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
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
much as may be we may bring in the ancient discipline Where indeed we see mention of Seniors and of ancient discipline but that they meant nothing lesse then to bring in Lay-elders or to establish the pretended parish-discipline or to acknowledge that it was the ancient discipline of the Church I will out of the booke it selfe make manifest Wherein the whole gouernement and discipline of our Church by Archbishops Bishops Archdeacons rurall Deanes c. is established And cōcerning BB. this is there decreed that the B. is at fit seasons to giue holy orders to institute fit Ministers to Ecclesiasticall benefices to remoue vnfit to heare the testimonies of the Church and complaints of their Pastors to compound controuersies arising betwixt the Ministers and the Churches to correct by Ecclesiasticall censures vices and corrupt manners to prescribe orders for amendment of life to excommunicate those which wilfully and obstinatly resist to receiue into grace those which be penitent to visit the whole Diocesse as well in places exēpted as not euery third yeare And finally let BB. take care of all things which ex Dei prescrpto by the ordinance of God belong to them and which our Ecclesiasticall lawes haue committed to their knowledge and iudgements And that by Seniors they did not meane any Ecclesiasticall officers it is apparant for where they reckon vp all Ecclesiasticall officers prescribing their duties beginning at clearks or sextons so proceeding to Church-wardens to Deacons to Presbyters or Ministers to archpresbyters or rural deanes to archdeacōs so to Cathedral Churches to Deanes to Prebendaries to BB. prescribing the obedience which must be yeelded to them they doe not once mention Seniors or their office If therfore it be asked whō they vnderstand by Seniors in the place alleadged I answer that they vnderstand some of the principall housholders in euery parish whom in some places they call Vestry-men in some maisters of the parish in some ancients of the parish With what conscience therefore that booke was alleadged as approuing Lay-elders or acknowledging the new-found parish-discipline for the ancient discipline let the reader iudge The second he setteth downe in these words A doctrine I say cleane contrarie to the professed iudgement of all our worthy writers who in their answeres to the Papists that plead for their Hierarchie with the same reasons that M. D. doth for his doe determine that the gouernement our BB. exercise ouer other ministers is Iure humano by the positiue law of men onely the which if M. D. saith true is false so the Papists are left vnanswered Whereunto I answere first that the popish opinion is farre different from that which I hold For they hold the order and superioritie of BB. to be Iure diuino implying thereby a perpetuall necessitie thereof Insomuch that where BB are not to ordaine they thinke there can be no ministers or priests consequently no Church I hold otherewise as the refuter himselfe else-where acknowledgeth in whose words I will relate my opinion as he hath set it downe that I make the calling of BB. no further of diuine institution then as being ordained by the Apostles it proceeded from God without implying thereby any necessarie perpetuitie thereof For which he quoteth pag. 92. of my Sermon If therefore the Papists doe bring the like arguments to proue their opinion which is so vnlike to mine nothing hindereth but my arguments may be good though theirs be nought For those arguments which demonstratiuely proue the Episcopall function to be of Apostolicall institution doe not straightwaies proue it to be Diuini iuris Wherefore my opinion being so different from the popish conceit who seeth not that the iudgemēt of our Diuines which is opposed to the doctrine of the Papists is not opposite to mine for though they doe not holde the Episcopall function to be inioyned diuino iure as perpetually necessarie yet what man of sound learning doth or can deny but that the first BB. were ordained by the Apostles The third he deliuereth in these tearmes Yea a doctrine contrariant to the lawes of our land which make it one part of the Kings iurisdiction to grant to our BB. that Ecclesiasticall power they now exercise ouer vs and also to take it from them at his pleasure the which his Highnes taketh to himselfe and giueth to all Kings where he professeth that God hath left it to the libertie and freewill of Princes to alter the Church gouernement at their pleasure The iurisdiction which BB exercise is either spirituall respecting the soule as to binde or loose the soules of men or corporall respecting the outward man as to binde and loose the bodies The former is deriued to them from the Apostles the latter is committed vnto them by the King to whose crowne all commanding and compulsiue power is annexed Againe wee are to distinguish betweene the power it selfe and the exercise of it For although the power it selfe which is an habituall or potentiall right to exercise that which belongeth to the said power be deriued to them from the Apostles as a diuine ordinance notwithstanding where is a Christian Prince assisting and directing them by his lawes they may not actually exercise their power but according to his lawes Ecclesiasticall I call them his because by whomsoeuer at the first they were decreed yet so many as are in force with vs they are the Kings Ecclesiasticall lawe As for the authoritie whereof the reuerend Iudge speaketh in the place quoted in the margent it is the authoritie of the high Commission which the BB exercise not as they are BB for others who be not BB haue the same but as they are the Kings Commissioners in causes Ecclesiasticall As touching the other allegation it seemeth the refuter whiles he talketh of libertie to alter at their pleasure thinks it left to his libertie to alter the Kings words at his pleasure The King indeed doth say that it is granted to euery Christian King Prince and Common-wealth to prescribe to their subiects that outward forme of Ecclesiastical regiment which may seeme best to agree with the forme of their ciuill gouernement but so as they swarue not at all frō the grounds of faith and true religion But that it may appeare how little the iudgement of our most Orthodoxall and iudicious King doth differ from that which I deliuered in my Sermon I will craue leaue to recite his words That BB. ought to be in the Church I euer maintained as an Apostolike institution and so the ordinance of God contrarie to the Puritanes and likewise to Bellarmine who denieth that BB. haue their iurisdiction from God Now then to come to the point this argument maketh wholy against the pretended discipline and not against the gouernement of Bishops as I maintaine it The gouernement of Bishops is by our lawes allowed so is not the pretended discipline And though I holde the gouernement
giue the sole authoritie Ecclesiasticall to the Bishop Indeed if we were so madde as to thinke that there were no Ecclesiasticall gouernement but parishionall there were something in his speech But when besides and aboue the gouernement not onely parishionall but also Diocesan we acknowledge a superiour authoritie in the Archbishop and his courts in the prouinciall synodes especially that authoritie of making Church-lawes whereby both Dioceses and parishes are to be ruled it is apparent that although I did take all authoritie from parish-bishops and their Elders yet it would not follow that I giue the whole authoritie Ecclesiasticall to the Diocesan alone But that which hee saith of my ascribing the supreme authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall to the Diocesan Bishops that is the supreme and the loudest lye and maketh the assumption of his chiefe Syllogisme most euidently false Doe I or any of vs say that the Diocesan Bishop hath the supreme authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall doth not our Church subiect the Bishop to the Archbishop and prouinciall Synodes doth not appeale lye from the sentence of the Bishop to the Archbishop and likewise from him to the Kings Delegates doth not himselfe acknowledge pag. 69. the Bishops so to be subiected to the two Archbishops as that if we may iudge by the outward appearance and practise we may in his opinion seeme to haue but two Churches and those prouinciall the one of Canterbury and the other of Yorke doe wee not all with one consent acknowledge the Kings Maiestie to haue the supreme authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall and whereas the greatest authoritie of Churchmen is exercised in Synodes and the greatest authoritie of Synodes is the making of Church-lawes yet the ratification of them we submit to the King according to the Practise of the ancient Churches liuing vnder Orthodoxall Kings in so much that they and all our Church-lawes are called the Kings Ecclesiasticall lawe Now then if neither I take all authoritie from the pastors nor giue all to the Bishops nor ascribe vnto them◠sole nor supreme authoritie what haue the libellers gained by all their triumphing outcryes but the manifestation of their owne manifold vntruthes Yea but the title of absolute Popelings agreeth better to our Diocesan BB. then to their parish BB. Neither did I say that they are such but that if they did not ioyne vnto them a consistory of Elders they would seeme to set vp not onely a Popeling but an absolute Popeling in euery parish a petite pope indeed their pastor is in regard of that supremacy they ascribe vnto him making him the supreme Ecclesiasticall officer in euery Church which wee deny to our Bishops and were it not that hee hath a consistory ioyned to him as the Pope hath of Cardinals hee would bee more then a pope And againe whereas our Bishops are to be guided by lawes which by their superiors are imposed vpon them their pastors with their Elders and people hauing as the Pope saith he hath a supreme immediate and independent authoritie sufficient for the gouernement of their Churches in all causes Ecclesiastical and therefore for making of Ecclesiasticall lawes they are to be gouerned by their owne lawes For the chiefe thing in Ecclesiasticall gouernement is the authoritie to prescribe lawes Ecclesiasticall If therefore each parish hath as they say it hath sufficient authoritie within it selfe for the gouernement of it selfe in all causes Ecclesiasticall immediately deriued from Christ then questionlesse they haue authoritie to prescribe lawes Ecclesiasticall And as the Pope doth not acknowledge the superioritie of a synode to impose lawes vpon him no more doe they They will giue synodes leaue to deliberate of that which may be best and to perswade thereto but they will not be ruled by them As for the Kings supremacie in causes Ecclesiastical how it may stand with their maine assertion wherein they ascribe to euery parish an independent authoritie immediately deriued from Christ sufficient for the gouernement of it selfe in all causes Ecclesiasticall I will not dispute Serm. Sect. 3. pag. 5. Concerning the secōd viz. what was the preheminence of these BB. in the Churches in respect whereof they are called the Angels of the Churches others more wise and learned then the former granting they were BB. of whole cities the countries adioyning that is to say of Dioceses notwithstanding the sway of the gouernement they ascribe to the Presbyteries of those Churches consisting partly of Ministers and partly of annual or Lay-presbyters making these Angels or Bishops nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or presidents of those Presbyteries and such presidents as were not superior to other Ministers in degree c. to pag. 6. in their turnes Of the two points seruing to shew by way of explication of the text what manner of Bishops were meant by the Angels the latter I propounded in this section to be examined A reason whereof I alledge a controuersie betwixt vs and another sort of disciplinarians who are as I said more wise and learned then the former who though they grant that which the former denied yet doe greatly differ from vs concerning the preheminence which the Angels or ancient Bishops had in the Churches So that in this section are 2. things first the proposition of the second point concerning the preheminence of BB. in respect whereof they were called the Angels of the Churches secondly a reason thereof To the proposition he answereth that they had this name Angels in regard of their generall calling of the ministerie not because of any soueraignetie or supremacie ouer other their fellow Ministers as he saith I imply here and plainely but vntruely affirme afterwards In which fewe words are 2. vntruthes Whereof the former is an errour that they are to tearmed in respect of their generall calling of the ministery For though to be called Angels generally agreeth to all Ministers yet for one and but one among many Ministers in one and the same Church to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called the Angell of that Church is not a common title belonging to all Ministers in regard of their generall calling but a peculiar stile belonging to one who had singular preheminence aboue the rest that is to say a Bishop So saith D. Raynolds in the Church of Ephesus though it had sundry Elders and pastors to guide it yet among those sundry was there one chiefe whō our Sauiour calleth the Angell of the Church and writeth that to him which by him the rest should know And this is he whom afterward in the primitiue Church the fathers called Bishop As touching the latter where he saith that I doe here imply that the Bishops haue a soueraignety or supremacy ouer other Ministers and afterwards doe affirme it plainely that plainely is a plaine lie Soueraignetie and supremacy ouer other Ministers none but Papists giue to their Bishop and they to none but to the Bishop of Rome Superioritie indeed belongeth to
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
minister should be iudged in causes Ecclesiasticall by the consistory of the Emperour because it consisted of Lay-men and would hee allow a B. or minister should be iudged yea deposed and depriued by a parishionall consistory or whole parish consisting of Lay-men doth he commend the good Emperour that said he was vnable to iudge among Bishops and would hee allow of priuate men vnlearned and vnacquainted with gouernement as competent Iudges in causes Ecclesiasticall And thus much of my denyall of their exposition of Ambrose made good by sufficient proofe CHAP. VIII The proofe of their Exposition of Ambrose disproued and the reasâ—os which I alleadged why the Counsell of the Seniors was neglected defended Serm. Sect. 7. Pag. 14. But let vs examine the force of their Argument Ambrose saith there were Elders in the Church as well as in the Synagogue Therefore say they there were Elders It followeth not c to learned Presbyters in the middle of pag. 16. THeir Argument is heere such as in this question of Lay-Elders perpetuallie they vse in all their proofes of Scriptures and Fathers that is from the genus to the species yea to a fancied or fained species affirmatiuely As if they should say hee is a Magistrate therefore a Constable an ancient Cittizen therefore an Alderman or rather thus It is a man therefore the man in the moone I see a shippe therefore it is Argo Like the wise man of Athens who standing in Pyraeo on the key there saide euery shippe he saw was his Sauing that he was somewhat wiser because he had a shippe at the Sea These mens shippe doth swimme in their owne braines So strong is their fancie as wee shall heare that when either Christ saith Tell the Church that is as themselues expound it the rulers of the Church they strongly conclude therefore tell Lay-Elders or Luke that Paul and Barnabas ordayned Presbyters ergo Lay-Elders or Iames is any sicke let him send for the Presbyters ergo for Lay-Elders or Paul hee that ruleth Marke how he speaketh of a ruler therefore of a Lay-Elder God hath appointed gouernements therefore of Lay-Elders or Ignatius be subiect to the Presbyters as to the Apostles of Christ ergò to Lay-Elders or Tertullianus Certaine approued Seniors be presidents c ergo Lay Elders or Ierome wee haue a Senate of Presbyters Ergo of Lay-Elders And that no man should liue in feare of the great stroakes which this great champion hath threatned let him vnderstand that these be all the strokes that he will strike when his turne of striking commeth To this argument and all the rest I answere by denying the consequence which is so badde as the refuter is loath to Father it and yet neither in this nor in any other of their testimonies they haue or can make no better Well saith he Whatsoeuer the argument is the answere is well worse meaning as it seemeth the reason of the answere which was this for euen the Synagogue had Seniors of the Priests as well as of the people My reason may thus be explained If not onely the Church had Seniors that were ministers whose aduise was neglected in Ambrose his time but euen also the Sinagogue meaning Israell or the state of the Iewes had Seniors of the Priests then it followeth not that the Seniors of whom Ambrose speaketh were Lay-Elders But the antecedent is true in both the parts of it Therefore the consequent The consequent of the proposition is necessarie for an argument from the genus to the species doth not hold affirmatiuely Genus saith Fabius ad probandum speciem minimuÌ„ valet plurimum ad refellendum the generall is of no force to proue the speciall affirmatiuely though it bee of great force to disproue it if you argue from it negatiuely As for example it followeth noâ— because it is a tree that therefore it is a plane tree It is not necessary saith the Philosopher that what is affirmed of the genus should also be affirmed of the species As touching the assumption the former part viz that the Church had seniors which were ministers I tooke for granted because either all those places of Scriptures and Fathers as I say or at least some as my aduersarie will confesse where Presbyters be named Ministers are vnderstood The second part I proue out of Ierem 19.1 where the Prophet is commanded to take with him some not onely of the Seniors of the people but also of the Seniors of the Priests that is men of authoritie as well of the Ecclesiasticall state as of ciuill Which words though the refuter vnderstand as I doe as prouing not that the Iewes had an Eccclesiasticall Senate consisting partly of the Priests and partly of the Elders of the people for of such a presbyterie though there be much talke yet there is no proofe but that in the Iewish state there were as well Seniors of the priests as Seniors of the people notwithstanding the seely Philosopher would faine make the Reader belieue that I confesse which most confidently I doe denie that in the Church of the Iewes there was an Ecclesiasticall Eldership consisting both of the priests and Seniors of the people and therevpon would inferre that this testimonie maketh mee Because forsooth Ambrose acknowledgeth that there was such an Eldership in the Church as had beene among the Iewes But among the Iewes there was as hee saith I confesse an Ecclesiasticall Senate consisting of the Priests and Elders of the people therefore Ambrose acknowledgeth such a Presbyterie to haue bene in the Church consisting of Ministers and Lay-Elders First for Ambrose hee doth not speake of Eldership either among Iewes or Christians but sheweth that because both the Iewes and Christians had Seniors this is an Argument that age is honorable seeing that ancient men were of authoritie both among the Iewes who had Seniors as well in the Ecclesiasticall as ciuil state and also among Christians Now to inferre from hence that either the Iewes or Christians had an Ecclesiasticall senate consisting in part of Lay-Elders is a vaine collection For if by Synagogue is meant the state of the Iewes they might haue as indeed they had a Senate consisting of Priests and Leuites and chiefe of the people but that was not an Ecclesiasticall Senate as hereafter shall be shewed but their chiefe Counsell of state â—f by Synagogue you vnderstaÌ„d only the ecclesiasticall state of the Iews in that ther were no other seniors but of the Clergie of Israel And as for my confession I protest that I meant nothing lesse then that the Church of the Iewes had an Ecclesiasticall Senate consisting of the Seniors of the Priests and Elders of the people For I know it to be an idle conceit hauing no other warrant but the probabile est of a new writer a chiefe party in this cause But hereof more in my answer to his allegation out of Matth 18. Besides can any man that
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
place which God did choose in other cities whereof the one was ciuill the other ecclesiasticall consisting of the priests Leuits scribes or teachers also the seniors of the people But the reader shal easily vnderstand this latter to be a meere fiction if he consider that the Synedrion at Ierusalem which was the highest court chief councel of state hauing power of life death authority to deale in causes both ciuill ecclesiasticall coÌ„sisted of the high priest other priests and Leuites together with the Princes Seniors of the people being besides the High-priest 70. or 71. in number Of which that in Deut 17.8.9 is to bee vnderstood These were called Sanedrin and did sit in Gazith In which number those which were priests were called Seniores SacerdotuÌ„ and those which were Princes were called Seniores populi as Sigondus saith And likewise that the Sanedrioth or consistories in other cities consisted as well of the learned Leuits as of the seniors of the people Iosephus saith that to euery coÌ„sistory in the cities belonged 2. Leuites The reason heereof was because the lawes wherby that church coÌ„mon-wealth were gouerned were the lawes of God wherein the Priests Leuites Scribes were most skilfull and therefore best able to determine what was right according to the law And therfore another sort which should consist of Priests Leuits and elders of the people which should respoÌ„dere de iure as Beza imagineth this shuld was altogether needles But his proofs are as weake as his imagination was strong His only proofe for the 1. institution of the Ecclesiasticall senat is Leuit 10.10 where they were ordained saith he to shew the difference betweene holy profane betweene cleane vncleane to teach the law of God But no such thing can with any shew of probabilitie be gathered out of the text where the Lord speaking to Aaron coÌ„mandeth him his sonnes the priests by a perpetual law that they should not drink wine nor strong drink wheÌ„ they were to enter into the sanctuary whereby they might be hindered from exercising their function discreetly soberlie either in iudging betweene holie profane between cleane and vncleane or in teaching the people which duties were to be performed in the sanctuary by the priests as well seuerally as ioyntly no ecclesiasticall senate at all here instituted or if there were it should according to Bertrams conceit consist wholy of the Priests to whom alone this speech is directed As for Elders of the people they were not to intermeddle with these things The high Priest indeed if it pleased him might consult with other Priests and vse their assistance as Azariah did vse the aide of 80. 2. Chron. 26. But that there was a setled Presbyterie or senate Ecclesiasticall ordained by God we doe not read and that it should consist in part of Lay-men there is not the least semblance of likelihood His proofes that there were two diuerse Synedria instituted are these First because the number of the one is defined to be 70 the other left vncertaine Secondly because the second was not ordained at the same time with the former I answere there is neither number set downe nor time of that which neuer was His proofe for the instauration of two distinct Synedria is out of 2. Chron. 19. where he saith Iosaphat ordained two Synedria or counsells the one Ecclesiasticall for the causes of God ouer which the high Priest was chiefe the other ciuill for the causes of the King ouer which Zabadiah a Prince of Iuda was chiefe But it is euident by the text that it was one and the same high counsell of state which afterwards was called Sanedrin or Synedrion Hierosolymitaâ—uÌ„ coÌ„sisting of the Leuites and Priests and of the heads of the chiefe families in Israel ordained for the iudgements of God and controuersies of men which was to heare and determine all manner of causes that were brought vnto them from the iudgements or consistories of the inferior cities were to iudge betweene blood and blood that is slaughter and slaughter betweene the law and the precept betweene statutes and iudgements hauing among them in the causes of God Amarias the high Priest and in the causes of the King Zebadiah a Prince of Iuda as chiefe and that the Maisters or gouernours the Leuits were with them to instruct them in the law For whereas he would proue that Iosaphat ordained two distinct counsels at Ierusalem by these reasons because the dutie of the one was to deale in the causes of God the other of the King the one should determine de iure the other de facto the one had for the president the high Priest the other a Prince of Iuda none of these reasons doe proue that Iosaphat ordained any thing but that which before had beene appointed by God namely that the difficult controuersies which the iudges in the cities could not determine betweene blood and blood plea and plea plague and plague should be brought to the Synedâ—ion or counsell of the place which God shoulâ— choose the which is there noted to consist of the Priests Leuites and â—udge that is iudges saith Caluin as appeareth by the holy historie where it is declared that Iosaphat besides the Pâ—iâ—sts and Leuites chose the Princes of the families of Israel for the godly King would decline nâ—uer a whit from the rule of Gods law To this counsell the difficult causes afore said as weâ—l ciuill as Ecclesiasticall as well de facto as de iure were to be brought from other ciuill courts as appeareth both in Deut. 17.8 and also 2 Chron. 19.20 Besides it is ridiculous to imagine that the ciuill senate should determine onely de facto and that questions de iure should be brought to the Ecclesiasticall the rather because that counsell which was appointed by God Deut. 17. and renewed by Iosaphat did consist of the Priests and Leuits and Elders of the people and was to determine and to decide all questions of doubt and difficultie or if they were to seeke to an Ecclesiasticall senate it is absurd to imagine that Lay-Elders should be ioyned to the Priests and Leuits to answere de iure As for the causes of God which verse 8 are termed the iudgement and cause of the Lord and are particularized verse 10. and Deut. 17.8 betweene blood and blood betweene law and precept c. we are to vnderstand them to be not onely Ecclesiasticall but also ciuill so farre as either they were to be decided bâ— the lawes of God or concerned the obseruation or transgression of Gods law whereby that land was gouâ—rned in iudging whereof they also exercised Gods iudgement The causes of the King were such as belonged to the Kings house or his eschequer And it is fond to imagine that those causes which were to be decided by the iudicial and morâ—ll lawes of God were not the causes
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
will you also heare what T. C. gathereth out of these words of Ierome Godly 〈◊〉 mâ—slikâ—d this order of giuing the name Bishoppe to one in a Church and by all likelihood broke it which Ieromes words do apparently import This custome was in the Church of Alexandria from Saint Marke vntill Heraclas and Dionysius for vnlesse there were some change then why should hee not rather haue said From Saint Marke to his time First to his assertion I say it is vntrue that godly men misliked the giuing of the name Bishoppe to one in Church neither was there any reason why they should mislike it For first as the name of Angels being common to all Ministers is by the holy Ghost appropriated to Bishops in such sort as though euery Minister be an Angell yet onely one is the Angell of the Church so by the same reason Episcopi being in the scriptures a title common to al Ministers is so appropriated to one in euery Church that whereas all Ministers are Bishops in a generall sense one onely is the Bishop of that Church neither was it arrogancy but modesty rather in Bishops who assumed this name For whereas in the Scriptures they are called sometimes the Angels of the Churches sometimes the Apostles of the Churches sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rulers sometime 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes episcopi they contented themselues with the title of least honour and left the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 importing the honour of the Ministery in generall to other Ministers Neither is there any more reason as D Raynolds also saith why the appropriating of the name Bishop to the Angels of the Churches should be misliked then of giuing the name Minister to Presbyters which is common to Bishops Presbyters and Deacons Besides it is most certaine that in the writings of Ignatius and others who liued in or neere the Apostles times the name episcopus was appropriated to the Angel of ech Church Ierome plainly testifieth that from S. Markâ— time who was the first Bishop whom three other succeeded in the Apostles times one who was set in a superior degree was called Bishop But that the custome of giuing this name to one in the Church which from S. Marks time had continued should begin to be misliked in the time of Heraclus and Dionysius is against reason vnlesse it may be thought that the estimation of Bishops then decreased which ill agreeth with H I. conceit What antient Writer mentioning Dionysius doth not cal him Bishop of Alexandria Eusebius so termeth him Athanasius who was one of his successors doth not only cal him Bishop ofteÌ„times but also acknowledgeth him to haue bin a Metropolitan B. or rather Patriarch For when as the Bishops of Pentapolis began to fauor the heresie of Sabâ—llicus Dionysius to whose charge those Churches did appertaine sought to reform them You haue heard T. C. assertion His reason is this some change there was therefore in the name Bishop How weake a reason this is I shal not need to note seeing I haue shewed wherein the change was there being lesse likelihood of alceration in this kind then in any other For could any man at that time mislike that the Bishop of Alexandria should be called a Bishop seeing at that time he was without the mislike of any a Metropolitan Bishop yea a Patriarch But to returne to H. I. who saith his Diocesan L. Bishop ruling alone who was not established in Ambrose Ierome and Augustines time tooke place soone after And how is this proued He saith hee doubts not of it though he be not able to shew neither where nor when nor by whom nor how the Bishops authority was increased after Augustines times What if in Augustines time the authority and preheminence of Bishops was abated and restrained namely in the fourth Councell of Carthage more then euer before For whereas the antient Canons referre the power both of ordination and iurisdiction to the Bishop without mentioning the assistance of the Presbytery And whereas Bishoppes before such as were peaceable and well disposed did voluntarily vse the aduice and assistance of their clergy by that Councell the assistance of the clergy both in ordination and iurisdiction in the Churches of Africk became necessary Neither doe I know any reason why the authority of diocesan Bishops after Augustines time should bee thought to haue increased For as by the lawfull authority of Christian Kings Princes to whom they were subordinate in regard of the coÌ„mon good of the kingdom whereof they were meÌ„bers so much more by yâ— vsurped supremacy of the B. of Rome after the yeer 607. yâ— authority of bishops was lessened impaired We are to come to his fift step which is of patriarchal BB. but he hath cleane marred the staires that the refuter and his consorts vse to talke of whereby the Bishoppes of Rome from being as they say a parish Bishop did arise to the papacy partly by denying such BB. as he esteemeth ours to be to haue been till after Augustines time and partly by out-skipping the Metropolitanes For it cannot be denied but that there were diocesan Bishoppes such as ours be before there were Metropolitanes or Primates actually and there were Metropolitanes before there were Patriarches Now it would be knowne when Patriarches begun In the Councel of Nice held about the yeere three hundred twentie foure it is acknowledged to haue been an antient custome which there was ratified that the Bishop of Alexandria should haue authority of Egypt Libya and Pentapolis and the like custome for the Bishop of Rome in the West and of Antioch in the East is mentioned and the antient priuiledges to each Church espcially to each Metropolis reserued To say nothing of Rome whereof the Papists say too much it is plaine by that testimony of the Nicene Councell of Epiphanius before alleaged of Athanasius euen now cited that the Bishops of Alexandria had of old long before their time patriarchall authority For that of Antioch the testimony of Ignatius added to the authority of the Nicene Councell is sufficient calling himselfe the Bishop of Syria whereby we cannot conceiue him to haue been lesse then an Archbishop Now if I should aske H.I. or this Refuter when Metropolitanes first began they would not be able truly to assigne their originall after the Apostles times And therefore cunningly were they omitted by H. I. though I cannot accuse him of any great skill in making a doubt whether Caesarea in the Councell of Nice be reckoned as one of the foure seats of the Patriarches For expresse mention is made of Aeliâ— which was the new name giuen by Adrian to Ierusalem to which according to antient custom the next place of honor after Antioch was granted the proper dignity notwithstanding to the Metropolis which indeed was Caesarea being reserued But if Metropolitanes had not their beginning after the Apostles times as no man is able to
must not be taken for those that serued at the mysteries but for such as were trusted with the dispensation of the common necessities of those that were assembled togither And verily to me it seemeth more then probable that these 7. were not such as S. Paul speaketh of 1. Tim. 3. were in vse in the primitiue church being a degree inferior to Presbyters for these 7 or the most of them were as Eâ—â—phaenius others do testifie chosen out of the 70. Disciples were no doubt principall men among them full of the holy Ghost wisdom being before this ministers of Gods word For as the Apostles the chiefe and principal ministers thought it to appertain to their duty to take care of the poore so wheÌ„ the Apostles were disburdned therof that care was committed to 7 others who were chief men among the disciples Neither may it be doubted but that as Steuen was a worthy preacher so the rest wheÌ„ their teÌ„porary function at IerusaleÌ„ was ended by the dispersion of the faithful vpoÌ„ the death of Steuen gaue theÌ„selues to the preaching of the word as appeareth in Philip who was one of the 7. And wheras the Refuter saith that D. Bilson coÌ„fesseth the Deacons to haue bin only imploied in looking to the poor the coÌ„trary is euideÌ„t for speaking eueÌ„ of those 7. he collecteth by S. Pauls precepts coÌ„cerning DeacoÌ„s that their office was not only a charge to looke to the poore but also to attend the sacred assemblies seruice of the Church euen a step to the ministery of the word meaning as I suppose to the Presbytery As for those who properly are called Deacons it is most euident by innumerable testimonies that they were the third degree of the ministery whose office was a sacred ministery helping the Bishop or the Presbyter in the diuine seruice offering the bread and the cup performing as it were the office of a cryer in the Church which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in dismissing those which were to depart in commanding silence and exciting the people to deuotion and attention In the Council of Nice fault is found with Deacons who in some Cities did giue the Eucharist to the Presbyters but they are commaunded to containe themselues within their bounds knowing that they be the Bishops ministers are inferior to the Presbyters and to receiue the Communion after the Presbyters at the hands either of the Bishop or the Presbyters Iustine Martyr speaking of the Eucharist saith after the president hath giuen thanks and the people hath blessed they who with vs are called Deacons do giue and communicate to euery one that is present of the bread wine and doe carie it to those which are absent And hauing repeated the same againe he speaketh of the collections for the poore shewing that what was collected was coÌ„mitted not to the Deacon but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the President by him to be distributed Tertullian saith The chiefe Priest which is the Bishop hath the right of giuing Baptisme then the Presbyters the Deacons but yet not without the authority of the Bishop Cyprian euery where speaketh of theÌ„ as being of the sacred ministerie The ancient Councill of Eliberis hath this canon If any Deacon ruling or hauing the charge of a people without either Bishop or Presbyter baptize any those the Bishop by his blessing must accomplish The council of Carthage speaking of BB. other inferior orders which do handle the sacred mysteries reckoneth Subdeacons Deacons Presbyters Ierome hath these words If at the prayer of the Bishop alone the holy Ghost descendeth they are to be lamented who in villages and townes other remote places being baptized by Presbyters and Deacons do sleep or depart this life before they be visited of the Bishop The safetie of the Church dependeth vpon the dignitie of the chiefe Priest meaning the Bishop To whom if a power peerelesse and eminent aboue all be not giuen there will be as many schismes in the Church as Priests Hence it is that without the Chrisme which the Presbyters Deacons were wont to receiue from their own Bishop and commandement of the Bishop neither Presbyter nor Deacon hath right to baptize In the 4. Councill of Carthage which is so oft alleaged by the Disciplinarians ther is direction giueÌ„ for the ordination of the Bishop Presbyter and Deacon other of the Clergie The Deacon is taught to acknowledge himself to be the minister aswell of the Presbyter as of the Bishop The Deacon is authorized euen in the preseÌ„ce of a Presbyter if ther be necessity he be coÌ„maÌ„ded to deliuer the Eucharist of Christs body to the people to wear an Albe only in time of oblation or reading To conclude Cyprian and other of the fathers when they terme the Deacons Leuits make them answerable to the Leuits as they do the Presbyters to the Priests do euideÌ„tly declare what they thought coÌ„cerning the office of Deacons That the Presbyters were not ministers of the word the refuter proueth thus They who might not preach nor baptize nor doe any pastorall duty without the Bishops licence were not ministers The Presbyters might not preach nor baptize nor do any pastorall dutie without the Bishops licence Therefore they were not Ministers The proposition is proued by 2. reasons First because it were a mockery of a ministerie to deny Ministers power to execute their office Secondly because euery popish Priest had potestatem ordinis that is power to do all things that belong to his order First to the proposition it selfe I say it is very false and that the contradictorie in all the parts of it is true viz that they who might yea ought to preach baptize administer the Lords supper and performe any other pastorall dutie being therto licensed of the Bishop were ministers From which we may assume and conclude thus But the ancient Presbyters might yea ought to preach baptize administer the Lords supper and performe any other pastorall duties being therto authorized by the Bishop Therefore they were ministers And that the proposition is false it may appeare by the practise of our owne Church and of all the antient Churches whose Presbyters are and were Ministers as I haue sufficiently prooued before for the conuiction I doubt not of the refuters conscience and yet neither may nor might preach baptize administer the Lords Supper and performe other ministeriall functions but by leaue or authority from the Bishop Neither yet is the ministery of our clergy now nor of the Presbyters in times past a mockery because it agreeth not with his fancy but his fancy is a meere nouelty disagreeing from the generall practise of the most antient Churches For howsoeuer afterwards he malepertly chargeth mee with not vnderstanding the distinction of ecclesiasticall power in potestatem ordinis et iurisdictionis into the power of
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
May not a man say as much of the Duke of Venice or of the King of Polonia yet are neither of these soueraignes no more had the B. for all these words any supreme and sole authority Do I any where say that the BB. haue or ought to haue supreme and sole authority which here againe he obiecteth to make the BB. according to my iudgement forsooth absolute Popelings will these odious slanders wilfully deuised to disgrace the truth which I taught neuer bee left and yet that is vntrue which he saith of the Duke of Venice and that is more then we desire that the B. in his diocese should be like the King of Polonia in his kingdome For though the Duke of Venice bee aboue any other in Venice yet hee hath not the whole power and authority aboue al neither doe we make the B. to haue supreme power in his diocese as the King of Poland hath in his realme though in respect of the election of him to his kingdome and of BB. to their sees there be somelikenes In the third place I alleage another testimony of Ignatius where hee exhorteth the Presbyters of Antioch where himselfe was Bishop to feed the flocke which was among them vsing the words which Peter doth 1. Epist. 5. Vntill God should declare who should bee their Gouernour meaning the Bishop Where the B. in plaine termes is called the gouernor of the Presbyters There can be no question but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a maiority of rule And yet he saith this testimony doth not proue any such maiority of rule and that for foure worthy reasons First because this is one of those places which the disciplinarians absurdly alledge for the proofe of onely-gouerning elders which neuer were the duty inioined them being pastorall Secondly because the Church whereof he was B. was but one congregation at that time And yet he expressely calleth himselfe the Bishop of Syria which plainely proueth that he was not onely a diocesan but a Metropolitan B. Yea but in his epistle to Ierome he calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I wil not vrge the error in the name Ierome for Heron perhaps it was not our Ieremies but his Barucks fault The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which hee absurdly translateth Synagogue and parish signifieth congregation and is the same with ecclesia or Church For Ignatius hauing signified to him that he should be his successour in the Bishopricke he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the congregation of the Lord shall not be as sheepe without a pastor But hereof I haue spoken heretofore Howbeit both this and the former answere here are meere euasions For suppose that which I haue proued to be most false that there were onely-gouerning elders in Antioch and that the Church had been but one parish can he be so absurde asto say that none of the Presbyters in Antioch were ministers If any were as indeed they were all as I haue abundantly proued before is not the B. here plainely noted to be their gouernour and if he were their gouernour was he not aboue them in the power of iurisdiction or gouernment Or what is this to the present question whether the Church of Antioch contained one congregation or more if it cannot be denied that the B. was superiour in the power of iurisdiction to the Presbyters of that Church how great or how little soeuer it was His third reason of all others is most impertinent For what is this to the purpose if it were true that the duty which Ignatius inioineth them of feeding that is of instructing and guiding the people was not perpetually belonging to their office but onely in the time of the vacancie till they had another gouernour seeing he noteth that himselfe had been and his successour should bee their gouernour But it is vntrue which he saith concerning the perpetuity of the duty For Ignatius his meaning was that as they were at all times to feed the people so especially in the absence or want of the Bishop the care and attendance of the flocke in the defect of a B. being deuolued to them Fourthly If M. D. doe vrge saith he that Ignatius was and so also his successor their gouernour which was indeed the onely thing for which the place was alleaged and to which point alone hee ought to haue directed his speech the answere is easie that he might be so and yet the Church but a parish and those Presbyters gouerning Elders An easie answere indeed as who should say though the allegation doe proue that for which you bring it yet it doth not disprooue some other of our absurdities for the disproofe whereof you do not bring it as that the Church was a parish and the Presbyters onely gouerning elders Was the disproofe of those points to be expected from this place and at this time do you not say it is one of the places which is ordinarily brought out of Ignatius for proofe of onely-gouerning Elders And must this be your shift to auoid my argument proouing out of this place the superiority of Bishops in the power of iurisdiction that for any thing can hence be alleaged the Presbyters might be onely gouerning Elders Js not the Refuter neere driuen thinke you when he would beare his Reader in hand that his lay Presbyters be sufficiently proued if the place which themselues bring for them doth not disproue them but especially when he is driuen to alleage this as a poore shift to auoid another thing in question Yea but if the Church were a parish and they onely gouerning Elders then was Ignatius but as a Parson of a parish and Parsons though they be called rectores ecclesiarum gouernours of the parish Churches are farre enough from the maiority of rule in question Whereto J answere that if he would need◠make Ignatius but the Parson of a parish assisted with a Presbytery of lay Elders hee should haue conceiued him to be such a one as themselues fancie and not as ours are For he should not haue been subordinate and subiect as ours are and as all Presbyters of parishes euer were to the Bishops but as they fancy indued with a power vnsubordinate and independent and therefore had a supremacy rather then superiority as being the supreme ecclesiasticall officer in all that Church But how I beseech you is it proued that Ignatius was but a parish Bishop Because forsooth the Church of Antioch might be a parish and the Presbyters thereof onely-gouerning Elders for any thing that I haue here said to the contrary which indeed I intended not in this place But now I discerne a worthy stratageme of this Refuter in chusing rather to answere the places out of Ignatius being brought for superiority of Bishops then himselfe to vrge them for the lay-elders hoping to perswade some kind of Readers both that their Elders are sufficiently proued if they be not disprooued out of the places
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
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
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
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
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
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.