. be superior to Presbyters in the power of iurisdiction vnlesse they haue as none haue the sole power of iurisdiction Then hee flatly denieth the assumption But what reason doth he giue of his deniall what euidence of truth doth he bring to proue the contrary Alas he troubleth not himselfe that way all his care and endeuour is to find out starting holes and euasions to elude the truth I proue first in generall that BB. had maiority of rule or superiority of iurisdiction ouer the Presbyters euen those of the City who were the chiefe Then in particular in the next section The former I proue first by the testimony of Ierome who confesseth that of necessity a power eminent aboue all and admitting no partner at least no compeere is to be granted to the B. To this besides the poore euasion of Ieromes minority and being vnder age before answered he saith Ierome speaketh of such BB. as hee acknowledgeth to 〈◊〉 no warrant in the scriptures and to haue beene brought into the Câ—â—rch by occasâ—â—â— of schisme after the Apostles times Both which I haue before proued and shall againe proue to be manifestly false Doth Ierome deny BB. to haue warrant in the scriptures besides the places of the new testament often alledged call to mind those two on Psalme 45. and Esay 60. Where he calleth them principes ecclesia by warrant of those scriptures Doth Ierome say they were not brought into the Church vntill after the Apostles times doth not he confesse Iames Markâ— Timothy Titus and diuers others to haue been BB. in the Apostles times and that euer since S. Marke there haue beene BB. at Alexandria Secondly I alledge Ignatius whom themselues oft alledge for their Presbyteries But see what hard hap some men haue he whose authority is so good when he is alleaged by them is but a counterfeit when he is produced by me And yet those who suspect fiue of his epistles because Eusebius and Ierome mention but seauen acknowledge this ad Trallianos to be none of the fiue which are suspected but one of the seauen which are receiued This â—uasion should not haue bin vsed if he could tell how to answer his testimony otherwise Yes that he can For though Ignatius doe say that a B. is such an one as holdeth or manageth the whole power and authority aboue all yet that proueth not the sole iurisdiction of BB. God amend that soule that so oft foisteth in that sole besides my meaning and my words And yet truely Ignatius saith faire for the sole power For if the B. haue the whole power and authority aboue all why may he not be said to haue the sole power and authority ouer all what saith the refuter he alone
odious and absurd assertions to me But why is not the maiority of rule in the Bishoppe hence proued and the subiection of Presbyters to him as to their ruler to bee guided and directed by him seeing they are charged to doe nothing without his direction and warrant what can bee more plaine forsooth the like Phrase is vsed Can. 35. and Conc. Antioch c. 9. where BB. are enioyned to doe nothing without the sentence of the Archbishoppe nor he in their Parishes without the sentence or appointment of them all If therefore the Maiority of rule in BB. may be proued from this Canon then in like manner from the other two Canons the maiority of rule not onely in Archbishops in those dayes ouer BB. but also of Bishops in their Parishes ouer the Archbishop But the consequent is false in both the parts of it the former for there were no Archbishops in those dayes the latter because BB. had not authority ouer Archbishoppes therefore the Antecedent also is vntrue Here the refuter vnder some shew of learning hath bewraied much ignorance For first as touching the proposition his reason is vnlike and his allegation out of the 34. Canon is vntrue The Bishoppe of euery natioÌ„ mâ—st agnize him that is the first or Primate among them and esteeme him as the chiefe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not said as in the Canon by me cited 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 simply as the refuter citeth it but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Is there no difference betweene these two speeches to doe nothing simply and to do nothing more or exceeding their own bounds For that this is the meaning of the Canon the words following doe plainely declare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that they doe onely those things which appertaine to their own See and the countries vnder it But more plainely in the Councel of Antioch that the rest of the Bishops doe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing more then those things onely which concerne euery mans owne Church and Countries which bee vnder it And that you should not vnderstand them as the Refuter doth without vnderstanding they adde for euery Bishoppe hath authority of his owne City both to gouern according to the feare of God which hee hath and to haue care of all the Country as also to ordaine Presbyters and Deacons and to administer euerything with iudgement And yet I doe not deny but that the Metropolitanes are superior to their Comprouinciall Bishoppes in the power of Iurisdiction although all Bishops whatsoeuer are equall in the power of order Neither should the Bishops by the like reason be superiour to the Archbishops in their parishes as he ignorantly addeth For the Canon doth not speake of the seuerall Bishops in their Dioceses which hee absurdly calleth Parishes but of the whole Company of them assembled in a Prouinciall Synode saying that he must doe nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the consent of them all Howsoeuer therefore either the Metropolitane or any other of the Bishoppes in their owne seuerall Dioceses might doe those things which concerned their owne proper charge yet prouinciall businesses which exceeded the bounds of any one mans charge were to be dispatched in Prouinciall Councels wherein the Metropolitane was to be acknowledged as the chiefe and President thereof who called them together and moderated the assembly but so as the Bishops might doe nothing without him seuerally so he might doe nothing without them all iointly and as hee was superiour to them seuerally so was hee inferiour to them all iointly that is to the Synode The Assumption likewise in the former part of it is false and the reason of it also For there were Metropolitanes in the first two hundred yeares and they were superiour in the power of iurisdiction to their Bishops But before he will let this testimony passe hee hath one point of ignorance more to shew and that is because Archbishoppes are mentioned c. 35 alias 34. therefore these Canons were none of the Apostles nor any others aboue an hundred he will not say whatsoeuer hee thinkes two hundred yeares after them For Archbishops were not hatched so reuerentlie he speaketh a long time after all men being iudge The antiquitie of these Canons I haue touched before shewing that within little more then two hundred yeares after the Apostles time they were then accounted auncient Canons But to the point If hee speake of the name Archbishoppe it is not mentioned in the Canons called the Apostles if of the office of a Metropolitane which is meant in the aforesaid Canon I haue proued before that it hath beene euer since the Apostles times Those learned men which hold Archbishops to be of a latter edition by that name vnderstand Patriarches and those of 2. sorts being either so called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Patriarches of Rome Constantinople Alexandria Antioch and Ierusalem or such as are more vsually called Archbishops or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gouernors of large prouinces beeing in a degree betweene Metropolitanes and Patriarches which seeme to haue beene ordained in the first Councell of Constantinople as Socrates witnesseth Hence it is that Isidor saith Ordo Episcoporum quadripartitus est i. in Patriarchis Archiepiscopis Metropolitis atque Episcopis and the same distinction is noted in the Councill of Chalcedon and in the Code and constitutions of Iustinian and in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made by Leo the Emperour c. To the same purpose I alledged the ancient Councell of Arles that Presbyters may doe nothing without the knowledge and consent of their BB. and of Ancyra the most ancient approued Councill that is extant Non licere Presbyteris ciuitatis sine Episcopi praecepto amplius aliquid imperare nec sine authoritate literarum eius in vnaquaque parochia aliquid agere That it is not lawfull for the Presbyters of the citie to doe any thing of importance without the Bishops appointment noâ— to do any thing in any parish without the authoritie of his letters To these J adde the first Councill of Toledo Sine conscientia Episcopi nihil pâ—nitâ—â— Presbyteri agere praesummunt Let the Presbyters presumâ— to doe nothing at all without the knowledge and consent of the Bishop And forasmuch as for a poore euasion he alledgeth that these Councils by me cited though the ancientest that are extant are vnder age which ill becommeth him to object who hath no witnesses to the contrarie before this present age I will therfore produce one or two more who liued in the Apostles times and conuersed with them Ignatius therefore in an Epistle which the Refuter hath before cited saith that neither Presbyter nor Deacon ought to doe any thing without the B. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither let any thing seeme reasonable vnto you which is done without his warrant To him I will adioyne a testimony of Clement wishing the Reader to credit it
no further then he seeth cause He therefore reporteth it as a doctrine of Peter that no Presbyter ought to doe any thing in any Bishoppes parish or diocesse without his permission and that all Presbyters ought without delay to be obedient to their BB. in all things § 14. But as I prooued that Presbyters might doe nothing without the Bishoppes appointment or consent so I noted especially those things which belong to their power of order as the actions of their ministery to baptize to celebrate the Communion to preach to say the publike Liturgy or diuine seruice As touching Baptisme I alleaged Tertullian testifying that the Bishoppe hath the right to giue Baptisme then the Presbyters and the Deaconâ— but yet not without the authority of the Bishoppe for the honour of the Church that is the honour due vnto him in the Church which being safe peace is safe Where note in Tertullians time within the first two hundred yeeres the Bishoppe was so greatly honoured that the peace of the Church was supposed to depend on the honour of the Bishoppe as Ierome also speaketh that the ordinary right of baptizing was primarily in the Bishop secondarily in the Presbyters Deacons but not to be exercised by them without his authority whereas extraordinarily and in case of necessitie lay men in his iudgement might baptize To this the Refuter giueth fiue answeres but neuer a good one As first that Tertullian speaketh not of their iuresdiction in the Apostles times or afâ—er by authority from them Hee speaketh nor de facto but de iure noting what right Bishops had and hee sheweth the ordinary right of baptizing which the Presbyters had was not without the Bishops authority 2. That the preeminence he giueth them was for the honor of the Church and preseruation of peace What then was this peculiar to his time Were they not as carefull of the honour of the Church and preseruation of peace in the Apostles times as after 3. Neither doth he speake of the authority of the Bishop in generall but of an honour giuen him in one particular And for one particular belonging to the power of order did I alleage it that hauing prooued this point in generall I might also shew it in the particulars which cannot otherwise be done but sigillation one by one Yea but this honour no one particular might well bee in a titular Bishoppe that had no such iurisdiction Titular Bishops in the primitue Church were such as had the name and title but not the authority of a Bishop granted to them Such a one was Meletius who by the censure of the Councell of Nice was not to haue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the authority but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the bars name of a Bishop And such were Nouatian Bishops returning to the Church permitted to be if the Catholike Bishop would gratifie them with the name and title of a Bishop I reade of Eustathius the Metropolitan B. of Pamphylia who being desirous to leade a more quiet and solitary life gaue vp his Bishopricke whereupon Theodorus was chosen in his roome For it was not meet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Church should continue a widow and that the flockes â—f our Sauiour should remaine without a gouernour But he afterwards repenting him of the abdication of his Bishopricke putteth vp a petition to the Councell of Ephesus that hee might at the least retaine the name and honour of a Bishop At his request the Councell writeth to the Synod of Pamphylia that he might haue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the name the honour and communion of a Bishop but yet so as that neither he doe ordaine nor taking vpon him the charge of the Church should performe sacred actions by his owne authority Thus we see who were titular Bishops in the primitiue Church such as were gratified with the name but wanted the office and authority of a Bishoppe As for those who had the office of a Bishoppe of whom Tertullian speaketh they had also vigorem episcopatus the vigor of the episcopall office whereof Cyprian so oft speaketh and the sway of authority ecclesiasticall was in their hands insomuch that Presbyters and Deacons who by the power of their order had right to baptitize might not euen in Tertullians time exercise that power but by authority from the Bishop In the fourth place the Refuter obiecteth that these Presbyters were not ordinary Ministers of the word and Sacraments but such as he and his fellowes dreame of because Tertullian in the very next words affirmeth alioquin etiamlaicis iut est otherwise lay men also might baptize That the Presbyters were Ministers I haue manifestly proued before and I haue noted already that Tertullian signifieth the ordinary right of baptizing to be in the Bishop Presbyters Deacons that yet extraordinarily and in the case of necessity lay men might baptize And so Ierome seemeth to exhound Tertullians meaning Hence it is that without Chrisme which the Presbyters of the seuerall parishes were to fetch from their B. and without the commandement of the Bishop neither Presbyter nor Deacon haue right to baptize Which notwithstanding wee know to be oft times lawfull for lay men to doe si tamen necessitas cogit but yet so if necessity doe compell But nothing is more euident then that the Presbyters were Ministers by that which hath heretofore been deliuered Whereunto this helpeth somewhat that Tertullian opposeth Presbyters and Deacons to laymen This obiection the Refuter thought to preuent by saying that the gouerning Elders and Deacons were accounted among the Clergy Which also is an vnlearned assertion For to omit the arguments which before were brought to prooue that the Presbyters and Deacons were degrees of the sacred Ministery it is plaine that the clergy of each diocesse was a company of such as were trained vp in learning it being the seminary of the whole diocesse And as they profited in yeeres learning and pietie so they were preferred to bee Readers then Exorcists then Acolythi then Sub-deacons after that Deacons then Presbyters out of whom ordinarily was chosen the Bishoppe And moreouer the Presbyters and Deacons with the rest of the Clergy had all their maintenance according to their place and degree in the Church And therefore our disciplinarians if they will haue such Presbyters and Deacons as were in the primitiue Church they must fetch them from the Vniuersitie and schooles of learning as we doe and maintaine them by the charges of the Church as well though not with so large allowance as the Bishop His last euasion for none of his answers is better is that the lower Tertullian speaketh of might well be and was on a parish Bishop the Presbyters being subiect to him as his assistants for that one Church But parish Bishoppes such as they speake of and lay elders be of one edition neuer heard of before our age For the more manifest proofe whereof I referre
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
B. Geminianus And this was the vsuall stile which Presbyters did vse when they did subscribe to Councels instead of their B. whose place they supplied As to the Councell of Arles Desiderius Presbyter directus à Domino meo Ioanne Episcopo directed from my Lord Iohn the B. haue giuen my consent and subscribed and so three others there mentioned in like maner to diuers other Councels Whosoeuer will peruse the Acts of the great Councell of Chalcedon hee shall seldome read any B. mentioned without some title of great reuerence and honour as reuerendissimus sanctissimus And long before that Socrates acknowledgeth that it was the vsuall manner in his time not to speake of BB. without titles of great honour calling them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 most religious most holy or such like And Chrysostome saith plainly that Heretikes haue learned of the Diuell not to giue due titles of honour to Bishops But where hee findeth fault with them for that in stead of those titles which argue their authoritie they said your reuerence your wisedome and such like what would hee haue said to the tearmes that haue beene vsually giuen to our Bishops by the Disciplinarians among vs I say among vs for Caluin Beza and others when they haue had occasion to write to our Bishops haue not refused to giue them their titles of honour To omit the rest Caluin writing to Archbishop Cranmer vseth these titles Illustrissime Domine Ornatissime clarissime Praesul c. Zanchius to Bishop Grindall Reuerendissime Antistes Beza and Sadeel to Archbishop Whitgift Reuerendissimo viro in Christo Patri Domino Archiepiscopo Cantuariensi serenissimae Reginae Consiliario totius Angliae Primati c. His second answer containeth two things the former that the title of Angels which the holy Ghost giueth to BB. for that onely J mentioned is quite besides the purpose my argument being this The holy Ghost giueth BB. a more honourable title in calling them the Angels of the Churches then if he had called them Lords Therefore wee should not thinke much that they are called Lords He answereth The Angels are glorious creatures of heauen and haue some fit resemblance of the Ministers office Lord Lordship and grace are tearmes of ciuill honour not so well befitting the Ministers of Christ Iesus I confesse they doe not so well befit them because they come short of that honour and excellencie which in the name of Angels the holy Ghost ascribeth to them For they are called not only Angels that is messengers and ambassadours of God as all ministers are in respect of their ministerie but also each of them is called the Angell of the Church whereof he is B. in respect of his gouernment and gardianship of the Church as the holy Angels of God are said to be their Angels ouer whom they are appointed Gouernours and gardians Therefore the name Lord giuen to them in respect of their gouernment and authoritie is a title of lesse honour then that which in the same respect is giuen them by our Sauiour Christ. Neither are they therefore ciuill Lords because they haue that title of Lords common to them with the Lords temporall For who knoweth not the distinction betweene the Lords spirituall and temporall so often mentioned in the Acts of Parliament And whereas in the second place hee would insinuate that our Sauiour Christ expresly forbiddeth these titles of Lordship and grace Luc. 22. where though hee readeth thus The Kings of the Gentiles reigne ouer them and they that beare rule ouer them are called gracious Lords but you shall not bee so yet he is not so ignorant of the Greeke tongue as not to know that neither gratious nor Lords are there mentioned in the originall text That was an affectionate translation of those who were too partiall in this cause That very title which our Sauiour speaketh of two of the Ptolemies Kings of Aegypt did assume vnto themselues either of them being called Ptolomeus Euergetes Ptolemy the bountifull or benefactor But indeed in the language wherein our Sauiour spake the word which is translated Benefactors is often vsed for Principes or Heroes as Psa. 118.9 It is better to trust in the Lord then to put our trust in Princes And that seemeth to haue beene Lukes meaning as not only Merceruâ— but Beza also supposeth The 70. translate the word Prou. 19.6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the King in Psal. 118 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Princes So Psal. 47.10.83.12.113.7 But 1. Sam. 2.8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pro. 8.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is also plaine that the disciples imagining that Christ should be a worldlie Monarch expected that themselues should be earthly Princes in great authoritie about him euery one affecting a neerer place about him then his fellowes as appeareth by the two sonnes of Zebede whose ambitious suite to Christ that they might sit one on his right hand and the other on his left in his kingdome gaue occasion of this speech as Matthew noteth Whereas therefore they both erred in their imagination thinking that they should be great Princes vnder an earthly Monarch and were corrupt in their affection each one of them ambitiously seeking superioritie ouer the rest our Sauiour seeketh to reforme both telling them that neither they should bee earthly Princes as they imagined in these words But you not so neither ought they to affect ambitiously superioritie ouer others but that by how much they should exceed others in dignitie they should labor by so much the more to excell them in humility imitating his example Neither did our Sauiour Christ interdict his Apostles either superioritie of authority ouer others or titles of eminent honour The authoritie and dignitie of being his Apostles is greater then any either honour or title that is giuen to our BB. Ierome writing on Pauls stile which he assumeth to himselfe Tit. 1.1 saith Where hee calleth himselfe the Apostle of Iesu Christ it seemeth some such thing as of hee had said Prâ—fectus prâ—terio Augusti Caesaris Magister exercitus Tiberij Imperatoris For euen as the Iudges of this world that they may seeme the more noble take names from the Kings whom they serue and from the dignitie wherewith they are puffed vp euen so the Apostle challenging to himselfe great authoritie among Christians he signified before hand that he was the Apostle of Christ that by the authoritie of the name bee might bring in awe those that should reade shewing thereby that all which beleeue in Christ must be subiect to him Hauing thus answered the first obiection I did easily foresee that three other things would bee obiected the first if Bishops may be called Lords then they may behaue themselues as Lords of the Churches I answered that although they may not behaue themselues as Lords of the Churches yet being the Angels of the Churches and spirituall Fathers to
by reason of his great learning and renowned piety yet were it a sawcie part for him that is but a Presbiter to thinke himselfe equall with a Bishop Ierome was farre from it and therefore in his Epistles to Augustine giueth him titles of great honour vsing this inscription Domino verè sancto beatissimo Papae Augustino c. And this farewell the Lord preserue you Domine verè sancte suscipiende Papa and the like I haue said before of Caluin From Augustine he maketh a large step to Erasmus who saith Of olde there was no difference betweene a Presbyter a Priest but that the Refuter left out for feare of excluding his lay-elder and a B. And then hee leapeth backe againe to Theodoret Beda Sedulius Oecumenius Primasius Theophilact c. who affirme the same And doe not I my selfe professe the same in this Sermon doe I not also proue it in the Sermon of the dignity of the ministerie that in the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles these two words Presbyter Episcopus were confounded and the same men were called Presbyteri Episcopi what will hee conclude thereof that therefore in the three hundred yeares after the Apostles the Church was not gouerned by BB or that the office of a B. and a Presbyter were at any time confounded nay can hee proue so much as the names after the Apostles time were vsually confounded Ignatius who liued in the Apostles times euery where distinguisheth them and so doe the after Writers as Irenaeus Tertullian Cyprian Eusebius c. sauing that to BB. they giue sometimes the more generall name of Presbyters or Priests which is not to be meruailed at seeing the Apostles Peter and Iohn doe call themselues Presbyters Yea but some Protestant Writers whom afterwards hee will cite haue vnderstoode Ierome and the rest as the Refuter doth and not they onely but Michael Medina a Popish Writer is of opinion that they held the same error with Aerius This is a strange kind of arguing which our Refuter vseth to bring new Writers to depose what the old haue testified Are not their testimonies extant in print may we not read them with our owne eyes and weigh them in our owne iudgements that wee leauing the records themselues should seek to the dâ—positions of new writers to know what the olde haue testified but of the errour of them who suppose Ierome and some other of the Fathers to haue beene of the same iudgement with Aerius I haue spoken before neither doubt I now to affirme that they ioyned in opinion with Aerius no more then I do for they writing on Phil. 1. 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1. 1 Pet. 5. doe say that in these places the names Presbyter Episcopus were confounded which places my selfe haue alledged to the same purpose After he had alledged what hee was able out of the olde Writers and yet neuer a word to the purpose he proceedeth to the new Writers who as he saith were called out of the thickest mists of Poperie to the light of the Gospell heaping vp a sort of testimonies without order and without iudgement and mingling also some testimonies out of the canon law and some Popish Writers among them And because to follow him were to runne the wild-goose race I will reduce their testimonies to certaine heads and then giue him an answere to them all Some therefore are brought to testifie that in the Apostles times BB. and Presbyters were all one the which is true for the same men were called Presbyters and BB as Heming and Zauch in Phil. 1.1 Isidor and Dist. 21. c. Cleros ex Isidor Duaren de ministr benef l. 1. c. 7. Gloss. ord Hugo Card. Cassander the councils of Constance and Basill Chemnitius Lubbertus D. Fulke D. Willet D. Morton Some that there was no difference betweene B. and Presbyter till after the Apostles times but afterwards BB. were set ouer Presbyters as Danaeus Some that at the first there were no such BB. as were afterwards and when they were brought in they were not Monarches of the Church c. as Chamier Some that iure diuino Episcopi Presbyteri be all one as Iunius and Phil. Morney and D. Whitak which is true concerning the vse of the words in the Scriptures Some that Episcopatus is not a distinct order from Presbyteratus iure diuino as D Holland whose not writings but speeches he citeth vpon report Some that B. and Presbyter by the word of God is the same not in name onely but also in office as Sadâ—â—l Some that in the Apostles times the Churches were gouerned communi presbyterorum consilio but after the Apostles they chose one to be B. as Musculus Some that Christ made ministers equall that there was at the first no contention which how true it is appeareth by Christs appointing twelue Apostles and seauentie Disciples and by the contention among the Apostles themselues for superioritie whiles Christ was with them as Bullinger Some that as the Apostles were equall so their successors which is true for the BB. are equall among themselues though superiour to other ministers as the Apostles were to the seauentie Disciples as D. Whitakers Some that Aerius was not an hereticke for saying that according to the vse of the scriptures Episcopus Presbiter is all one which is true neither had he beene an hereticke if he had said no more and that Ambrose Chrysostome Ierome and Augustine were of the same iudgement as B. Iewell Some that in the Apostles times there were onely two degrees of ministers Presbiters and Deacons as D. Humfrey Some that Bishops were not in the Apostles times as Sadeel Some that BB. he superiour to Prebiters by mans decree and not by scripture by custome of man not by the authoritie of God by mans law and not by Apostolicall institution as Heming in Phil. 1.1 Bulling Iunius B. Pilkington the Canon law falsified de iure positiuo as Cusanus not by Gods law as D. Raynolds no otherwise but by custome as Sadeel Some that Episcopus and Pastor of one flocke was at the first all one as D. Raynolds Some that there was alwaies one principall which by common vse was called a B. being chiefe though not alone both in gouernment and ordination as D. Fulke Some that BB. be in a higher degree of superioritie but not Princes that not they onely are Pastors that they haue the right of consecration though not onely as D. Willet Some that the sole and supreame authority in a B. is tyranny as Bullinger Some that the gouernment of the Church by the first institution was not Monarchicall but Aristocraticall as Chamier Some that elections were not in corners nor by one as Gualther Some that Presbiters may ordaine as being all one with BB. in office as Sadeel Some that Priests had voices and seates in Councils as indeed they haue with vs as the councill of Constance and Basill Some that
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
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
vnderstood vvho expound the vvord Apostle by Teacher As Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and those vvhom the Refuter nameth For they did not by Apostle vnderstand euery common Teacher or teaching Presbyter but specialem doctorem saith Anselme instructorem praecipuum their chiefe instructor sayeth Dionysius Carthusianus These authors and more as they doe all giue testimony with my exposition so against that interpretation of the word Apostle which the refuter bringeth who would haue him called Apostle not in respect of any sacred function which he performed towards them but because he was their Messenger to the Apostle And of this iudgement he saith are Primasius Haymo Caietan and two others which be as much partyes in this cause as himselfe Beza and Piscator And Caluin acknowledgeth it to agree with the place Primasius saith that Epaphroditus had receiued gradum Apostolatus the degree of Apostleshippe among them Caluin doth indeed mention that interpretation but so as he preferreth the other sed prior sensus meliùs meo iudicio conuenit But the former sence in my iudgement agreeth better He could not thinke that both sences being so different agreed to the text Yea but he hath two reasons to proue his to be the more likely sence First as the words following in the same Verse and Chapt. 4.18 doe shew how he ministred to him so the same phrase is vsed to the like purpose 2 Cor. 8.23 where the brethren sent with Titus to receiue the Corinthians beneuolence are called Apostles that is messengers of the Churches I acknowledge that Epaphroditus brought a gratuity from the Philippians to Paul to supply his necessity being a prisoner in Rome And the brethren likewise who accompanyed Titus were to receiue the beneuolence of the Corinthians but it is vnlikely that either he or they were called the Apostles of the Churches in that regard It appeareth by diuers of Ignatius his Epistles that when the churches did send one vpon a Christian Embassage the B. commonly was entreated to take that Embassage vpon him In like manner the Philippians being to send as it were vpon Embassage to Paul Epaphroditus their B. vndertooke that voyage He being therfore both their B. and their Embassadour it is more likely that he was called their Apostle because he was their Bishop then for that hee was their Embassadour For it is vnlikely that the name of that sacred function of the Apostles of Christ who also himselfe is the Apostle of our profession should be vsed in the Scriptures to signifie the messengers of men Besides in both places the Apostle intendeth by this title highly to commend Epaphroditus and the others but this had beene but a small commendation that they were messengers of the Churches Againe if they in 2 Cor. 8. were called the Apostles of the Churches because they were their messengers then those Churches should haue sent them but it is euident that Paul himselfe sent them for as it was required of him Gal. 2 so had hee vndertaken to procure a supply for the reliefe of the brethren in Iudaea who were oppressed vvith famine And to that end hauing before dealt with the Corinthians sendeth Titus and two others to receiue their contribution His second reason is that it standeth not so well with the properties of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth a messenger to entitle any man in regard of his ministeriall function their Apostle to whom as his from whom hee is sent And therefore among all the titles Paul taketh to himselfe to magnifie his office he neuer calleth himselfe their or your Apostle but an Apostle of Christ and an Apostle to them Wee may therefore say of M. D. as Iunius doth of Theodoret the clearest witnesse he alledgeth he is deceiued by the aequiuocation of the word Apostolos which sometimes in a common and generall sence is giuen to any one that is sent as a messenger and sometimes more specially ascribed to those that were imployed as the Apostles in an extraordinarie and high Embassage from Christ. Here the Refuter whiles he goeth about to discouer my ignorance as though I knew not the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as he bewrayeth his owne For it is euident that in the Scriptures the vvord is vsed with reuerence as vvell to the parties to vvhom as to the party from vvhom the Apostle is sent Thus Paul calleth himselfe the Apostle of the Gentiles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and saith that Peter had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apostleship of Circumcision meaning that he was the Apostle of the Iewes because to himselfe was committed the Gospel of vncircumcision as to Peter of the circumcision So Angels haue relation not only to the sender who is God but to the parties to whom they are sent and are called their Angels And euen as Angels absolutely spoken is a title of all ministers who are sent of God but vsed with reference to the Churches whereto they are sent as the Angels of the seauen Churches doe signifie the Bishops or Pastors of the same churches so Apostoli absolutely vsed is a title of all Embassadours sent from God with authority Apostolicall though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 giuen to Paul and Barnabas and the twelue Apostles but vsed with reference to particular Churches doth signifie their Bishops And in that sence Epaphroditus is called the Apostle of the Philippians And howsoeuer the word may signifie any messenger with relation to any sender yet in the scriptures it is not vsed to signifie messengers sent from men neither is to be translated otherwise then Apostle For though our Sauiour doe seeme to speake indefinitly Iohn 13.16 of the Apostle and him that sendeth him yet it is euident that he meaneth himselfe who sent and the Apostles who were sent But admit saith the refuter that Epaphroditus were Bishop or Pastor of Philippi where abouts I will not striue how shall it be proued that Philippi was a Diocesan Church c. This is written as the most of the booke to bleare the eyes of the simple For I cannot thinke he which would vndertake this cause was so void of iudgement as the refuter here would shew himselfe to be if he wrote sincerely For I pray you what was the point which here I had in hand was it not to shew that the Bishops at the first in the Apostles times were called Apostles and doe I not proue it by this instance that Epaphroditus being the Bishop of the Philippians is therefore called their Apostle Admit it be so saith the refuter yet how shall it be proued that Philippi was a Diocesan Church and how weakely with that doth M. D. inferre that he was a Diocesan Bishop like to ours for the substance of his office All men see he deceiueth his reader with the like equiuocation in the word Bishop which in the Apostles times by his
dissolued the former standing thus If in the Epistles to Timothie and Titus it be presupposed that Paul had ordayned Timothie and Titus Bishops of Ephesus and Creet then is it true that they vvere by him ordayned BB. of those Churches But the antecedent is true Therefore the consequent That the antecedent is true I proue by this reason because it is presupposed in the Epistles that the Apostle had committed to them Episcopall authority both in respect of Ordination and Iurisdiction to be exercised in those Churches Against which consequence this onely thing can be obiected that the Episcopall authority might be committed to them not as ordinarie Bishops or Pastors of those Churches but as extraordinarie gouernours or Euangelists which afterwards is answered To this argument the Refuter answereth not The second he frameth thus If the Epistles written to Timothie and Titus be the very patternes and precedents of the Episcopall function whereby the Apostle enformeth them and in them all Bishops how to exercise their function then Timothie and Titus were Bishops But the antecedent is true Therefore the consequent First he taketh exception against the proposition saying though it make a goodly shew yet was it confuted long agoe by M. Cartwright Whose confutation either he thinketh to be insufficient or else he doth but kill a dead man in seeking with a new on-set to disproue the consequence First for the consequence it selfe I auouch thus much that from that antecedent I might not onely haue inferred that particular that therefore these two to whom the Epistles were written were Bishops but in generall that the function of Bishops whose authority and office is described and the manner of the execution thereof prescribed in the directions giuen to Timothie and Titus in these Epistles hath warrant in the word of God and when they can make as good an argument for their lay-elders out of the Scriptures I will subscribe to their Presbyterian discipline Of T. C. answere to that consequence I haue taken speciall notice heretofore and did greatly wonder that hee could satisfie himselfe with such a friuolous answer And I do no lesse wonder at the Refuters either lacke of iudgement who tooke that answere for good payment or want of consideration and care of T. C. credit in referring vs to so sleight and friuolous an euasion For whereas D. Whitgift argueth thus That Timothie was Bishop the whole course of the Epistles written vnto him declareth wherein is contayned the office and dutie of a Bishop and diuers precepts peculiarly pertayning to that function T. C. answereth that by this reason he might as well proue that Timothie was a deacon or a widdowe an olde man or an olde woman seeing in those Epistles the Apostle wrote of their duties Yea rather that hee was a Deacon considering that there is nothing in the description of a Deacon which agreeth not to him but in the description of a Bishop that which he requireth of not being giuen to wine and not being a young Christian could haue no place in Timothies instruction Not to argue with T. C. but to let him rest in peace can the Refuter be so ignorant or without iudgement as to thinke that D. Whitgift when hee spoke of the whole course and tenure of the Epistles did meane onely the description of a B. or Minister set downe in the beginning of the third chapter of the former Epistle if that had beene his argument hee had argued thus Paul directeth Timothie what manner of men to ordayne Bishops or Ministers and likewise Deacons Therefore Timothie himselfe was a B. or Minister or likewise a Deacon Is it not plaine that by the whole course hee vnderstandeth all those directions which are giuen to Timothie throughout the Epistles for the discharge of his office either in respect of the Ministerie common to all Ministers or of his Episcopall function chiefly in regard either of Ordination or Iurisdiction vnto which heads the precepts directions in those Epistles are to be referred for when he speaketh of the duties of men and women olde and young hee directeth Timothie and in like manner Titus what to preach When hee describeth the qualities of Ministers and Deacons and Widowes he directeth him what manner of Ministers and Deacons to ordayne and Widowes to admit And whereas D. Whitgift hauing said that in those Epistles diuers precepts pertaine peculiarly to the Episcopall function T.C. chalengeth him to shew him any one precept in those Epistles which is proper to a B It is not hard to shew him more then one as lay thy hands hastily on no man Against a Presbyter or Minister receiue not an accusation but vnder two or three witnesses c. These are perpetuall directions which were not common eyther to other Christians or other Ministers therefore peculiar to BB. And this was T. C. confutation of the Proposition Now let vs heare what the Refuter can say The Proposition saith hee is grounded vpon a false supposition and what is that that the Apostle by describing in these Epistles the rules to be obserued in ordination and iurisdiction intended to informe Timothie and Titus as BB. and in them all other BB. how to carry themselues in those matters Is this the Supposition whereon the Proposition is grounded Alas good man you know not what the Hypothesis or Supposition of an Hipotheticall Proposition is this which you suppose to be the Supposition of the Proposition is plainly the Assumption of the Syllogisme which your selfe framed But because the Refuter hath confounded himselfe with his owne hypotheticall or connexiue Proposition I will propound my Argument in another forme Whosoeuer describing vnto Timothie and Titus their office and authoritie as they were Gouernours of the Churches of Ephesus and Creet and prescribing their dutie in the execution thereof and that as afterwards I shew to be performed by them and their Successours till the comming of Christ doth plainely describe the office and authoritie and prescribe the dutie of BB hee doth presuppose them to be BB the one of Ephesus the other of Creet But Paul in his Epistles to Timothie and Titus describing vnto them their office and authoritie as they were Gouernours of the Churches of Ephesus and Creet and prescribing their dutie in the execution thereof to be performed by them and their successours vntill the comming of Christ doth plainly describe the office and authority and prescribe the duty of BB. Therefore Paul in his Epistles to Timothie and Titus presupposeth them to be Bishops the one of Ephesus the other of Creet This Proposition because I know not what can be obiected against it T. C. and the Refuter hauing assailed it in vaine I will once againe take for granted The assumption I proue by those particulars wherein the Episcopall authoritie doth chiefly consist both in respect of Ordination Tit. 1.5 1 Tim. 5.22 and also of Iurisdiction they being the censurers of other Ministers
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
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
Alexandrinus and Eusebius Finally that the Apostles committed the Church which is in euery place to Bishops whom they ordayned leauing them their successours testified by Irenaeus and Tertullian who saith that as Smyrna had Polycarpe from S. Iohn and Rome Clement by the appointment of Peter so the rest of the Churches can shew quos ab Apostolis in Episcopatum constitutos Apostoliâ—i seminis traduces habent what Bishops they haue ordayned by the Apostles the deriuers of the Apostolicall seed To all this he hath nothing to answere but that which heretofore hath beene fully refuted that these Bishops were but ordinary Pastors of particular congregations c. saâ—ing that he taketh also exception against their assertion who said that Bishops be the successors of the Apostles But not onely Irenaeus and Tertullian haue auouched so much but diuers others of the Fathers as Cyprian Ierome and Augustine Cyprian saith praepositi that is Bishops Apostolis vicaria ordinatione succedunt succeed the Apostles as being ordained in their steed And Ierome saith omnes Episcopi Apostolorum successores sunt all Bishops are the successors of the Apostles And againe he saith Episcopâ—s Apostolis succedere And Theodoret calleth the gouernment of Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And likewise Basill 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the presidency of Apostles who haue deliuered to Bishops as Irenaeus saith their owne place of gouernment in the seuerall Churches And this is that which both Ierome and Augustine expounding those words of the 45. Psalme pro patribus nati tibi sunt filij haue deliuered that insteed of the Apostles Bishops were ordayned gouernours of the Church in all parts of the world Which point is duely to be considered For hereby it is manifest that the Bishops haue receiued and deriued their authority from the Apostles whose successors they are not onely in respect of doctrine as all other true ministers but also in the gouernment of the seuerall Churches And when the Disciplinarians can shew the like warrant for their Presbyteryes especially of Lay-elders or our refuter and his good friends the Brownists for the cheife authority of the people we will harken to them Once it is euident that Christ committed the authority and gouernment of his Church to his Apostles who were to deriue the same to others Wherefore who haue any ordinary right they haue receiued the same from the Apostles So Timothie and Titus receiued their authority from Paul Linus from Peter and Paul Policarpus from Iohn c. And all other the first Bishops from the Apostles from whom by a perpetuall succession it hath beene deriued to the Bishops which are at this day But where is any euidence of the like deriuation from the Apostles of authority to the people of Lay-elders I know not Thus haue I made good my former proofes that the Episcopall function is of Apostolicall institution The V. CHAPTER Answering the allegations out of Ierome Serm. Sect. 11. pag. 87. Against all this that hath beene said to proue that the Episcopall function is of Apostolicall institution the authoritie of Ierome is obiected c. to page 89. AGainst the testimonies of men saith the refuter what is fitter to be obiected then the authority of such a man as of set purpose disputing the question determineth the contrary to that which was so commonly anouched Which speech if it be duely examined iust exception may be taken against euery branch thereof For first hee would insinuate that nothing hath beene brought to iustifie the calling of Bishops besides the testimonies of men when besides the testimonies of men I haue brought good euidence of sound reason and besides that better proofe out of the scriptures to warrant the Episcopall function then euer was or will be brought for the Presbyterian discipline Againe it were fitter and to better purpose against the testimonies of men if I had produced no other proofe to haue brought either testimonies of scripture or sound reasons or for want of them the testimonie of so many and so approued authors to counterpoise the weight of their authorities who haue beene alledged on the contrary part But scriptures failing reasons wanting testimonies of other Fathers being to seeke Ierome alone must be faine to beare the whole burden of this cause For though some latter writers may be alledged to the like purpose yet all is but Ierome Whose not onely iudgement they follow but reteyne his words Neither doth Ierome so oft dispute this question or determine the contrary as the refuter in his shallow conceipt imagineth Or if any wheres he doth determine the contrary against that which was commonly auouched both by himselfe and others his determination deliuered in heat of disputation ought not to be of so great weight as what he hath deliuered not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in heat of contention but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dogmatically or historically For Ierome was but a Presbyter and there were two things in his time which might prouoke him by way of contention to say more in the behalfe of his degree then doth exactly agree with the truth The one was that the Bishops of those times did too much depresse the Presbyters For they might not onely in their presence not preach nor baptize nor administer the Communion but also in some places they might not preach at all nor any where baptize vnlesse they fetched their Chrisme from the Bishop against which practises of the Bishops Ierome in some places of his works doth inueigh But that which troubled him most was that the Deacons in his time especially at Rome because they had more wealth as the fashion of the world is thought themselues better men then the Presbyters For the confutation of whom he seeketh to aduance the Presbyters aboue the Deacons as much as he can and may seeme to match them more then truth would permit with the Bishops For which the onely ground which he hath is this because the name Bishop and Presbyter were for a while in the Apostles times confounded Which God knoweth is a weak ground and easily out of his owne writings ouerturned But let vs examine the particulars First it is alledged out of Ierome that vntill factions did arise in the Church some saying I am of Paul I am of Apollo c. the Churches were gouerned by the common counsell of the Presbyters but when they began to draw Disciples after them namely such as themselues had baptised it was agreed in the whole world that one being chosen from among the Presbyters should be set ouer the rest to whom the whole care of the Church should belong and that the seede of schismes might be taken away Whereunto I answered first that this speech in respect of the Church of Ierusalem is vntrue which was first gouerned by the Apostles in common and after committed to Iames in particular before we read of any Presbyters
there ordained The refuter replieth that my consequence is naught for euen whiles the Church was gouerned in common by the Apostles it was not gouerned without the counsell of the Presbyters of the same Church much lesse did Iames afterwards take the whole authority into his owne hands from them Which exception of his is of no force because there were no Presbyters ordayned in that Church when it was gouerned by the common counsell of the Apostles and I added which he should haue disproued if he would haue said any thing to the purposâ— that Iames was assigned Bishop to that Church before we read of any Presbyters ordayned in or to that Church For if Iames were Bishop of that Church before it had Presbyters then was not that Church ruled by the common counsell of Presbyters before they had a Bishop Iames indeed after he was Bishop ordayned Presbyters whose counsell and assistance he did vse in the gouernment and instruction of that Church as other Bishops vsed to doe in the like case as wee read Act. 15. and 21. Yea but the whole multitude saith he as appeareth by Act. 6.2.5 had the choise of Church-officers What then therefore the Church was not gouerned by the common counsell of the Apostles or was gouerned by the common counsell of Presbyters Because the Greekish Iewes which had their Liturgy and scriptures in the Greeke tongue were discontented with the Apostles distribution of the Churches stocke the Apostles therefore to auoid contention and scandall and to giue euery one contentment departed from their right and willed the whole multitude to choose seauen whom wee say the Apostles may appoint to this busines Surely if where the Presbyters are erected the people who doe contribute to the releife of the poore are permitted to make choise of ouerseers collectors for the poore it wer but a simple consequence to inferre hereupon that therefore the Churches are not gouerned by the common counsell of Presbyters And to as little purpose or rather lesse is that which followeth If the Apostles altogether or Iames alone afterterwards had by vertue of their extraordinarie calling the power of ordination and iurisdiction in â—heir hands in that as in all other Churches yet the Pastors of the Churches afterwards being no Apostles had no such vnlimited power and so Ierome still speaketh truely of the ordinary gouernment of the Church And so Ierome still spake vntruely in respect of the Church of Ierusalem I doe confesse this was peculiar to the Church of Ierusalem and differing from the order of other Churches that the Church of Ierusalem had a Bishop before it had Presbyters of her owne And therefore though I did not deny his speech to be vntrue in respect of other Churches yet I proued it to be vntrue in respect of Ierusalem by his owne testimony But before I come to the sifting thereof there are two other things to be noted in this speech of the refuter For that which he pratleth of Iames his sole power exercised in the Church of Ierusalem by vertue of his extraordinarie calling is altogether impertinent seeing Ierome of whom the question is confesseth that hee was Bishop and ruled that Church as the Bishop thereof thirtie yeeres Neither is it true that the ordinarie Pastors of that Church had not the like power therein which Iames had For there is no question but what authority Iames had in the gouernment of that particular Church of Ierusalem Simon his successor had the same and all the Bishops of Ierusalem after him Now that Ieromes speech was vntrue in respect of Ierusalem I proued by Ieromes owne testimony affirming that Iames straight wayes after the passion of our Lord was by the Apostles ordayned Bishop of Ierusalem Here the refuter hath found out a quirke which if it were true would not yet serue his turne The quirke is that Ierome is mistaken by false pointing and reading for that straight way belongeth not to Iames his being made Bishop but is brought to shew that Iohn maketh mention of him immediately after he hath spoken of our Lords passion So that Ierome doth not say that Iames straight wayes after the passion of our Lord was ordayned Bishop of Ierusalem but that Iohn mentioned him presently after hee had spoken of the passion of our Lord. Let me lay downe the whole sentence that it may appeare more plainely Iames saith Ierome who is called the brother of our Lord surnamed Iustus the sonne as many thinke of Ioseph by another wife as it seemeth to me of Mary the sister of our Lords mother of whom Iohn in his booke maketh mention after the passion of our Lord straight wayes statim id est continenter immediate vt loquuntur Iohn 19.25 saith Iunius who was ordayned Bishop of Ierusalem by the Apostles And this manner of reading is auouched by Sophronius that translated that booke of Ierome into Greeke who maketh the distinction presently after straight wayes seuering that word from his ordination by the Apostles Among many other proofes of his learning iudgement the refuter giueth this for one For first this subtility hee receiued from Iunius as he doth professe but exceedingly dulled by comming through his fingers For whereas Iunius referrâ—th the word of whom to Mary the sister of our Lords mother of whom Iohn maketh mention straight waies after the passion of our Lord Iohn 19.25 our learned refuter referreth it to Iames that twice for failing But though he might be mistaken in the English of Ieromes cuius yet me thinkes so learned a man should haue known that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Sophronius should haue beene referred to her and not to him But let that passe To iustifie his correction of this place of Ierom he saith this manner of reading is auowed by Sophronius c. which is neither so nor so For between the Greeke and the Latine there is onely this difference in that edition which I haue being as I suppose the best that whereas in the Latine there is a Colon at the word filius which followeth meminit in the Greeke there is but a Comma but at the word statim in Latin and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greeke no distinction at all The Latine words are these vt mihi autem videtur Mariae sororis matris Domini cuius Ioannes in libro suo memunt filius pâ—st passionem Domini statim ab Apostolis Hierosolymorum Episcopus ordinatus The Greeke these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the correction it self I would be loth to contest with Iunius neither is that subtilty which he hath found out preiudiciall to my assertion as you shall heare notwithstanding I must needs say he was greatly transported with preiudice when he would referre the aduerbe statim to the verbe meminit rather then to the participle ordinatus For though both the Comma and Colon that come betweene them were taken away yet the word filius comming also betweene
cleane spoileth his conceipt For can any man of indifferency thinke that Ierome being an elegant writer if he had meant that the aduerbe statim should haue waited on the verbe meminit would haue disposed it thus cuius Ioannes meminit filius post passionem Domini statim ab Apostolis Hierosolymorum Episcopus ordinatus But now weigh the refuters iudgement Suppose that this place were read as Iunius would haue it and that Iames were not so presently made Bishop of Ierusalem after Christs passion as Ieromes words seeme to import but that after the Apostles he tooke the gouernment of the Church of Ierusalem as Ierome citeth out of Hegesippus what is all this but the same that my selfe set downe in the Sermon both in this place also pag. 68. in these words the Apostles first ioyntly ruled the Church at Ierusalem but being to goe into all the world and no longer to be accounted members of that particular Church ordained Iames to be Bishop And that charge which before they had in common they now comitted to him in particular And this is that which Ierome citeth out of Hegesippus who saith Iames the brother of our Lord surnamed Iustus receiued or vndertooke the Church of Ierusalem after the Apostles And if the refuter will needs expound after the Apostles to signifie after their departing from Ierusalem I must intreat him to take with him the words both of Eusebius who sometimes saith the throne of that Bishopricke was committed to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Apostles therefore before their dispersion sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Apostles therefore whiles they were present and also of Ierome who plainely saith that he was ordained Bishop of Ierusalem by the Apostles but chiefly that he will remember that the words straight wayes after the passion of our Lord are to be ioyned with the other words ordayned by the Apostles then will he acknowledge himselfe satisfied for this point § 4. Secondly I answered in respect of other Churches that which Ierome saith neither proueth that the office of Bishops and Presbyters were confounded neither doth it hinder but that the distinct office of Bishops is of Apostolicall institution Both the parts of this answere I explaned and confirmed The former thus it is true that for a time the Presbyters by common counsell gouerned the Churches but as vnder the Apostles who kept in their own hands the Episcopall authority they I meane the Presbyters hauing neither the right of ordination nor the power of outward or publike iurisdiction This therefore doth not proue that the offices of BB. Presbyters wer confounded The name of B. was confounded with Presbyter but the office and authority of the B. was as yet in the Apostles the Presbyters being such then vnder the Apostles as they were afterwards vnder the Bishops The latter thus but when the Apostles were to discontinue from those Churches which they had planted then were BB. substituted Whereunto the factious behauiour of the Presbyters whereof Ierome speaketh might be some inducement For parity indeed breedeth faction and confusion for the auoyding whereof when the Apostles should be absent BB. were instituted but when and where and by whom and to what end let Ierome himselfe testifie The summe is that although for a time the Churches were gouerned by the common counsell of Presbyters yet this doth not hinder but that the Episcopall function is of diuine institution For after a while the Apostles ordayned BB. as Ierome himselfe doth most plainely and fully testifie shewing the places where and the persons whom and the time when and the end wherefore they ordaynd them Now let vs see what the Refuter can reply against this answer Forsooth as if he knew or regarded no lawes of disputation he thrusts himselfe into the answerers place and maketh me the opponent casting my answer into a Syllogisme and bids me proue euery part and parcell of it or else all that I say is to little purpose himselfe in the meane while who should follow the argument which I answered and take away my answer goeth about to proue nothing but himselfe to be a shifting Sophister I thinke it was neuer heard in disputation that the opponent hauing receiued the answere and reciting the summe thereof saying sic respondes would cast it into a Syllogisme and then bid the answerer proue the parts thereof But such a disputer am I matched with And how I pray you doth he reduce my answere into a Syllogisme that vvhich I brought to cleare the former part of my answer is made the argument to proue both the parts in a filthy long Syllogisme and that vvhich I added to proue the latter part he mentioneth as straggling speches brought in to no purpose This is his analysing which whether it be done of vnskilfulnes or wilfulnes I refer it to his owne conscience I cannot iudge therof because I know not the man But if my answere must needes be reduced into Syllogismes I would intreat that the parts thereof may seuerally be concluded as they were by me seuerally explicated and then that the first Syllogisme may be this If whiles the Churches were gouerned by the common counsell of Presbyters the Presbyters did gouerne the same as vnder the Apostles the Episcopall office and authority being not in them but in the Apostles the Presbyters being such then vnder the Apostles as they were afterwards vnder the Bishops then their gouerning of the Church by common counsell doth not proue that the office of a B. and a Presbyter was confounded But the antecedent is true in all the parts thereof Therefore the consequent The consequence I did illustrate by this distinction the name of Bishop was confounded with Presbyter but the office was not for that was not in the Presbyters but in the Apostles The consequence when it was worse for the addition of the second part the Refuter granted yet he thought good to gather out of it this worthy obseruation that if there was a time before there were Bishops When the Presbyters gouerned the Churches as vnder the Apostles then all that while there were no Diocesan Bishops the Refuter speaketh sentences and so no distinction betweene a Bishop and a Presbyter in office This and so could not well be gathered out of the proposition being repugnant vnto it for if there were no distinction betweene the office of a Bishop and a Presbyter then were the offices confounded Suppose the common-wealth of Iewry being a Prouince vnder the Emperour of Rome had beene gouerned by the Synedrion or common counsell of the Seniors for a time vntill the Emperour had placed a soueraigne King ouer them as hee did Herod it might be said that for a time that common-wealth was gouerned by the common counsell of their Elders but as vnder the Emperour who kept the regall authority in his owne hands Hereof it might not be infered that the office of
the Senatours and of a King were confounded For the soueraignty was in the Emperour and the Senatours might haue beene the same vnder their King which they had beene vnder the Emperour c. As touching the assumption he saith it should haue beene proued and I say if he were able he should haue disproued it For my part I was in this place the answerer and the parts of the assumption be such as either had beene before cleared or seemed to neede no proofe For first that the Presbyters ruled the Churches as vnder the Apostles it is manifest That the Episcopall authority consisting specially in the power of Ordination and publicke Iurisdiction was not in them but in the Apostles partly was proued before to wit that Presbyters neuer had it and partly needed no proofe viz. that the Apostles had it And surely little need had Paul to haue sent Timothie to Ephesus and Titus to Creet to exercise the power of Ordination and publicke Iurisdiction in those Churches if the Presbyters had the same before they came But still I desire some euidence whereby the deriuation of this power of Ordination and Iurisdiction from the Apostles to the Presbyters or people may be warranted Thirdly that the Presbyters were the same vnder the Apostles then which they were afterwards vnder the Bishops I take for a certaine truth For if they were the same vnder Timothie and Titus that they were vnder the Apostles then questionlesse they were the same vnder the Bishops who haue no other function nor exercise any other authority then that which Timothie and Titus had and exercised in Ephesus and Creet And these I hope are reasons sufficient to approue the former part of my answere vntill the refuter who is the opponent be able to disproue it The second part of my answere may be concluded thus If after a while namely when the Apostles were to discontinue from the Churches which they had planted the Apostles themselues ordayned BB. then the Presbyters ruling of the Churches by common counsell for a time doth not hinder but that the Episcopall function is of Apostolicall institution But the former is true Therefore the latter The consequence needeth no proofe the assumption I proue by Ieromes owne testimony For if Ierome doe testifie that the Apostles ordayned BB. and withall doe note the time when the place where and the end wherefore then doth he giue plentifull testimony to this truth But Ierome doth testifie that the Apostles ordayned BB. and withall noteth the time when the place where and the end wherfore The time and place he noteth first generally the time when Bishops were ordayned was in the Apostles time the place where in all the world Which two if you ioyne together it will appeare that by Ieromes testimony the function of BB. is of Apostolicall institution For it is vtterly incredible that BB. should be ordayned in all parts of the Christian world in the Apostles times and yet not be of the Apostles ordayning That Ierome helde BB. to be ordayned in the Apostles time I proue out of the place alledged when factions began to spring in the Church saith Ierome some saying I am of Paul I am of Apollo I am of Cephas which was in the Apostles times 1 Cor. 1. and it were fond to imagine that factions did not begin till after their time This argument the Refuter would discredit because Sanders vseth the like and his owne answere he would credit with the name and countenance of certaine learned men which is one of his ordinary shifts to bleare the eyes of the simple who many times respect more who speaketh then what is said But my argument standeth thus When the factions began whereof Ierome speaketh BB. were ordayned as he saith In the Apostles times the factions began whereof Ierome speaketh Therefore in the Apostles times Bishops were ordayned as he saith The effect of the answere which hee bringeth is that Ierome speaking of Schismes which did arise after the Apostles times alludeth to that speech of the Apostle not that hee thought Bishops were ordayned in those times but that hee might shew that schisme was the cause of changing the order of Church-gouernment Which answere might haue some shew of probability if Ierome himselfe did not both in other places which I cite most plainely testifie that Bishops were ordayned in the Apostles times and also in the place alledged expressely speake of those factions which did arise in Corinth and other places in the Apostles times The factions whereof he speaketh did arise from hence that vnusquisque eos quos baptizauerat suos putabat esse non Christi saith Ierome euery one esteemed those whom he had baptized to be his owne and not Christs Now it is apparant that this is the very thing which Paul reproueth in the Corinthians that euery one sayd they were his who had baptized them and therefore thanketh God that he had baptized none of them but Crispus and Gaius and the houshold of Stephanas For by this meanes as Caluin also obserueth the factious and ambitious teachers whom he meant vnder the name of Paul and Apollos sought to draw Disciples after them Yea but Ierome in his Epistle to Evagrius sheweth that in the Apostles times Bishop and Presbyter was all one and that afterwards Bishops were first ordayned as a remedy against schisme To this I haue answered before shewing that Ierome there proueth that the names at the first were confounded and the same men were called Presbyters and Bishops vntill one out of the Presbyters in euery Church was chosen and set aboue the rest and called a Bishop Which Ierome there confesseth to haue bin done euer since St. Markes time and therefore in the time of the Apostles For the first Bishops were not chosen out of the Presbytery of the Churches whereof they were made BB. but were Apostolicall men I meane either Apostles or some of their companions and assistants all which while the Bishops were called Apostles as I shewed out of Theodoret the names Presbyter Episcopus being as yet confounded And whereas he saith that I answered euen now the course of gouernment was not changed at the first when factiâ—â—s began he doth but threapen kindnesse on mee for I said no such thing If therefore Ierome teacheth that Bishops were ordayned when factions began and also that in the Apostles time factions did begin then in Ieromes iudgement Bishops were ordayned in the Apostles times but Ierome teacheth both the one and the other as is manifest by that which hath beene said As touching the Place Ierome saith in toto orbe decretum est it was decreed in the whole world that one being chosen from among the Presbyters should be set ouer the rest to whom the whole care of euery Church should appertaine From whence I reason thus A generall decree in the whole Christian world could not be made in the Apostles times without the
answere For it appeareth that neither the Apostles or Apostolicall men being Bishops were simply bound to vse the councell of the Presbyters but that the vse of them was voluntarie after the example of Moses as Ierome saith and the auncient Bishops of the Primitiue Church who vvere of the best disposition as Cyprian by name did follow their example resoluing to doe nothing of moment without their counsell and aduise seeking therein the good and peace of the Church And this custome was vsed by all godly Bishops vntill as I said the Presbyters aduise and assistance to themselues seeming troublesome and to the B. by reason of the frequent Synodes and Synodall constitutions needlesse grew out of vse whereupon Canons vvere made that their counsell and assistance should be required an had in greater matters which is not misliked but wished to be more vsed And so much may suffice to haue answered an obiection which the refuter doth not acknowledge I proceede therefore to the third which is as it vvere the shoote-anchor of the Disciplinarians which fayling their Discipline vvill suffer shipwracke Presbyters and Bishops were all one therefore Bishops are to know that they be greater then the Presbyters rather by the custome of the Church then by the truth of Diuine disposition To this obiection I returned two answeres the first that where Ierome saith Episcopus and Presbyter is all one it may be vndertooke of the names vvhich hee proueth by many testimonies to be confounded in the vvritings of the Apostles And in this sense it is true that whereas now Episcopus is more then Presbyter it is to be ascribed to the custome of the Church as before I haue noted out of Theodoret And in the same sense Augustine is to be vnderstood vvhen hee saith according to the names of honour in which the vse of the Church hath preuailed Episcopatus Bishopship is a name of greater honour then Presbyterium The refuter comming to examine this answere saith I denyed the Antecedent vvhen as indeed I granting the Antecedent in that sense vvhich I giue in the answere denyed the consequence That although the distinction of the names vvas not by diuine disposition but by the custome of the Church yet that hindreth not but the function may be of Apostolicall institution Seeing they vvhich at the first vvere ordayned by the Apostles to the Episcopal function though they vvere not called Bishops till they were chosen out of the Presbyters yet vvere called sometimes the Apostles sometimes the Angels of the churches So that when the names were confounded the offices were not But the refuter censureth this distinction as an idle conceipt and shift hauing no colour of excuse for it As though it needed excuse vvhen I brought iust defence of it vvhich hee is not able to answere For how shall Ieromes minde be knowne in that assertion that Episcopus and Presbyter was all one but by the proofes vvhich he bringeth for it but all his proofes are that the names vvere confounded in the vvritings of the Apostles and that the same men were called Presbiteri Episcopi and that was all that Ierome could truely inferre out of those places For if hee would haue concluded out of them that the offices vvere confounded his consequences would be very weake The second defence of my answere vvas this that Ierome is to be vnderstood eyther of the names or of the offices But not of the offices therefore of the names If you shall vnderstand Ierome as affirming that the offices were confounded and denying that the office and superioritie of Bishops was of Diuine disposition in that sense that Apostolicall ordinances may be said to be of Diuine Institution you shall make Ierome not onely to striue against the streame of all Antiquitie but also to be contrarie to himselfe but this latter is absurd so is the former To the former reason the refuter answereth not but bringeth a reason or two such as they be to ouerthrow my distinctions seeking as we say clauum clauo pellere Can any man be so sotttish saith he as to imagine that the question betwixt Ierome and those Deacons was about names not offices or would Ierome reason so simply as to proue the dignitie of the Presbyters aboue Deacons because the name of Presbyter and Episcopus was all one it were absurd to spend more time in answering so vnreasonable a distinction You see how bragge our refuter is when hee seemeth to haue gotten neuer so little aduantage To his former question I answere that although the question vvas concerning the office of Presbyters and Deacons vvhether were superiour yet Ierome might and indeede did proue the Presbyters to be superiour because as the Apostles did call themselues Presbyters so Presbyters vvere called Bishops Yea but saith he in the second question Ierome would not reason so simply Whereto I answere that not onely learned men but the holy Ghost also in the Scriptures doth reason to that purpose prouing their dignitie to be greater vvho haue obtained a greater name For as the Philosophers say names are the resemblances and imitations of the things Secondly hee obiecteth the authoritie of diuerse new and I confesse worthy Diuines who thinke that Ierome maketh a Bishop and a Presbyter all one not in name onely but in office also Which is a kinde of arguing frequent with this refuter but seldome or neuer vsed by any writer of worth Against his authorities therefore that Ierome was of that iudgement I feare not to oppose the reasons which I produced and namely the second But saith hee we neede not stand in feare of that glittering flourish whereby wee are charged to make Ierome striue against the streame of all Antiquitie and to be contrarie to himselfe if eyther hee confound the functions or deny it to be an Apostolicall ordinance that Bishops should be set ouer the Presbyters What one testimonie of Antiquitie within the first two hundred yeares eyther hath beene or can be alledged to that purpose of as little force are the allegations which M. D. saith hee hath cited out of Ieromes writings In both which answeres the refuter sheweth himselfe to be very impudent For first that the office or degree of Bishop and Presbyter are distinct haue I not brought forth most plaine and plentiful proofes out of Ignatius Tertullian Origen Cyprian and other auncient writers that Bishops were ordayned by the Apostles haue I not alledged most pregnant testimonies out of Ignatius Irenaeus Tertullian Hegesippus and Clemens cited by Eusebius and can it seeme doubtfull to any that shall reade vvhat is alledged by mee and the refuter in this controuersie which way the streame of Antiquitie runneth And as for Ierome vvhat more plaine testimonies can be desired then those vvhich I brought to proue that in his iudgement Bishops vvere ordayned by the Apostles And that Ierome neuer thought that the office of Bishop and Presbyter was confounded it
as the Episcopall function hath been manifestly proued to be lawfull and good as being the ordinance of God so we would all be perswaded to acknowledge it But the refuter is like the deafe Adder that stoppeth her eare he will not be perswaded though he be conuicted For though he braggeth that this answere of his doth manifest that I haue not brought any one good proofe in the whole Sermon yet this defence of mine will make it euident that he hath not been able to disproue any one of my proofes which he hath gone about to answere for the most part with sound learning but to elude with shifts and cauillations But some will say this is not all that you vvould perswade vs vnto that the function of Bishops is lawfull and good but when you say it is of diuine institution you seeme to meane that it is diuini iuris and consequently that not onely it is lawfull but that it onely is lawfull and that all Churches are so perpetually and necessarily tyed vnto it as that no other forme of gouernment is warrantable in the Church of God My resolution of this doubt I signified before Serm. pag. 92. that I did not hold it so to be diuini iuris as that necessarily it were to be obserued alwayes and in all places and so himselfe confesseth pag. 90. of his booke And therefore when he said my resolution was obscure and doubtfull for doubling I leaue to him he was disposed to cauill I referre indeed the consideration of this inference to our Disciplinarians who hauing conceipted the Presbyterian platforme to be described in the scriptures doe therefore vrge the same as perpetuall and vnchangeable signifying that if they will be constant in their iudgement they must by the same reason acknowledge the Episcopall gouernment which hath warrant in the word to be perpetuall and vnchangeable Which conceipt of theirs hath perhaps beene the cause vvhy they haue giuen out to make my Sermon odious among their followers that I maintaine the Episcopall function to be diuini iuris as being commanded of God and perpetually imposed vpon all Churches Neuerthelesse I plainely declared my resolution to be this that although we be well assured that the forme of gouernment by Bishops is the best as hauing not onely the warrant of scripture for the first institution but also the perpetuall practise of the Church from the Apostles times to our age for the continuance of it notwithstanding vve doubt not vvhere this may not be had others may be admitted neither doe we deny but that siluer is good though gold be better vvhich obiection and answere I inserted of purpose into the Sermon to preserue the credit of those reformed Churches vvhere the Presbyterian discipline is established and that they might not be exposed or left naked to the obloquies of the Papists To which my charitable endeauour the refuter opposeth himselfe as being alwaies ad oppositum without regard either of my charitable intent or of the credit of the reformed Churches labouring tooth and naile to perswade his reader that I contradict my selfe and that in the conclusion of my Sermon I did ouerthrow what before I had builded But as alwayes hitherto so now also he hath shewed his malice to be greater then his strength For though hee chargeth me as hauing often and peremptorily auouched the perpetuall necessitie of the gouernment of the Church by Diocesan Bishops yet neither often nor once neither peremptorily nor at all neither the perpetuall necessitie nor any absolute necessitie at all is vrged in any one of the allegations which hee so hotly as it were with fire and towe obiecteth The first which is obiected out of pag. 33. hath beene explained before For when I said that as the gouernment by Bishops was first ordayned for the preseruation of the Church in vnity and for the auoiding of schisme so it is for the same cause to be retained I did not meane any absolute necessitie of retaining it but that as at the first it was ordained as being thought fit expedient and needfull to auoid schisme so it is fit expedient and needfull for the same cause to be retained Neither doe I see how hee can inferre this perpetuall necessitie which he talketh of out of pag. 72. where I said the Epistles to Timothie and Titus are the very patternes and Presidents of the Episcopall function whereby the Apostle informeth them and in them all Bishops how to exercise their function touching ordination and iurisdiction For although Paul giueth his directions primarily to Timothie and Titus and to all such as should haue the like function that is to say Bishops yet if this forme of gouernment be changed those which shall exercise the like authority must follow those directions as being giuen though primarily and directly to Bishops yet secondarily and by consequence to those who though they were not Bishops should haue the like authority And to the like purpose is that alleadged out of pag. 74. and that we should not thinke as some doe that these things were spoken to them as to extraordinarie persons whose authoritie should dye with them but to them and their successors to the end of the world he straitly chargeth Timothie that the commandements and directions which hee gaue him should be kept inuiolable vnto the appearing of our Lord Iesus Christ and therefore by such as should haue the like authority vnto the end And presently after for the authority which was committed to them is perpetually necessary without which the Church neither can be gouerned as without iurisdiction neither yet continued as without ordination and therefore not peculiar to extraordinary persons but by an ordinary deriuation to be continued in those who are the successors of Timothie and Titus Here I appeale to the refuters conscience whether he be not perswaded of the truth of both these sentences Can he deny the authority which was committed to Timothie and Titus to be perpetually necessary which is the summe of the second sentence or if it be perpetually necessary that some were to haue it to the end of the world which was affirmed in the former sentence If he had learned the distinction betwixt potestas modus potestatis whereof I spake before the power or authority it selfe being the perpetuall ordinance of God the manner or forme of gouernment wherein that power is exercised being mutable hee would not so hotly haue vrged these allegations Yea but that pag. 79. is aboue all shew of exception saith hee where hee saith the function and authority which Timothie and Titus had was not to end with their persons but to be continued in their successors as being ordinary and perpetually necessary not onely for the well being but also for the very being of the visible Churches How this speâ—ch is to be vnderstood I distinctly shewed before not thinking I protest of this obiection made by the Refuter For when I said their function
and authority was ordinarie and perpetually necessary I meant that their function was ordinary as being Pastorall and Episcopall and that the authority which they had was perpetually necessary as was said in the former allegations If he shall perhaps vrge those words which mention the successors of Timothie and Titus to the end of the world I answere it is more then likely that they shall haue successors in the same function in some Churches to the end that is to say Bishops though in some others that forme of gouernment being altered the authority may be in those who doe not succeed them in the said function at least in the same forme and manner of gouerning This being all which he hath gained by these allegations he might haue forborne his triumphing insultations which bewray his want of iudgement For where he obiecteth against me this contradiction as though I held both that the gouernment by Bishops is necessary for the very being of visible Churches and also that there may be visible Churches without it either he doth ignorantly mistake or wilfully depraue my sayings For though I said the authority which Timothie and Titus exercised was perpetually necessary both to the being of Churches as the power of ordination and to the well being as the authority of iurisdiction yet I neuer said that this forme of gouernment was necessary to the being of visible Churches And where hee goeth about to proue that the Episcopall gouernment is not perpetually necessary because there be many visible Churches at this day without it what doth hee else but fight with his owne shadow seeing that in fauour onely of those Churches this passage was by me inserted howbeit hee impudently ouer-reacheth when he saith almost all visible Churches are without Bishops For not to mention all other Churches which be in the Christian world which haue alwayes had and still haue Bishops and to speake onely of the reformed Churches in Europe is it not euident that the farre greater part of them is gouerned by Bishops and which is all one with Bishops by Superintendents The refuter when hee desired to the vttermost pag. 52. to enlarge the number of those Churches which haue the Presbyterian Discipline he reckoned the reformed Churches of Fraunce the Low-countreyes Saxony Heluetia Bohemia Zuricke Berne Geneua Sauoy Palatine Poland Hungary Gernsey Iersey Scotland from which number notwithstanding some Churches are to be substracted as all in Scotland and some if not all in Saxony neither doe I suppose that their Presbyterian discipline is established in Zuricke and all the Churches of Heluetia neither is any one whole kingdome ruled by that discipline So that I am perswaded there are scarse so many particular Churches or congregations gouerned by the Presbyterian discipline in all the world as are gouerned by Bishops in the Kings dominions in great Britaine and in Ireland But besides these I finde alledged by one of great wisdome and iudgement many more which are not gouerned by the Presbyterian discipline as the Churches of Denmarke Sueuia all the reformed Churches of Germany sauing in some parts of the Low-countreyes and of late about Heidelberge procured in the minority of the Prince all the Churches in the Duchy of Saxony the Duchy of Brunswicke and Luneburge the Duchy of Megalopurge the Duchy of Wirtemberge all the Churches within the countreyes of the Marquesse of Brandeburge and the Marquesse of Bade all the Churches within the gouernment of the Earledome of Henneberge the Earledome of Swartzenberge the Earledome of Lenning the Earledome of Hannaw the Earledome of Oetinghe the Earledome of Mansfield the Earledome of Stalbergh the Earledome of Glich the Earledome of Rheinesterne and the Earledome of Leonstine and all the Churches in the Barony of Limpurge the Barony of Schenburge and the Barony of Wildenfield Whereunto may be added all the Churches in foure or fiue and thirty at the least free cities with their territories the most of them as large and ample as Geneua in none whereof the Presbyterian discipline is erected Which enumeration is a good euidence also to iustifie my answere to the next obiection which is this Some will say the Protestants which were the blessed instruments of God for the reformation of religion in this last age are thought to haue preferred the other discipline by Presbyteries before this by Bishops and therefore in thus magnifying the Bishops you seeme to ioyne with the Papists against them Whereunto I answered that those godly and learned men allowed the Episcopall function and simply desired the continuance thereof if with it they might haue enioyed the Gospell For proofe whereof I referred the reader to the Suruey of the pretended discipline cap. 8. pag. 110.111 c. In refuting of which answere the refuter dealeth very absurdly with me and the reuerend author of the Suruey For when I referred the reader to a Chapter of that booke contayning many notable testimonies to proue that which I said the refuter dealeth as a man resolued to deny my conclusion what proofes so euer I should bring against him And though I referre him to testimonies for number and weight sufficient either to satisfie or to conuince him if he would but haue turned to the place yet he saith hee cannot possibly see how I should haue any such opinion of those godly and learned men whose writings as he saith doe so often and so vehemently professe the contrary And that he may not seeme to speake without ground he desireth me to leaue the Surueyour and heare what he can say As if the Surueyour were not worthie to be heard when the learned refuter is to speake When as indeed our Refuter for ought I see by him is not for wisedome learning and iudgement worthie to be named with that reuerend Author on the same day But though he would seeme not to vouchsafe an answere to the Suruey yet the truth is he durst not acquaint the Reader with those testimonies which howsoeuer before I did mention for breuity sake I may not now wholy conceale from the Reader And although I might by way of requitall desire him to lay aside hâ—s misse-alledged allegations as vnworthie to be examined and to giue eare to those testimonies cited by the Surueyour yet I will vouchsafe an answere to his authorities after I haue recited some few testimonies of the chiefe Protestant writers as I find them cited by the Surueyour referring the Reader for the rest to the Suruey it selfe And first I wil begin with the Augustane confession whervnto the chiefe learned men who first were called Protestants did subscribe Caluin soone after being one of the number and with the Apologie thereof We haue oft protested say they that we doe greatly approue the Ecclesiasticall policy degrees in the Church and as much as lyeth in vs doe desire to conserue them We doe not mislike the authority of Bishops so that they would not compell vs to doe
against Gods commandement We doe here protest and we would haue it so recorded that we would willingly preserue the Ecclesiasticall and Canonicall policy if the Bishops would cease to tyrannize ouer our Churches This our minde or desire shall excuse vs with all posterity both before God and all Nations that it may not be imputed vnto vs that the authority of Bishops is ouerthrowne by vs. I would to God it lay to me saith Melancthon to restore the gouernment of Bishops c. By what right or law may we dissolue the Ecclesiasticall policy if the Bishops will grant vs that which in reason they ought to grant and though it were lawfull yet surely it were not expedient Luther was euer of this opinion whom many for no other cause I see doe loue but for that they thinke they haue cast off their Bishops by meanes of him and haue obtayned a liberty which will not be profitable for our posterity Would to God saith George Prince Anhall that those which carry the names titles of Bishops would shew themselues to be Bishops indeed I wish they would teach nothing that is disagreeable to the Gospell but rule their Churches thereby Oh how willingly and with what ioy of heart would we receiue them for our Bishops reuerence them obey them and yeeld vnto them their Iurisdiction and Ordination Which we alwaies and M. Luther both in words and in his writings very often professed If they would bring vnto vs such an Hierarchy saith Caluin wherein the Bishops shall so rule as that they refuse not to submit themselues to Christ that they so depend vpon him as their onely head c. Then surely if there be any that shall not submit themselues to that Hierarchy reuerently and with the greatest obedience that may be I confesse there is no Anathema whereof they are not worthy In the articles agreed vpon by Melancthon Bucer Caluin and other learned men it is said for the auoyding of Schismes there was a profitable ordination that a B. should be chosen out of many Priests who should rule the Church by teaching the Gospell and by retayning the discipline and who should gouerne the Priests themselues Afterwards also there were degrees made of Archbishops aboue them of Patriarches c. These Ordinations if those that gouerne doe their duety as preach ouersee the doctrine and manners of their Churches correct errours and vice practise Ecclesiasticall censures c. are profitable to preserue the vnity of the Church And in their additions to the said articles As concerning ordination we especially approue the ancient custome of the Church c. This difficult and necessary charge for the Church it is to be wished reformation being made that the Bishops would take vpon them And we heare that our learned men haue expresly so yeelded ordination to those Bishops if first there may be a reformation In a Treatise made by Bucer with the aduise of the said learned men and offered to the Emperour it is thus written we must endeuour that that forme and distribution of Ecclesiasticall gouernment which the Canons doe prescribe to Bishops and Metropolitanes be restored and kept The same Bucer speaking of Bishops and Metropolitanes and of their authority ouer the Churches and Ministers within their Dioceses and Prouinces he saith this was agreeable to the law of Christ c. And in another place Now by the perpetuall obseruation of all Churches euen from the Apostles times we doe see it seemed good to the holy Ghost that among Priests to whom the procuration of Churches was chiefly committed there should be one that should haue the care charge of diuers Churches and the whole Ministery committed to him and by reason of that charge he was aboue the rest and therefore the name of Bishop was attributed peculiarly vnto these cheife rulers of Churches And againe In the Apostles times one of the Priests or Pastors was chosen and ordayned to be the Captaine and Prelate ouer the rest who went before the rest and had the care of soules and the administration of the Episcopall office especially and in the highest degree And this he proueth by the example of Iames Act. 1. and after concludeth in this sort The like ordination hath beene perpetually obserued in other Churches likewise as we may learne out of the Ecclesiasticall Histories and the most ancient Fathers as Tertullian Cyprian Irenaeus Eusebius and others It were a most profitable order for the welfare of the Church saith Iacob Heerbrandus a very learned man if euery particular Prouince had her Bishops and the Bishops their Archbishops These few testimonies among many doe sufficiently discouer with what minde the Refuter desired me to lay them and all the rest aâ—ide and to giue eare to his allegations as more worthy to be heard Let vs therefore heare them and let the Reader iudge with what conscience hee either reiected the former or alledged these And first though he saith hee will passe by an Epistle of one Oram written vnder the name of Lucifer to the Pope and his Prelates yet because he entreateth the Reader to turne to it in the booke of Martyrs as fitting belike our Bishops hee is worthy not to passe vnpunished when hee comes to light For that letter being a meere inuectiue against the horrible enormities of the Popish Prelates speaking nothing at all of their office but that they were the successours of the Apostles in referring the Reader vnto it what was his intent but that he should apply the things spoken of their greiuous enormities to our Bishops then which hee could not offer a greater villany to them I desire the Reader that hath any moderation in him to read that Epistle and by his intended application thereof to our Bishops to iudge of our refuters spirit though he professeth in the last page how greatly he reuerenceth the Bishops persons In the next place to let you thinke hee hath great store euen whiles hee quoteth either not Protestants or such as were not of our age of whom alone the question is hee saith he will passe by also that which is written by defensor pacis part 2. c. 15. and well might hee passe by him for though he hold that the Priestly Character is the same in Priests and Bishops yea in the Pope himselfe and that they haue the same essentiall authority which is the power of order and likewise in imitation of Ierome holdeth that Episcopus and Presbyter at the first were one c. Notwithstanding he no more disalloweth the superiority of Bishops then either some other Papists who haue contended that for as much as order in that it is a Sacrament hath reference to the Sacrament of the Altar which the Priest doth offer and make his maker as well as the Pope himselfe that therefore Bishops and Presbyters be of one order or then Ierome who though he saith Episcopus
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.
who first were called Protestants my assertion had been sufficiently confirmed though the refuter could haue alledged the iudgements of more particular men then he hath done to the contrarie But I added in the Sermon that howsoeuer the first reformers of religion whom they cal Protestants did not disallowe the Episcopall gouernment but simply desired the continuance thereof as I haue now proued by their owne testimonies notwithstanding when together with the Gospell c. ad pag. 97. li. a fine 4. In which words I doe partly excuse the auncient Protestants who first yeelded to the deposing of Bishops and partly accuse the innouatours among our selues The former I excuse because they desiring chiefely and aboue all the instauration of religion propagation of the gospell which could not be obtained while the Popish BB. retayned their authoritie were forced with the losse of the Episcopall gouernment to redeeme the free profession of the gospel The refuter as if he were desirous to leaue them without excuse saith that is a bad excuse because it was easier to choose one fit man among them to be their B. then to finde diuers Pastors and Elders meet for the Presbyteries I deny not but that among them there were some fit to haue been BB. yet the speech of the refuter is vntrue It being an easier matter as the Fathers of the Affricane council professed to find many fit men to be Presbyters especially if the laitie also afford fit men for that purpose then to finde one fit to be a B. But the refuter doth not consider first who should haue ordained them secondly how they should haue been maintained thirdly and chiefely whether the assistance of the ciuil Magistrates could haue been had for deposing the BB. vnles they had yeelded both to the dissolution of the Bishoprickes and to the alteration of the forme of gouernment c. Now that the Protestants which subscribed to the Augustane confession did simply desire the continuance of the Episcopal gouernment I proue because so soon as they could they procured the restitution thereof though vnder other names because the names of BB. Archbb. by reason of the corruptions of the Popish prelates were odious And because the refuter shall no longer doubt whether those Superintendents and generall superintendents placed in Protestant churches be for the substance of their calling the same with BB. Archbb. he shall heare the iudgement of Zanchius in this behalfe Who after he had signified his approbation of the auncient forme of gouernment by BB. and Archbb. and had confirmed the same by the testimony of M. Bucer he addeth for further confirmation the practise of reformed churches some wheerof both in deed name haue retained BB. Archbb. and besides saith he in the churches of Protestants there are re ipsa in very deed BB. and Archbb. whom hauing changed the good Greeke names into bad latin words they call Superintendents and generall Superintendents Heare the history of the Augustane confession Ministers may bereduced into 3. orders Deacons Pastors superintendents Deacons we cal yong Ministers who are ioyned to Pastors c. We call them Pastors to whom though alone some church is safely cōmitted not doubting but that they may rule the same without a colleague Superintendents we cal these Pastors who are set ouer other Pastors Deacons With vs saith Heerbrand there are Deacons Pastors speciall superintendents and ouer them generall superintendents But why in other churches the learned men haue not restored BB. I gaue this reason for that they could not eyther because the Popish BB. were still countenanced by the ciuill Magistrate as in France or because the forme of ciuill gouernment being after the expulsion of the B. changed into a popular state could no more endure the gouernment of a B. then Rome after the expulsion of Tarquinius the regiment of a King The refuter saith they could thereby insinuating that they would not But doth he thinke that the Popish BB. in France countenanced by the state would endure Antibishops to be set vp against them in their Diocese And for Geneua is it not a plaine case that that state was so farre from admitting againe the gouernment of BB. that Caluin being out of hope to get a Presbytery established of Ministers alone was faine to accept of a Presbyterie wherin twelue Citizens are ioyned to sixe Ministers neither is that to be omitted which Zanchius in the place before cited doth adde in the next words But euen in those Churches also where neither the good Greeke names nor the bad Latine names are vsed notwithstanding there vse to be some chiefe men in whose hands all the authoritie almost is Where therefore these be vpheld and Bishops repelled it may seeme to be but a controuersie concerning the names but when wee agree of the things why should we striue about the names At Geneua while Caluin liued he was the perpetuall president of their Ecclesiasticall Senate differing rather in name then authoritie from a B. And Beza likewise for the space of ten yeares had the like authoritie till Danaeus comming thither that course was altered Since which time Beza finding some inconueniences which he knew not how to redresse hath sometimes signified his desire to some whom I know wishing with all his heart that with the reformation of religion the Episcopall gouerment in that church had beene retayned And I haue beene very credibly informed that the most learned and iudicious Diuines both in France and Geneua could well be contented that the ancient gouernment by BB. were renewed among them which neede not seeme strange to vs seeing in the Church of Scotland where the Geneua Discipline had for a long time beene practised notwithstanding when the matter was referred to voices of that great number which were assembled to that purpose there were not aboue fiue which stood for the Presbyterian discipline as I haue beene informed by some that were there But there are two things more in the refuters answere to be touched the one that against sense he chargeth me twice in this place as holding the gouernment by BB. to be so necessary as that there cannot be a visible Church without it I say against sense because in the former part of this section I acknowledged that where this gouernment could not be had others might be admitted and in this place I doe not onely excuse those Diuines which wanting the Episcopall gouernment brought in the Presbyteries but also commend their fact as wisely performed The other is that out of a desire of contradicting me hee denyeth the state of Geneua to be popular But let Bodin vvho could discerne betweene the diuers formes of policie be iudge betweene vs. The selfe same yeare saith he that Andreas Doria did establish the Aristocracie at Geneua did they of Geneua hauing expelled their B. change the Monarchy into a popular state And after libertie was restored to
the commonweale although they ordayned a Senate or Councill of two hundred men yet the people reserued to themselues the right authoritie of making lawes of creating the chiefe Magistrates of making warre and concluding peace which are the principall prerogatiues of Soueraigntie called iura Maiestatis In the latter part of this Section I did accuse the innouatours among vs affirming that as in those places where orthodoxall Bishops could not be had Presbyteries were wisely brought in so are they very inconsiderately obtruded on those churches where Bishops most soundly professing the Gospell of Christ are established especially considering that the gouernment by Bishops is not onely simply good and lawfull but also in comparison to be preferred before the Presbyterian Discipline as hauing better warrant Here the refuter who was so ready to take away the excuses vvhich I brought for other churches hath nothing to pretend as an excuse for himselfe and his consorts Serm. Sect. 2. pag. 97. Let vs now consider what practicall vses c. to the end The practicall vses concerne eyther those who liue vnder the authoritie of the BB. or the reuerend Fathers themselues The former that for as much as the gouernment of Bishops is the ordinaance of God wee would reuerence their persons and obey their authoritie The latter that they would from this Text receiue both comfort and encouragement in good things and also admonition that as they are called starres and Angels so they would endeauour to be answerable to their names The latter vse the refuter toucheth not neither doth hee gainesay the former but professeth that what they are here exhorted vnto they are and haue beene carefull to performe appealing to all men whether they haue not alwayes reuerenced the persons and obeyed the authoritie of Bishops Whereunto though I could say some thing yet I will say no more but this that as I wish it were true in respect of the time past so I pray to God it may be verified of them for the time to come Amen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 FINIS Errata In the first Booke Page 11. line 15. read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 18. l. 8. pure P. 39. l. 15. entyre Church P. 48. l. a sin 3 Councill or decree p. 61. l. 20. dele or should p. 66. l. 9. rather pag. 67. l. a f. 5. M D. meaning p. 70. l 1. call them p. 87. l. 3. many new p. 88. l. 6. as a l. 18. grandeuis p. 89. l. 20. but whether 91. l. a f. 10. as well he p. 97 Marg l 3. pro 26. pag. 104. l. 24. and note P. 135. l. a f 9. iointly p. 152. l. vlt. dele all the Lent 153. marg l. 3. Insubres 156. l. 24. proposition 157.20 matrix 159. l. 8. Palestines l. penult sublimisas Ep scopalis p. 161. l. 19. not vnwilling 163. l. 4. ìus Sacerd. substernit 164. l. 9 Lay-elders 165. l. a f. 6. Plane tree 166. l. 13. seely Sophister l. 18. maketh against me 169. l. a f. 8. that T.C. th 170. l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 171 l. 19. commended l. 26. Numidicus l. vlt. at the 176. marg l. a f. 5. graecorom 177. l. 3. haue suits 178. l. a f. 4. coetum 179. l. 9. hath beene 180. l. 20. desidiâ— l. 25. exposition l. vlt. the better 181. l. a f. 11. all these p. 189. l. 4. Decani i. Arch. p 196 marg l. 4. sc. praes p. 198. l. 25. all one 203. l. 12. let them examine 204. l. a f. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 208. l. 16. sanedrin l. 18. Gabinius 209. l. 5. if yeo l. 11 argue et 212. l. 18. Apostaticall 218. l. 10. referred 222. l. 12. signifying 231. l. penult 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 232. l. 22. Syria 236. l. a f. 11. à Canone marg l. 3. Duaren 238. l. 18. or of In the second Booke Page 2. l. a f. 6. City c. p. 12. marg l. 26. Tilius l. a f. 8. Gangra p. 14. l. vlt Cerdo p. 18. l. 1. Melitena l. Penult they l. vlt. their p. 36. l. a f. 5. Matrix p. 40. l. 1. Coela p. 43. l. a f. 3. as the hyp p. 46. l. 5. of Christians p. 47. l. 18. possible that dele but p. 56. l. a f. 4. and alwaies p. 61. l. 16. Nicetas p. 64. l. 2. 20. Presbyteries p. 76. l. 16. see Luk. l. 21. if nay p. 80. l. 5. rawe p. 98. l. 13. greater 104. l. 17. 19. or 56. p. 122. l. 6. 7. acknowledge 125. l. a f. 6. I meane 128. l. 3. pernicious l. 21. Ministeriall 134. l. 23. Sasima p. 135. l. a f. 3. villani 139. marg 31.32.33 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the third Booke Page 12. l. 7. opposition p. 15. l. 5. was intended p. 18. l. penult Sabellius p. 22. l. 4. of the p. 31. l. 4. and Councils p. 33. l. 24. degrees not so seldome as 9. p. 34. l. 25. ascent p. 44. l. a f. 8. Tilius p. 59. l. a f. 7. did forbeare p. 60. marg l. 1. Cornel ep p. 61. l. 21. are called p. 65. l. 11. dele him l. 12. are so p. 127. l. vlt. to other p. 146. l. 21. to his The fourth Booke Page 6. l. 6. assume and p. 20. l. 16. businesse p. 21. l. 27. did not p. 23.14 as these p. 26. l. vlt. depositions p. 30. l. 7. of fact p. 69. l. a f. 9. reference p. 84. l. 2. Apostle p. 91 l. 8. Antoninus p. 98. l. a f 4. I doe not assume p. 99. l. 8. his deniall 113. l. 3. sauing 117 l. 9. Presbiteries p. 133. l. penult vnderstood p. 134. l. a f. 9. would p. 144. l. a f. 3. hath noâ— 151. l. a f. 14. in me 156. l. 15 inueyed Thucydiâ— Medium beati Ephes. 4 Tit. 2. â—â— Phil. 2. â— Heb. 13 In 2 Tiâ— Ad pag ¶ pag. 2. 52. ¶ ¶ Ad pag ¶ ¶ See the whole storie in the acts and monuments and in the booke called the B B. booke Reformat legum ecclesiast tit de diuin officijs Cap. 10.11 Pag ediâ— 157 Cypr. simplâ— lat Hiero euag Reform eccl tit diu officâ— Cap. 10. Cap. 11. Tit. de Ecclesia ministris eius eorumque officys Cap. 12. * Tit. de Ecclesia ministris eius eorumque officijs Cap. 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11 Pag. 90. fine ¶ Ad. Pag. 5. ¶ Sir Edw Cooke de Iure regis Ecclesiast fol. 8. In his premonition before one of his last bookes Prefat ad Lectorem in edit latinâ— In hiÌ„nitioâ— 44. De pâ—â— Rom. c. 25. T. C. lâ— part 2.73 H. sert 4. T. C. lâ— 181. vâ— Whitg Iewell â— fence of pologie D. Whitâ— gainst â—â— Car tw In Prefa a Fol. 15. edit 1552. b Fol. 16. c Artic. 5. Prâ—â—â— his 〈◊〉 Act. Socrâ—â—â— log Ad paâ—â—â— Pag. 8. 9. Bellarm. de Rom. pontif l. 4. c. 24. 25. Statut. An. Eliz. 1. In Bruto ¶ a Ad. p 〈…〉 b The 〈…〉 is to
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.
3. Epist. 9. § 2. That the Apostles ordayned Bishops The time when in respect of the Church at Ierusalem d Catal. scrip § 3. That Iames was B. of Ierusalem e Catalog scrip f Hist. l. 2. c. 1. g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 h Ex hypotypos 6. i Euseb. l. 2. c. 23. Hieronym Catalog ex Hegesippi 5. hypomnem k An. 33. l lib. 3. c. 7. m lib. 7. c. 19. 32. n Vid. Ruff. transl l. 7. c. 15. o Euseb. hist. l. 3. c. 11. l. 4. c. 5.22 l. 5. c. 11. l. 6. c. 10 c. l. 7. c. 32. p Epiph. haer 66. q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r In Act. homil 3. 33. in initio s Ambr. in Gal. 1.19 t Dor. in synops u Aug. contr Crescon l. 2. c. 37. (w) In Trul. c. 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The refuters exceptions y 2 Cor. 10.13.15.16 vide Chryso in 2 Cor. 10. gloss ordin Ad pag. 132. z Act. 15. 21. a Clem. Epist. 1. b Râ—â—â—gn lib. 1. § 5. His fourth obiection that Iames could not be B. of Ierusalem B. Iewel doth not deny Iames to haue been B. of Ierusalem d Tom. 1. Concil per Cragg Merlinum Iouerium § 6. Whether D. Whitak doth proue by 8. arguments that Iames neither was nor could be B. of Ierusalem not the 6. latter e de Pont. q. 3. s. 9. c. 3. R f Erasm. argum in Epist. Iacobi Iacobus quum erat Hierosolymitarum Episcopus scribit caeteris Iudaeis c. g lib. 3. c. 3. § 7. That the 2. first reasons doe not conclude that Iames was not B. of Ierusalem h Mar. 16.15 i Lib. 3. c. 23. k Cap. 4. §. 20. § 8. By this instance of Iames BB. proued to be superiour to other Ministers in degree Ad pag. 133. l He museth as he vseth m Degrad minist c. 3. pag. 23. n Euseb. l. 2. c. 1. o Euseb. l. 3. c. 11. l. 4 c. 22. ex Hegesippo Ad pag. 134. p Hier. Catal. in Iacobo in Epist. ad Gal. c. 1. Euseb. l. 2. c. 23. ex Hegesippo q Orig. contr Celsum l. 1. Euseb. l. 2. c. 23. Hier. catal in Iacobo r Act. 1.20 s Catal. script in Iacobo § 9. By this instance of Iames BB. proued to haue had their singular preheminence for terme of life t Act. 15. 21. Gal. 1. 2. Hieron Catal. Euseb. hist. Chron. u In Act. 21.18 § 10. When the Apostles ordayned BB. in other Churches vv Act. 14.23 c. x In Tit. 1. y 2 Thess. 3.14 1 Cor. 5. a Apoc. 1.2.3 b Heb. 13.17 c Can. 39. d Ad Trall § 11. The Refuter answereth by snatches Ad pag. 135. e Cap. 12. pag. 224. § 12. Whether Bishops are called the Apostles of the Churches g Caluin in Phil. 2.25 h Ambr. in Phil. 2. i Ambr in Eph. 4.11 1. Cor. 12.28 k Hier. in Phil. 2. l Theodor. in Phil. 2. m Theod. in 1 Tim. 3. n Th. Aquin. in Phil. 2. o In Phil. 2. p Chrysost. in Phil. 2. q In Phil. 2. § 13. The exposition that they vver called Apostles because they vvere the messengers of the churches refuted vvith the reasons thereof r In Phil. 2.25 § 14. The second reason answered Ad pag. 136. s Rom. 11.13 t Gal. 2.7.8 u Mat. 18.10 (vv) Ro. 16.7 x Act. 14.14 y Iohn 13.16 § 15. Ob. Though Epaphroditus were B. yet no Diocesan a Act. 16.12 Sedul in Phil. 1. Philippi Metropolis Macedoniae b in 2. Phil. 2.25 § 16. When how long BB. were called the Apostles of the Churches c Eph. 4.11 1 Cor. 12.28 d l. 3. Epist. 9. e Theodor. in 1 Tim. 3. Ad pag. 137. § 2. T. C. answere refuted h Pag. 404. i Lib. 2. part 1. pag. 312. k. Tit. 2.1.15 §. 3. The refuters answere to the Proposition confuted l Vide supr l. 2. c. 3. m In Encomio Athanas. n Hom. 10. in 1 Tim. o In 1 Tim. 5. p Respons ad August ad 〈◊〉 § 4. His answere to the assumption Ad pag. 138. r Lib. 3. § 5. Schismaticall nouelties broached by the refuter § 6. His nouelties breifly refuted t de grad Ministr c. 23. pag. 155 § 7. Another argument prouing that these Epistles are patternes or precedents for Bishops His answere to the assumption a 1 Tim. 6.13.14 b in 1 Tim. 6.14 c 1 Tim. 3.15 d T.C. l. 1.177 l. 2. part 2. p. 55. e Ambr. in 1. Tim. 6.14 The proofe of the assumption His answere to the proofe of the assumption § 8. The proposition defended And that the successors of Timothie and Titus were BB. BB. of Ephesus the successors of Timothie a Euseb. l. 5. c. 25 Ad Pag. 140. b Conc. Chalc. Act. 11. c lib. 5. cap. 24. d cap. 25. The BB. of Gortyna the successours of Titus e Euseb. li. 4. c. 21. 23. 29 § 9. Obiection 1. that Timothie and Titus did not continue in Ephesus and Creet h 1 Tim. 1.3 i Tit. 1.5 Ad. pag. 141. Ad pag. 142. Euseb. l. 2. c. 20. § 10. That Timothie and Titus liued and died the one at Ephesus the other in Creet Sedul in 2 Tim. 4.9 Ad pag. 143. § 1â— Obiect 2. That Timothie and Titus were Euangelists and therefore not Bishops What the Euangelisticall function was Wee may not think that the 70. after the death of Christ vanished away but that they were the principall Christians next to the Apostles And therfore as they were Euangelists so sometimes are called Apostles Calu. inst l. 4. c. 4. § 4. fortassis etiaÌ„ 70. discipuli quos secundo loco ab Apostolis Christus designabit fuerunt Euangelistae IdeÌ„ in 1 Cor. 15.7 per omnes Apostolos intelligit â—on solos 12. sed 70. discipulos etiam Sic Chrysost. et Theodorâ—t c. Zanch. in Eph. 4 § 12. That their being Euangelists did not hinder but that they might be BB. a Chrysost. Theophyl Oecum in Eph. 4. b â— Tim. 4.5 c 1 Tim. 4.14 2 Tim. 1.6 d Act. 8.14.17 e Hieronym Sedul in 2 Tim. 4. f In Ecclesiaste Ad pag. 144. Ecclesiaste § 13. Other arguments to proue that Timothie and Titus were Bishops § 14. Ad pag. 145. That their function was ordinary and their authority perpetually necessary § 15. Whether it be perpetually necessary that the Ecclesiasticall authority shold be in one Cant. 6.3.9 § 16. What forme of Church-gouenrment to be preferred before others In synops in Gaiâ— Actio 11 § 17. Testimonies of antiquity that Timothie and Titus were BB. Ad pag. 146. First the subscription to 2 Tim. to Tit. a Synops. sacr script b In Tit. 1. § â—8 The testimonies of the Fathers c Euseb. l. 3. c. 4. d Dionys. de diuin nom e In synops f Prefat in 1 Tim. 1. g In 1 Tim. 1. h In 1 Tim. 3. i Prefat in Epist. ad Tit. k Hier. in 1 Tim. 1.14 l
whom a paternall and pastorall authoritie is committed may worthily be honoured with the title of Lords To this he replieth that we call not Shepheards nor Fathers Lords and therefore the paternall or pastorall authoritie of Bishops doth not make them capable of such Lordly titles J answer that Magistrates yea Princes both in Scriptures and prophane Writers are called Pastors as well as Bishops and for the same cause are Lords Neither doe I doubt but that the title of Father being giuen by way of honour to him that is not a naturall Father is a word of as great honour at the least as Lord and that is the signification of the name Papa which hauing beene giuen in the Primitiue Church to all Bishops as a title of eminent honour is for that cause by the Pope of Rome appropriated to himselfe The second there is too great oddes betweene the titles of Bishops and other Ministers the one being called Masters the other Lords I answered there is no such great difference betweene Master and Lord that inferiour Minister which assume to themselues the title of Master should denie the title of Lord to Bishops Hee replieth as conceiuing my speech simply that there was no great difference betweene Master and Lord. If you respect their vse in relation as they are referred to their correlatiues there is no difference if the vse without relation among vs there is great difference but yet not so great as that Ministers which assume the one to themselues should denie the other to Bishops there being as great difference betwixt their degrees as their titles Where he saith it is not assumed but giuen by custome to them as Masters of Arts both parts are false for both it is giuen to all Ministers as they are Ministers though not Masters of Arts though not graduates and also I especially meant certaine Ministers who not enduring the title of Lord to be giuen to Bishops will neither tell you their name by speech nor set it downe in writing without the preface of Mastership The third if Bishops bee called Lords then are they Lords of the Church I answered it followeth no more that they are therefore Lords of the Church because they are called Lords then the Ministers are Masters of the Church because they are called Masters for neither of these titles is giuen to them with relation but as simple titles of honour and reuerence No saith he let their stiles speake Lord of Hath and Welles Lord of Rochester c. What Lord of the Cities nothing lesse but Lords of the Diocese They are Lords of neither but Lord BB. both of the City and Diocese And the relation is not in the word Lord but in the word Bishop though it bee not expressed alwaies but many times is vnderstood The Refuter hauing thus weakly friuolously and fondlie shifted off my arguments and testimonies rather then lie shifted off my arguments and testimonies rather then answered them there being not one line in my Sermon hitherto which I haue not defended with euidence of truth against his cauillations notwithstanding concludeth with a most insolent bragge as if he had as his fauourites giue out laid me on my backe And therefore as some wrestlers after they haue giuen one the foile will iet with their hands vnder their side challenging all others euen so he hauing in his weake conceit giuen me a strong ouerthrow because he findeth me too weake to stand in his armes hee challengeth all commers saying Let him that thinketh he can say more supplie his default I do vnfainedly confesse there be a great number in this Land blessed be God who are able to say much more in this cause then I am notwithstanding a stronger propugner thereof shall not neede against this oppugner And because I am assured in my conscience of the truth and goodnesse of the cause I promise the Refuter if this which now I haue written will not conuince him as I hope it will whiles he will deale as a Disputer and not as a Libeller I will neuer giue him ouer God giuing me life and health vntill I haue vtterly put him to silence In the meane time let the Reader looke backe to that which hath beene said on both sides let him call to minde if he can what one proofe this Refuter hath brought for the paritie of Ministers what one sound answer he hath giuen to any one argument or testimonie to my one proposition or assumption which I haue produced and then let him consider whether this glorious insultation proceeded not from an euill conscience to a worse purpose which is to retaine the simple seduced people in their former tearmes of factiousnes THE FOVRTH BOOKE Maintayning the fift point that the Episcopall function is of Apostolicall and diuine Institution The I. CHAPTER Prouing the Episcopall function to be of Apostolicall institution because it was generally receiued in the first 300. yeeres after the Apostles Serm. pag. 54. It remaineth that I should demonstrate not onely the lawfulnesse of the BB. calling c. to page 55. li. 7. THE Refuter finding himselfe vnable to confute this discourse of the lawfulnesse of the BB. calling would faine perswade his Reader that it is needlesse moued and mouing thereto by as friuolous reasons as euer were heard of For though it be true that this point hath already beene proued by one argument is it therefore needlesse to confirme the same by a second Did euer any man meete with such a captious trifler as would not permit a man to proue the same truth by two arguments but the one must straight be reiected as needlesse but indeed his analysis was forced as he could not but discerne both by the distribution of the Sermon page 2. and also by the transition here vsed neither was this point handled before but the former assertion whereby the text was explicated that the Angels or Bishops of the primitiue Church were diocesan Bishops and such for the substance of their calling as ours be superiour to other ministers in degree c. This which now wee are to handle is the second assertion being a doctrine gathered out of the text so explicated I confesse the former doth proue the latter and that doth commend the methode of my Sermon and both being disposed together may make this Enthymeme The Pastors or gouernours of the primitiue Church here meant by the Angels were diocesan Bishops and such for the substance of their calling as ours be Therefore the calling of such diocesan Bishops as ours be is lawfull But I contented not my selfe with collecting the doctrine out of the text but as the manner of all preachers is when they haue collected a doctrine which is controuersall I thought it needfull to proue and to confirme the same with other arguments But other arguments saith he needed not if the three middle points were sufficiently cleared what will he assume but the three former points were sufficiently cleared
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