A Defense of the Sermon Preached at the Consecration of the Bishop of Bath

CHAP. 1. Confuting the refuters preamble to the fourth point, and defending mine own entrance thereinto.

O F the five points which I propounded, three have already been handled: the first concerning Lay Elders, against both sorts of Disciplinarians, as well the elder, as the younger; though between their opinions there is this difference, that the elder require such a presbytery in each City or Diocese; the younger, in each Parish. In the second and third concerning Dioceses, and Diocesans, I had to deal only with our new sect of Disciplinarians, who urge the new-found parish-discipline. In the fourth and fifth which remain, I propounded to myself the confutation of the elder and more learned sort of disciplinarians, not greatly regarding, what our innouatours in these 2. points do hold, or deny; their proper opinions concerning the parish discipline, being in the three former points sufficiently confuted. The which I do the rather note, for 2. causes. The one, that the reader may understand the refuters evasions, in disauowing such assertions as I ascribe unto the disciplinarians, to be to no purpose; seeing they are held by men more learned and judicious, with whom principally I had to deal. The other that he may discern the poverty and weakness of their cause; the chief, and almost only strength thereof, being the allegation of diverse protestant writers, (whom I called the learneder sort of Disciplinarians) who are parties in the cause.

As touching the fourth point; the refuter, before he come to my words, maketh an idle flourish: the sum whereof is this; that

Here therefore he showeth two things; first, that by confuting the superiority of Bishops, he shall withal refute the supremacy of the Pope. 2. that otherwise, an answer to me in this fourth point were needless.

In the former, he seemeth ignorantly, and yet maliciously to presuppose, that the superiority of Bishops, and the supremacy of the Pope, hang as it were upon one pin; and that he which granteth the one, must needs hold the other. For the Basis or ground of his dispute, is this, such as is, and ought to be the government of the whole Church, such is, and ought to be the government of the parts or several Churches; and contrariwise. from hence he hath two inferences: the first thus:

But it would be known, what he meaneth by the particulars, or parts of the Church, whose government he would have aunswerable to the universal or whole Church. If he mean only parishional Churches (as he needs must): For, there is no other visible Church endued with power of Ecclesiastical government in his conceit but a Parish ; Parishes (no doubt) may be proud of the comparison: for then, as some of them have written in stately manner, as Rome had her Senate, Lacedaemon her Seigniorie, Athens her Areopage, Jerusalem her Synedrion, Venice (which our Refuter addeth) her council of State; and lastly, (which exceedeth all) as the universal Church hath her Ecumenical synod, so the Church of every Parish, in every street, and in every hamlet, must have an Ecclesiastical senate. But what parts soever he understand, whether Parishonal, National, or Diocesan Churches, the proposition is untrue: for of Provincial, or National Churches, the Metropolitans, and Bishops of dioceses, are, and ought to be the governors. But howsoever, in that respect the form of government may seem to be Monarchical; yet in respect of the manner of governing, the Metropolis using the advise of the National, or Provincial synodes, the Bishop of his Presbyterie, they may be Aristocratical. Who knoweth not that the common wealth of Rome sometimes was popular, and likewise that of Athens (for it is an error of the Refuter to reckon Athens with Venice, as an example of Aristocracy;) yet the several provinces were ruled by several governors, as Propraetors, and Proconsuls. The government of this whole Island (blessed be God, for uniting the two Kingdoms in the person of our Sovereign) is Monarchical: yet the government of several parts by Counsels, and Presidents thereof, may seem so far Aristocratical. The government of the whole Church in Heaven and earth is Monarchical under one head and Monarch, which is Christ our King. And for the government of the whole Church upon earth, he hath no Vicar general, but the holy Ghost, who appointeth governors under him, which may govern the several parts of the Church in some respect monarchically, though the whole Church, by the mutual consociation of her governors for the common good, and by the concurrence of them to an Occumenicall synod, is governed Aristocratically: for the whole Church being but one body, there ought to be a Christian consociation of the governors thereof for the common good of the whole body. If among the Princes of the whole world, there were the like consociation, the universal world should be governed in that respect Aristocratically, though the several parts for the most part Monarchically. So much of the proposition.

The assumption he proveth by the testimonies of our writers against the Papists, with whom himself, and his copartners do not agree. For, first, when they say that the regiment of the whole Church is Aristocratical; they mean in respect of the governors of the several Churches, who as being severed rule their Churches severally, there being no one visible Monarch over all; so being congregated in an Ecumenical Synod, do make one Ecclesiastical Senate. But our new Disciplinarians do hold, that every parish is an entire body by it self, having within it self, for the government of it self, sufficient authority vnsubordinate and independent: and therefore do not acknowledge any lawful authority in Synods to define, determine, or command, but only to deliberate, and advise, as H. I. in his book urging reformation, and other the Christian and modest challengers of disputation, together with the humble petitioners suing for a toleration, do teach.

Secondly, Our writers hold the government of the Church universal to be Aristocratical, because as our Savior Christ ascending into Heaven, left his twelve Apostles, as it were twelve Patriarchs, aunswerable to the Princes of the twelve tribes , furnished with equal authority and power, whose college was the supreme Senate of the universal church: so they committed the Churches to Bishops, as their successors, being equal in degree; who as they govern the Churches severally, so jointly (with other governors) are the highest Senate of the universal Church. But it was never practiced in the Church of God, that any presbyters or pastors of parishes should be called to general councils, to have right of suffrage and authority to judge and determine those matters which were debated in those councils; but both they and Deacons (I mean some of them) were to attend their Bishop, to assist him with their private counsel and advice: which one argument (by the way) doth notably set forth the superiority of Bishops over other ministers.

But as his assumption crosseth the conceits of our new Disciplinarians, so is his conclusion repugnant to their assertion, who ascribing the supreme authority in their several Churches to the whole congregation, stand for a popular state, rather then Aristocratical. Whereas indeed the government of Churches, as they are provincial, are according to the ancient Canons which are in use with us, governed by provincial synodes, and therefore by a regiment Aristocratical.

So that of this syllogism, the proposition is false, the assumption is gainsaid by themselves, and the conclusion, confuting their own assertion, agreeth with the practice of provincial churches with us.

§. 4. His other inference is this:

This consequence is unsound, there being not the like reason of the whole Church and of the parts. And that is the answer, which ou • men do make to the papists, when they urge this reason; as there was but one high priest, for the government of the Church under the Law, so there should be, but one chief Bishop for the government of the whole Church. They answer, there is not the like reason between the Church of one nation, and of the whole world. Cal. Inst. li. 4. ca. 6. s. 2. Gentis vnius & totius orbis longe diuersa est ratio, perinde est, ac siquis contendat totum mundum a praefecto vno debere regi, quia ager vnus non plures praefectos habeat. For of the universal Church, Christ only is the head; which supreme and universal government, if any man shall assume to himself, as the Pope of Rome doth; thereby he declareth himself to be Antichrist, or emulus Christi, sitting in the Church of God, as God, and lifting up himself above all that is called God. But as touching the several Churches, those who be the lieutenants of Christ, may be called the heads or governors thereof, as sovereign princes of all states and persons within their dominions, Metropolitans of provincial Churches, Bishops of their diocese, and Pastors of their several flocks.

Secondly, whereas particular men are enabled by God to govern several churches; no mortal man is able to wield the government of the whole Church: which is one of the main arguments, which our writers use against the monarchical government of the whole Church: which this refuter seeketh in vain to infringe. The Roman Emperors, when their Empire was at the largest, and they esteemed themselves Lord's of the world, enjoying indeed not one third part of the whole, yet finding themselves unable to wield so great a burden, were fain to assume colleagues unto them with whom they parted the Empire, when they might have retained the whole.

Thirdly, the monarchical government of the whole Church would prove dangerous and pernicious to the same, if that one head or Monarch thereof should fall into error or idolatry; especially, he being so above the whole Church as that he should not be subject to a general Council.

But the heads of several Churches, if they err or fall, may by the Synods of other Bishops be brought into order, or deposed. Examples whereof we have in all, even the chief seats of Bishops, as of Marcellinus at Rome, Paulus Samosatenus at Antioch, Dioscorus at Alexandria, Nestorius and Macedonius at Constantinople. &c. Cyprian writing to Stephanus Bishop of Rome about the deposing of Martianus Bishop of Arles saith, Idcirco copiosum corpus est Sacerdot •• concordi • mu • na glutino at{que} vnitatis vinculo copulatum, vt si quis ex collegio nostro haeresim facere, & greg • m Christi l • cerare & vastare tentauerit, subueniant cateri, &c.

Fourthly, to the head of several Churches the members may have easy and speedy recourse, for clearing of doubts, and deciding of controversies &c. But from all parts of the world men could not without infinite trouble, besides manifold inconveniences, repair to one place. These reasons may suffice for the confutation of the proposition.

The assumption is false in respect of Christ, who is the Monarch of the Church; otherwise I acknowledge it to be true, but without any disadvantage to my cause: the odious consequence of the proposition (which is so oft urged) being unsound.

If therefore he can no better disprove the Supremacy of the Pope, then he doth the superiority of Bishops, it were better he should be silent, then busy himself in matters above his reach.

The other part of his idle flourish is a vain brag, that were it not for that cause, he should

But the Churches were dioceses and the BB. diocesan, as I have manifestly proved before, and as those Disciplinarians do confess, with whom chiefly I deal in this point: who granting that the Churches were dioceses, and the Bishops diocesan, do notwithstanding deny the superiority of Bishops in degree &c.

§. 5. Now that the state of the controversy betwixt us and them may appear, I show wherein the Presbyterians agree with us, and wherein they dissent from us. But first he findeth fault that I call them Presbyterians, as sometimes I do also Disciplinarians ; though thereby I mean no other, but such as do stand for the Presbytery, and for that discipline, being loath either to call them adversaries (whom I acknowledge to be brethren) or to offend them with the title of Puritans, wherewith others do upbraid them. And howsoever he in bitter scorn doth say,

I do profess unfeignedly, that out of a charitable mind, I did term them Presbyterians, not knowing how to speak of them, as dissenting from us, more charitably. And whereas I say they agree with us in this, that by divine institution there was in the primitive Church, and still ought to be, one set over the Presbyters, he saith; But small eloquence may serve, where there is such evidence to prove the truth. Only the Reader must remember, that I speak not of my adversary, and other new fangled disciplinarians, who are not to have the credit of coming so near the truth; but of men of greater learning, and better desert in God's Church: who as they agree with us, that the Churches were dioceses, and the Presbyteries with the Presidents thereof provided for diocesses, (which • have shown before) so they consent in this, that the Presbyteries had by divine ordinance a President set over them: the which I will prove straightwaies, after I have noted his censure concerning the three points wherein I said they differ from us. The first, that they make the Bishop superior in order only, and not in degree. 2. That they assign a superiority or presidentship unto him for a short time, and that by course. 3. That granting unto him a priority of order, they deny unto him a maiority of rule or power.

To the first he saith,

As for those Presidents of Presbyteries, which were superior to the other Presbyters, in order and not in degree; such were they whom they were wont to call, sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , sometimes archipresbyteri, sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is to say, Deans, and not Bishops. And it was a great oversight in these learned men, under the name and title of the ancient Bishops, to describe unto us Deans.

To the second, he saith;

To the third he saith;

As touching their agreement with us, and the second point wherein they differ from us (for of the first I have spoken at large before, showing the judgments of Calvin and Beza therein) you shall hear the opinion of a chief patron of the discipline, in a treatise, which he hath written in defense thereof. Beza therefore teacheth, that it is a divine ordinance, both that there should be a president of each presbytery, and also that his presidentshippe should be but for a short time, and by course. The former, which is the order it self, he saith , is not only an ordinance divine, but also essential and immutable. The latter, which is ordinis modus, though it were of divine institution, yet it is but accidental, and so mutable. And when he distinguisheth Bishops into three sorts , he calleth them only divine, which have a priority of order only, and that for a time and by course. As for those which had a perpetual presidentship, whereunto they were preferred by election, by whom the priority of order (as he imagineth) was changed into a superiority of degree, and were such as he will not absolutely condemn: yet such (in his opinion) are but human: and to these he supposeth the name Bishop first to have been appropriated. Such divine Presidents he acknowledgeth these seven Angels to have been, and before them Timothy at Ephesus. And whereas Jerome saith, at the first the Churches were governed 〈◊〉 Presbyterorum consili • ; by the common counsel of Presbyters: N •• confuso, saith he, & perturbat • ? What , saith he, confused and disordered : so as when the Presbyters did meet, none should be President among them? That is not likely: therefore even then the Presbytery had a President. And where it was objected by D. Sarauia, against that opinion of Jerome, that these seven Churches had each of them an Angel by divine ordinance set over them, to whom a more eminent authority belonged in the regiment of the Church; to what purpose, saith Beza , do you urge this against Jerome ? For when he said, the Churches were governed at the first by the common counsel of Presbyters, we may not think, that he so doted, as to dream that none of the Presbyters was President over that assembly.

As for the third and the last, nothing is more evident , then that Calvin and Beza, as they deny the Bishop to be superior to other Ministers in degree, so also in rule and dominion. For he was not so superior in honor and dignity (saith Calvin ) as to have dominion over his Colleagues. And again; that he did go so before others in dignity, that himself was subject to the assembly of his brethren. Beza acknowledgeth their superiority to have been the dignity or honor of the first place, but no degree of rule over their compresbyters. And is not this part of H. I. his second main assertion, that the ancient Bishops in the first two hundred years differed from other pastors only in priority of order, and not in maiority of rule? T. C. likewise speaking of him that was chosen to moderate the meeting of Ministers, saith, If any man will call him a President, or Moderator, or a Governor, we will not strive, so that it be with these cautions; that he be not called simply Governor, or Moderator, but Governor or Moderator of that action, and for that time, and subject to the orders that others be, and to be censured by the company of the Brethren, as well as others, if he be judged anyway fault • . And that after that action ended, and meeting dissolved, he sit him down in his old place, and set himself in equal state with the rest of the Ministers. Thirdly, that this government or presidentship be not so tied to that Minister, but that at the next meeting it shall be lawful to take another. The untruths therefore which the Refuter hath bestowed upon me here, he must be entreated to take to himself.

To prove their dissent from us in this fourth point, I alleged Beza his distinction of Bishops into three sorts: and because it is an odious distinction, I concea •• d his name, and to salve his credit, J shown, that although he came far short of Calvin's moderation, yet he is more moderately affected towards our Bishops, then the Disciplinarians among us usually be: who, as they speak despitefully of them, calling them Antichristian, pettite Popes, &c. so do they wish and labor for the extirpation of them, whereas Beza speaking reverently of them, prayeth for their continuance.

But both his distinction and his wish, by the Refuter are perverted, expounding him as though he had accounted for human, those which had only a priority of order: whereas indeed he acknowledgeth such a presidentship as you have heard, to be a divine ordinance; and understandeth his prayer, where he wisheth the continuance of the Bishops, as if he had wished that

Where, whiles he understandeth Beza as wishing our Bishops to be Martyrs, he indiscreetly maketh him to wish that our Princes may be persecutors, which God forbid. That which he addeth concerning my saying Am •• to the like wish for the Churches of France and Scotland, and yet be no maintainer of their presbyteries, is merely idle; for I did not bring in Beza as a maintainer of Bishops, bvt rather did note him as one of their chief opposites, citing his differences from us, and mentioning that distinction of Bishops: howbeit I acknowledge his proposition to be with more moderation, then is commonly to be found in the Disciplinarians among us.

Now I am to descend with him into the particulars which I propounded to be handled: first to show, that the Bishops or Angels of the primiti • e Church, were as well as ours, superior to other Ministers in degree: and secondly, to declare more particularly, wherein their superiority did consist.

But before he entereth the combat, distrusting himself and his cause, he seeketh (as such champions use to do) which way (if need be) he may make an escape: and having to this purpose looked well about him, he hath found out two starting holes, whereby he hopeth to find some evasion. The former hath these windings and turnings in it:

The first of these argueth extreme diffidence: for Calvin, and others, in this question, within the limits of the primitive Church, include the times of Constanti • e, at the least; yea Calvin includeth all the time a • tepapa •• m, before the Papacy ; in which time he acknowledgeth the form of Church government, to have had nothing in it almost disso • ant from the word of God. And whereas, saith he every province had among their Bishops an Archbishop; and whereas also in the Council of Nice, there were established Patriarchs, who in order and dignity were superior to the Archbishops, that appertained to the preservation of discipline. And although he misliketh that the government so established, was called Hiera: • hy ; notwithstanding, if omitting the name, saith he, we look into the thing, we shall find that the ancient Bishops would not frame a form of Church government differing from that which God prescribed in his word. And Beza confesseth, that those things which were ordained of the ancient Fathers, concerning the seats of Bishops, Metropolitans, and Patriarchs, assigning their limits▪ and attributing unto them certain authority, were appointed optimo zelo, out of a very good zeal. And therefore (no doubt) out of such zeal, as was according to knowledge; otherwise it would have been far from being optimus, the best.

Zanchius entreating of the diverse orders of Ministers in the primitive Church, as Presbyters, Bishops, Archbishops, &c. faith, they may be defended. Against which, some learned man (I will not say Beza ) having taken exception, Zanchius maketh this apology. When I wrote this confessiō of the faith, I did write all things out of a good conscience, and as I believed, so I freely spake. Now my faith is grounded chiefly and simply on the word of God: Something also in the next place on the common consent of the whole ancient Catholic Church, if that be not repugnant to the Scriptures. I do also believe, that what things were defined and received by the godly Fathers, being gathered together in the name of the Lord, by the common consent of all, without any gainsaying of the holy scriptures, that those things also (though they be not of the same authority with the holy Scriptures) proceeded from the holy Ghost. Hence it is, that those things that be of this kind, I neither will, nor dare with good conscience mislike. But what is more certain out of histories, Councils, and writings of all the Fathers, then that those orders of Ministers, whereof I spake, were established, and received by the common consent of all Christendom? Quis a • tem ego sim, qui quod tota Ecclesia approbaui • , improbem? And who am I that I should disallow that which the whole Church allowed? &c.

Neither do I see any reason, why the Church in Constantine's time should not rather be propounded as a pate •• e for imitation, to Churches that live under Christian princes, and flourish through God's blessing in peace and prosperity; then the Churches of former times, which were not in all things established and settled according to their desires, but were hindered by persecutiō. For in time of persecution, their government was not always such as they would, but such as they could attain unto. And unless we would have the Churches to live always under persecution, it is madness to require them to be imitated in all things. But what was by general consent received, and practiced in the time of peace and prosperity, was that which in their judgments ought to be done, and is of us being in the like case, to be imitated. Now that in Constantine's time the Bishops had superiority over other Ministers in degree, and a singular preeminence of power and authority, it is most evident. Neither was their superiority and authority increased by the accession of the Christian Magistrate, as their wealth was, but rather diminished, seeing while there was not a Christian Magistrate, they were fain to supply that defect, and by their own authority did many things, which afterward were done or assisted by the Magistrate. But though there can no color of a good reason be given, why the superiority and authority of Bishops, as they were diocesan, should have been greater in the fourth century, then in the third; or in the third, then in the second; or in the second, then the first; the first Bishops in all likelihood, having had rather a more eminent then less authority, yet our new Disciplinarians, for a poor shift and evasion, deny this superiority of Bishops in degree and maiority in power to have been in the first two hundred years, because they conceive there is not the like evidence for the second, as for the third. Now our Refuter perceiving there is better evidence then he imagined for the second century, will needs have the times of the primitive Church restrained to the time of the Apostles. And when they are driven from that, they were best to fly to the time of Christ's conversation upon the earth.

For my part, I make no doubt, but that Anianus, who succeeded S. Mark at Alexandria, being a man beloved of God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , every way admirable, had the same episcopal authority which S. Mark had before him, and that he, and those which succeeded him, even in the Apostles times, viz. Abilius and Cerd • had no less authority as diocesan Bishops, then those which came two hundred years after them. Indeed, when the Churches multiplying, there was a consociation of dioceses in the province, the Bishop of Alexandria became actually a Metropolitan Bishop, which from the first might be intended: and when there was a consociation of provinces subjected to him, he became a Patriarch, the ancient Fathers in godly policy so thinking it necessary. Now if any man shall think, that the Bishop of Alexandria was but a parish Bishop at the first, and upon cons • ciation of parishes subjected to him, became a diocesan, he is to understand, that the diocese, and the mother Church of the diocese, was before any parish; that parishes arise out of the distribution of the diocese; that th • Bishop and his Presbytery of the mother Church were appointed not for one parish, but for the whole diocese; that at Alexandria, in, and from S. Marks time, who constituted the Churches there, there have been more Churches then one subjected to the Bishop of Alexandria.

Vnlearned therefore and ungrounded is that distinction of Bishops into six sorts, viz. 1. Parishonal: 2. Diocesan titular Bishop, being the President or Moderator over the Pastors of a diocese: 3. Diocesan ruling Bishop, though not solely: 4. Diocesan L. Bishop: 5. A Patriarchal Bishop: 6. An universal Bishop. Of the first sort, it is said, all were in the first two hundred years. Of the second, there began to be some in the end of the second century. The third began about the year 260. The fourth shortly after Augustine's time. The fifth (for he knew not how to distinguish betwixt Metropolitans, whom he outskippeth, and Patriarchs) sometimes before the Council of Nice. And how is all this proved? It is strange to see, how strong some men's conceits can be, when their reasons are full weak. The proofs for the parish Bishop, J have before disproved. How is the second proved? Such perhaps first of all was Julianus the tenth Bishop of Alexandria. Perhaps! But why he rather then S. Mark, or Anianus, or any other of his predecessors? Because in his time first mention is made by Eusebius, that there were diverse Churches in that City, and he Bishop of them. This would have gone for a stout reason, no doubt, had not Eusebius himself testified, that Saint Mark constituted the Churches in Alexandria it self : which ever from S. Marks time had but one Bishop at once. How is the third demonstrated? It may be this began at Alexandria with Dionysius , the thirteenth Bishop of that place. Very well; perhaps, it may be; these are very good proofs. But why may it be? It seemeth to be Jerome's meaning, where he saith, that some priority in Bishops continued there from Mark to Heraclas and Dionysius. Hear Jerome's words : Even at Alexandria from Mark the Evangelist, unto the Bishops Heraclas and Dionysius, the Presbyters always having chosen one from among themselves, and placed him in a higher degree, called him Bishop; even as an army chooseth a General. Which words Jerome wrote to magnify the calling of Presbyters, and to prefe • re them before Deacons; both because they chose their Bishop, as also because they did elect him from among themselves, until Heraclas and Dionysius. But it is a world to see what is collected from these words, both by that Author, and also T. C. By that Author, first, That some priority in Bishops continued there from Mark to Heraclas and Dionysius. As if Jerome had given any the least signification of the less authority of Bishops before Heraclas, then after, and had not signified some difference only in their election. For Heraclas and Dionysius, who had been Origen's scholars, and succeeded him one after the other in his office of Catechist, or Teacher in Alexandria, in respect whereof, they were no more Presbyters, then Origen himself had been; notwithstanding for their excellent learning, the Presbyters (who till then had ever chosen one out of their own number to be Bishop) made choice of these two, one after the other, although at the time of their election, they were not Presbyters. But what followeth? At Heraclas (it is probable) was a period of one sort, viz. of titular diocesan Bishops: and with Dionysius began another, viz. of ruling diocesan BB. Priority of order in one Bishop over a parish, seemeth to have continued exclusiuely, from Mark to Julian •• s (for he was ashamed to say, that Saint Mark, who, as the same Jerome testifieth, was the Bishop of Alexandria, was but a parish Bishop:) over a diocese, from Julian •• to Heraclas 〈◊〉 , and the maiority of ruling in the diocese, to have 〈◊〉 with Dionysius. O acumen! But the proof is admirable, and the conclusion passeth all. The proof is this: Nothing l •• teth us, but that thus we may probably think. More is the pity. For true learning and a sound judgment, would have let you from entertaining, and much more from broaching such unlearned and ungrounded fancies. Yea but, by this means, Eusebius and Jerome's relation shall well agree. I answer, though these fancies had never been heard of, there had not been so much as any show of disagreement betwixt them.

The conclusion: Howsoever it is, this is certain, that neither the one, nor the other, was known before these times. As if he had said; Perhaps Julianus was the first titular Bishop. It may be the ruling diocesan Bishops began at Alexandria with Dionysius. At Heraclas, it is probable, was a period of one sort, &c. Nothing letteth us but that thus we may probably think. But how soever uncertain our premisses be, we are resolved upon a certain conclusion, it is certain, &c. Is it not strange that so certain a conclusion should be inferred upon so uncertain premises? especialle seeing it is most certain that before Dionysius his time, there were not only diocesan, but also Metropolitan BB.

But will you also hear what T. C. gathereth out of these words of Jerome? Godly 〈◊〉 m • slik • d this order of giving the name Bishoppe to one in a Church, and by all likelihood broke it: which Jerome's words do apparently import. This custom was in the Church of Alexandria, from Saint Mark, until Heraclas and Dionysius: for unless there were some change then, why should he not rather have said, From Saint Mark to his time? First, to his assertion, I say it is untrue, that godly men misliked the giving 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 every Minister be an Angel, yet only one is the Angel of the Church: so by the same reason, Episcopy being in the scriptures a title common to all Ministers, is so appropriated to one in every Church, that whereas all Ministers are Bishops in a general sense, one only 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Rulers, sometime 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , sometimes episcopi, they contented themselves with the title of least honor, and left the name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , importing the honor of the Ministry in general, to other Ministers. Neither is there anymore reason (as D Reynolds also saith) why the appropriating of the name Bishop to the Angels of the Churches, should be misliked, then of giving the name Minister to Presbyters, which is common to Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons. Besides, it is most certain, that in the writings of Ignatius, and others, who lived in, or near the Apostles times, the name episcopus was appropriated to the Angel of ech Church. Jerome plainly testifieth, that from S. Mark • 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 custom of giving 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; unless it may be thought, that the estimation of Bishops then decreased; which ill agreeth with H I. conceit. What ancient 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 oftentimes, but also acknowledgeth him to have been a Metropolitan B. or rather Patriarch. For when as the Bishops of Pentapolis began to favor the heresy of Sab • llicus, Dionysius to whose charge those Churches did appertain, sought to reform them, You have heard T. C. assertion.

His reason is this, some change there was therefore in the name Bishop. How weak a reason this is I shall not need to note, seeing I have shown wherein the change was, there being less 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 return to H. I. who saith his Diocesan L. Bishop ruling alone, who was not established in Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine's time, took place soon after. And how is this proved? He saith, he doubts not of it : though he be not able to show, neither where, nor when, nor by whom, nor how the Bishops authority was increased after Augustine's times. What if in Augustine's time the authority and preeminence of Bishops was abated and restrained, namely in the fourth Council of Carthage, more then ever before? For whereas the ancient Canons refer the power both of ordination and jurisdiction to the Bishop, without mentioning the assistance of the Presbytery: And whereas Bishops before, such as were peaceable and well disposed, did voluntarily use the advice and assistance of their clergy: by that Council the assistance of the clergy, both in ordination and jurisdiction in the Churches of Africa, became necessary. Neither do I know any reason, why the authority of diocesan Bishops after Augustine's time should be thought to have increased. For as by the lawful authority of Christian Kings & Princes, to whom they were subordinate, in regard of the common good of the kingdom, whereof they were menbers: so much more by y ^• usurped supremacy of the B. of Rome, after the year 607. y ^• authority of bishops was lessened & impaired.

We are to come to his fifth step, which is of patriarchal BB. but he hath clean marred the stairs that the refuter and his consorts use to talk of, whereby the Bishops 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 have been till after Augustine's time; and partly, by outskipping the Metropolitans. For it cannot be denied, but that there were diocesan Bishops, such as ours be, before there were Metropolitans, or Primates actually; and there were Metropolitans before there were Patriarchs. Now it would be known, when Patriarchs begun. In the Council of Nice (held about the year three hundred twenty four) it is acknowledged to have been an ancient custom, which there was ratified, that the Bishop of Alexandria should have authority of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis: and the like custom for the Bishop of Rome in the West, and of Antioch in the East is mentioned; and the ancient privileges to each Church, espcially to each Metropolis reserved. To say nothing of Rome, whereof the Papists say too much: it is plain by that testimony of the Nicene Council, of Epiphanius before alleged, of Athanasius even 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 Council, is sufficient, calling himself the Bishop of Syria ; whereby we cannot conceive him to have been less then an Archbishop. Now if I should ask H.I. or this Refuter, when Metropolitans first began; they would not be able truly to assign their original 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 Cesarea in the Council of Nice, be reckoned as one of the four seats of the Patriarchs. For express mention is made of Aeli • , which was the new name given by Adrian to Jerusalem; to which, according to ancient custom, the next place of honor after Antioch was granted; the proper dignity notwithstanding to the Metropolis (which indeed was Cesarea) being reserved. But if Metropolitans had not their beginning after the Apostles times, as no man is able to show they had, then can it not be doubted, but that diocesan Bishops, much more were in the Apostles times: for every Metropolitā was originally B. of his peculiar diocese, being not actually a Metropolitan, until diverse Churches in the same province, being constituted, there was a consociation among themselves, and subordination of them to him, as their primate.

There was therefore no such difference between the first two ages of the Churches, and those which followed, as that either H. I. or the Refuter should restrain the times of the primitive Church, either to the end of the second century, or of the first, with hope to escape that way. Wherefore what proofs I bring from the third or fourth, yea or fifth century, for the superiority of Bishops, they are to be esteemed such as do directly and sufficiently prove the question, unless they shall be able to show, not only that no such thing was in use, but also that it was not intended in the Apostles time, and the age following: for what was received and practiced by general consent in all Christendom, so soon as God gave peace unto his Church, was undoubtedly desired and intended from the beginning.

The second corner of his first starting hole, wherewith the second also meeteth, is,

. And what, of no other? Is it not lawful to ascend from the hypothesis, to the thesis ? especially when it is confessed by the Refuter, that the primitive Churches were all of the like constitution? And therefore what may be said either of the seven Angels, in respect of the substance of their calling, may be concluded of other Bishops: and what may be said of the office of other Bishops in the primitive Church, may be verified of these Angels.

The third, that I must

which also is repeated in his second evasion. But where do I say in all the sermon, that the Bishops had the sole power of ordination and jurisdiction? Where do I deny either that the BB. did, or might use the assistance of their Presbyters, for either of both, or that in the defect of Bishops, both the one and the other might be performed by Presbyters? In a word, where do I deny all power either of ordination or jurisdiction to Presbyters? But let the Reader understand, that there are two main calumniations, whereby this Resuter and his consorts do use to disgrace my Sermon with their followers. The one, that I hold the tenure of our episcopal function so to be iure diuino, as though no other manner of government were any way, or anywhere lawful. The other, that J ascribe so the sole power of of ordination and jurisdiction to BB. as though the Presbyters had no jurisdiction, or as though those Churches had no lawful Ministers, which have not such BB. to ordain them.

His other, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or starting hole, is that which he hath already four times run into; and making use of it now the fifth time, in the beginning of the next section, desireth the Reader, that it may not be tedious to him, that now the fifth time he doth find fault with me, for not concluding what he (according to his forced analysis ) would have concluded: though all men see, I do directly prove, what before was propounded, for the proof of my first assertion, viz. that the Angels, or BB. of the primitive Church were diocesan Bishops; and (for the substance of their calling) such as ours be. Having therefore proved that their Churches were dioceses, and themselves diocesan; it remained that J should prove that they were, as well as ours, superior to other Ministers in degree, &c: which if I did not endeavor to prove directly, he might have had some quarrel against me.

CHAP. II. That Bishops were superior to other Ministers in degree.

M Y reason he frameth thus: If all antiquity (except Aërius, who for dissenting in this point, was counted an heretic by Epiphanius and Augustine) with one consent do acknowledge, that Bishops were superior to other Ministers in degree: then Bishops were superior to other Ministers in degree. But the former is true; therefore the latter. First he cavilleth with the consequence, (which no man bearing the face of a Divine, I had almost said of a Christian, would do) calling it, sore, poor, feeble, and insufficient, unless the consent of the Apostles and Evangelists be added. Where let the Reader consider, what is the question which is here concluded, viz. That the Bishops of the primitive Church were superior to other Ministers in degree. This question plainly is de facto, of what was: for de iure, that is, of the quality & lawfulness, I entreat in the second assertion. Now for a man to deny credit to all antiquity in a matter of fact not gainsaid by scripture, it is a plain evidence that he is addicted to novelty and singularity, rather then the truth. Doth all antiquity testify with one consent, that the Bishops in the primitive Church were superior to other Ministers in degree; and hath any of us the forehead to deny it? Neither is the consent of the Apostles wanting, as • prove in the sermon both in the particulars of the superiority in respect of the fact, as also in respect of the right, in the demonstration of the second assertion. Where I do with such evidence demonstrate, that the Bishops, described in the first assertion, are of Apostolical institution; as I am well assured that this Refuter, with all his partakers, will never be able soundly and substantially to confute. For there is nothing written with such evidence of truth, but that captious persons may easily cavil with it. And although it had been sufficient for the demonstration of the first assertion, to have produced such evidence as doth testify only de facto ; yet many of the allegations which I bring, do also give testimony to the right. Thus much of the authority of antiquity, whereon the consequence is grounded.

Now to the thing testified, which is the assumption: which I prove by five arguments. The first:

Against the argument it self he hath nothing to say: but where I said all antiquity, besides Aërius, did acknowledge the superiority of Bishops: against this he objecteth, that

For that which he addeth of diverse others consenting in judgment, is a vain flourish: let him name but one other in the first six hundred years (I think I might say 1000.) and I will yield the cause. And those latter Writers which consent with him, use his words, & build upon his authority: so that the whole weight of this cause lieth on Jerome's shoulders, whō if I can disburdē thereof, there can nothing at all be produced out of antiquity against the superiority of Bishops. First, then I say, that they abuse Jerome, who match him with Aërius: for besides that Aërius was a damned heretic, being a most perfect Arian (as Epiphanius saith, who lived at the same time) living in a Church of Arians, standing in election for the Bishopric against Eustathius, who also was an Arian; out of a discontented humor (the common source of Schism and heresy) broached this heresy (as Epiphanius & Augustine censure it) Presbyterum ab Episcope nulla differentia debere discerni : 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : denying the Superiority of Bishops, both de Iure, as Augustine reporteth his opinion; and de facto, as Epiphanius ; alleging that there is no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter. For there is one order (saith he) of both, one honor, and one dignity. The Bishop imposeth hands, so doth the Presbyter: the B. giveth the laver (of Baptism) so doth the Presbyter: the B. doth administer God's worship, so doth the Presbyter: the B. sitteth on the throne, so also doth the Presbyter. But Jerome was not so mad (to use the refuters words of Aërius, who indeed, as Epiphanius saith, was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a frantic fellow) as to deny the Superioritie of BB. de facto, which oftentimes he doth avouch; neither doth he deny it de Iure. And therefore the refuter here hath delivered two untruths: the one, that (he saith) : which most manifestly he did, and did it no doubt with this mind, that though he missed of the Bishopric, which ambitiously he had desired; yet he would be thought as good a man as a Bishop. The other, that he saith, . For it is most evident by many testimonies alleged in the Sermon, that Jerome held the Superiority of Bishops to be lawful and necessary. For though somewheres he saith that Bishops are greater then Presbyters rather by the custom of the Church, then by the truth of Divine disposition; yet he acknowledgeth that custom to be an Apostolical tradition; and therefore either he may be understood as holding the superiority of BB. to be not Diuini, but Apostolici iuris: or he may be interpreted as speaking of the names, proving by diverse testimonies of the Scripture, that Presbyters are called Bishops. But hereof we may not conclude, that therefore Presbyters and Bishops are all one; for not only Bishops, but also Apostles , are called Presbyters, and the Apostleship is called Bishopric.

For howsoever all Presbyters are in the Scriptures called Angels and Bishops ; yet that one among many, who had singular preeminence above the rest, is by the warrant of the holy Ghost, called the Angel of the Church ; and by the same warrant, may be called the Bishop. Now whereas Aërius for denying the superiority of Bishops, was by Epiphanius and Augustine judged and heretic, hereby it appeareth that this alleagation not only proveth the superiority de facto, but de iure : for seeing there is no heresy which is not repugnant to God's word, it is evident that they who judged this opinion of Arius to be an heresy, did also judge it contrary to God's word. Neither did Epiphanius and Augustine alone condemn Aërius for an heretic; but as Epiphanius reporteth, all Churches both in City and Country did so detest him and his followers, that being abandoned of all, they were forced to live in the open fields, and in wods.

And whereas some object against Epiphanius and Augustine in defense of Arius, that his opinion is not heresy, because Epiphanius did not sufficiently answer one of Aërius his allegations out of Scripture, where Presbyters seem to be called Bishops; and that Augustine followed Epiphanius, himself not understanding how far the name of an heretic is to be extended: these are very slender exceptions to be taken by so learned a man. For be it, that Epiphanius did not sufficiently answer someone of Aërius his allegations: is that sufficient to excuse Aërius from being an heretic; seeing that testimony may be sufficiently answered, as J have shown; and seeing every testimony alleged by each heretic, hath not always been sufficiently answered by everyone that hath written against them? The Allegation which Aërius bringeth out of Phil. 1.1. doth only prove, that the Presbyters were called Bishops at what time, he which was the Bishop of Philippi, namely Epaphroditus , was called their Apostle. And it is confessed by many of the Fathers, that howsoever there were many in Philippi, which in a general signification were called Bishops: yet there was but one, nay, that there could be but one, which properly was called the Bishop of Philippi.

And as touching Augustine ; I marvel, that learned men could derogate so much from him, as that he, at that time especially, would write upon the authority of others, what himself understood not: For Augustine was no youngling or novice at that time; but he wrote that book in his elder age, even after he had written his books of Retractations, at what time he had written 230. books, besides his Epistles and Homilies. Neither doth Augustine write anything in his preface of that book, whereby it might be gathered, that he was in doubt, whether any of those particulars which he noteth, were to be judged heresies; only he saith, that what maketh an Heretike, can in his judgment hardly, if at all, be set down in an accurate definition. Notwithstanding, he distributeth his intended Trea • ise into two parts: The first, of the heresies which after Christ's ascension had been contrary to his doctrine, and which he could come to the knowledge of: among which, the heresies of Aërius have the 53. place: in the latter, he promiseth to dispute what maketh an Heretike. But though he came not to that, or if he did, what he wrote of that point is not come to our hands; yet in the conclusion of his Treatise, which is extant, he saith thus ; What the Catholic Church holdeth against these (meaning all the 88. heresies which before he had recited) it is but a superfluous question: seeing it is sufficient in this behalf to know, Eam contra ist • sentire, nec aliquid horum in fidem quenquam d • bere recipere, that the judgment of the Church is contrary to these, and that no man ought to receive any of these into his belief. And again; Omnis ita{que} Christianus Catholicus ist • non debet credere, &c. wherefore it is the duty of every Catholic Christian to believe none of these.

But it will be said; do you then hold everyone to be an heretic, who is of Aërius judgment in this point? Whereunto I answer: first, that although I hold them to be in an error, yet I do not judge them to be heretics, who do not with pertinency defend their error. And secondly, I make great difference between errors in the articles of faith, and fundamental points of Religion (such as was the error of Aërius as he was an Arian, and such as is the error of those who deny our justification by Christ's righteousness) and in matters of Discipline: for these though they be dangerous, yet they are not damnable errors; and it is no great disparagement to men, otherwise learned and orthodoxal, to have been overseen in matters of Church government; so that they do not for the same leave the Church and make separation: for such also be counted heretics by the Councils, 1. Constant. ca. 6. As for the refuter; it is at his choice whether he will be accounted an heretic, or not. In my judgment he were best to say, Errare possum, I may err (as in this controversy hitherto to hath done) sed h • reticus esse nolo, but I will • e no heretic, by obstinate defending of that, wherein his conscience is convicted.

Now to help the Refuter, because I desire to give the Reader satisfaction, I will not conceal, that somewheres I find besides Jerome, the testimonies of Chrysostom, Augustine, and Ambrose objected as favoring the opinion of Aërius : but unworthily. Chrysostom is alleged, as if he should say, There is in a manner no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter. Indeed Chrysostom understanding by Episcapus, 1. Tim. 3. him that is properly called a Bishop, asketh why Paul speaking of Bishops, and Deacons, maketh no mention there of Presbyters. Whereunto he maketh answer, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , because there is no great difference: for they also have received doctrine and government of the Church; and those things which Paul said concerning Bishops, agree to them. But doth it hence follow, that in Chrysostom's judgment, there was no difference betwixt a Bishop, and a Presbyter? doth not Chrysostom in the next words acknowledge, that the Bishops are superior to Presbyters in respect of ordination? And as touching singularity of preeminence; doth not he teach, that in one City, or Church, (where are many Pre • byters) there ought to be one Bishop? and so he • old Sisi •• ius the Nouatian Bishop at Constantinople, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And though he ascribe government of the Church to the Presbyters under the Bishop; doth he not acknowledge the Bishop to be the governor of the Presbyters? and when he was Bishop himself did he not exercise great authority over them?

But what saith Augustine? Quid est Episcopus, nisi primus Presbyter? what is a Bishop but the first Presbyter? doth he not expound himself? primus Presbyter, h. e. 〈◊〉 Sacerdos, the first Presbyter, that is, the high Priest? such a one therefore in Augustine's judgment, is the Bishop to Presbyters, as the high priest was to the other priests: for in the same place also he compareth the Deacons to the Levites, and the Presbyters to the Priests.

Yea, but Ambrose saith, Of a Bishop and a Presbyter, there is one order, for either of 〈◊〉 a Priest; but the Bishop is the first. The words are not in his book de dignitate Sacerdotali, as it is quoted; for there I find the contrary: for, Ambrose saith , There is one thing which God requireth of a Bishop, another of a Presbyter, another of a Deacon. And again, he signifieth , that as Bishops do ordain Presbyters, and consecrate Deacons; so the Archbishop ordaineth the Bishop. But they are found in his commentary on the first to Timothy cap. 3. Where asking the same question with Chrysostom, why after the mention of the Bishop, he presently addeth the ordination, or order of Deacon? because, saith he, of a Bishop, and Presbyter, there is one ordination, or order: for either of them is a Priest: but the Bishop is the first: so that every Bishop is a Presbyter, but not every Presbyter a Bishop: for among the Presbyters, the Bishop is the first. Now what he meaneth by the first Presbyter, may else where be shown in his writings. In the Bishop, saith he , are all orders, because he is primus Sacer ••• s, hoc est, Princeps est Sacerd • tum, the first Priest, that is, the Prince of the Priests : and in the place alleged, he signifieth that Timothy the Bishop, was the first Presbyter at Ephesus. And such presbyters I do confess our BB. to be.

So much of Aër • us : concerning whom, I have often marvelled, what some learned men do mean, to go about to salve the credit of such a frantique fellow, as Epiphanius describeth him, being also an absolute Arian, and schismatic or Separatist from the true Churches.

Mark here, either the skill, or conscience of this great Analyser. The first argument, which indeed is unanswerable, that he swalloweth. And instead of analysing and answering the rest, he cavils at the number, and at their age. I will therefore propound my arguments and withal answer his cavils. And first, for their number; besides the five he speaketh of, I produced the testimonies of Epiphanius and Augustine, delivering not only their own opinions, but the judgment of the Church; Epiphanius reporting, that all Churches did reject and condemn Aërius ; and Augustine testifying, that the Catholic Church did hold the contrary to Aërius his assertion; that as I said, was my first argument.

Therefore it giveth testimony to the superiority of BB. over other ministers in degree.

The antecedent I prove by the the testimony of the Council of Serdica, of Optatus, of Ignatius, and generally by the testimony of Fathers in Councils; in which, as I said, nothing is more usual then the distinction of Ministers into these 3. degrees. That clause, if it had pleased the refuter to have taken notice of, it might have prevented his cavil concerning either the number, or the age of my witnesses. But he (such is his conscience) passing by it, b • aggeth (wi • h what face I know not) that I have no antiquity, which distinguisheth the ministry into 3. degrees. Here therefore 3. things are to be shown, which are so many arguments. 1. That antiquity distinguisheth the Clergy into 3. degrees. 2. That it termeth them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , degrees. 3. That they compare them to the high Priest, Priests and Levites.

As touching the first: this distinction of Ministers is so frequent in the ancient Canons, that if a man do but open the book at all adventures, he shall not often light upon such a place, where this distinction is not to be found. Jn the ancient Canons, called the Apostles, it is mentioned 20. times at the least in the Council of Nice, 3. or 4. times; in the Council of Ancyra, and Antioch often, and so in the rest.

Which of the ancient Fathers doth not acknowledge this distinction of Ministers? Ignatius, as we shall hear, giveth plentiful testimony to it. Clement in his Epistle to James translated by Ruffi ••• , testifieth this to have been the Doctrine of Peter according to the institution of Christ, that Presbyters should be obedient to their Bishops in all things. And again, that Presbyters and Deacons and others of the Clergy must take heed, that they do nothing without the license of the Bishop.

Dionysius an ancient and learned writer (if not the Areopagite ) propoundeth the same distinction under the names 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

Tertullian acknowledgeth it. Orogen likewise, terming the Bishop him q •• totim Ecclesia a • cemobtinet. So doth Cyprian, and Cornelim, and almost who not?

But having thus (as he thinketh) set them and others of the Fathers together by the ears, he will not go about to part them. Howbeit, the reconciliation is easily made. For Anacletus (if that were his Epistle) speaketh only of Priests, and of two orders of them, ordained by Christ: but Deacons were not called Sacerdotes, as Bishops and Presbyters were: Sacerdotes being usually distinguished into maiores, which be Bishops; and minores, which be Presbyters. Neither were Deacons ordained by Christ himself, but by the Apostles. And with this distinction of Anacletus those unsuspected fathers agree, who hold, that these two degrees of ministers were ordained by Christ, when he appointed twelve Apostles (whose successors are the Bishops) and the three score and twelve Disciples, whom the Presbyters succeed. Now, if the Bishops succeed the Apostles, and the Presbyters succeed the 72. Disciples, as diverse of the ancient approved Fathers do teach; then it cannot be denied, but that the calling of Bishops, and their superiority, as also the inferior degree of Presbyters, is of Christ's own institution. The like is to be said of Damasus , who acknowledgeth but two Orders among the Disciples in Christ's time, the twelve Apostles, and the 70. disciples; and by that reason rejecteth the Ch • r • piscopi, because they neither were Bishops, as he proveth; nor Presbyters, as themselves pretended. Among the Disciples of Christ, saith he, we know but two Orders, that is, of the twelve Apostles, and so • mentie disciples. Whence this third order is 〈◊〉 we know not.

As for Ignatius, his testimony is falsified. In his Epistle ad Tralli •• os , he wisheth them. To 〈…〉 without their Bishop, to be subject to their Presbyters, and to please their Deacons, as being the ministers of the mysteries of Christ. Again, He that doth anything without the Bishop, and the Presbyters, and the Deacons, such a one is without: For what is the Bishop; but he that hath power above all? &c. What the Presbyterie, but a sacred company, counsellors, and coassessors of the Bishop? What the Deacons, but imitators of the Angegelicall powers? &c. he that disobeyeth these, rejecteth Christ, and impeacheth his ordinance. And in the end: Farewell in the Lord Jesus being subject to your Bishop, and likewise to the Presbyters, and Deacons. His other Epistle ad Phil. is so wisely quoted, that I know not whether he mean the Philippians, or Philadelphians. But it is no great matter, whether he mean: for as neither of both doth testify that, for which he quoteth them: so both of them doth mention the distinction of ministers into Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons. In the Epistle to the Philippians he exhorteth them to be subject to the Bishop, Presbyters, and Deacons. And towards the end, he saluteth Vitalius their Bishop, the sacred college of Presbyters, and his fellow ministers, the Deacons. The Epistle to the Philadelphians he directeth especially to them, who were one with the Bishop, Presbyters, and Deacons. In the Epistle it self, that all who be Christ's, are on the Bishops side. And besides that testimony alleged in the Sermon, he saith, attend to the Bishop, the Presbyters, and Deacons. To conclude, in these 3. Epistles Ignatius giveth testimony to this distinction into 3. degrees, noting their callings, 9. times, and not once letteth anything fall, which may seem to insinuate any such thing as the refuter alledgeth; and therefore with what conscience he citeth authors let the reader judge.

Now that these three orders were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 degrees, it should not seem strange, seeing the Apostle useth that word in that sense 1. Tim. 3.13. noting the Deaconship to be a degree to the Presbytery, as it is with us.

Cyprian saith of Cornelius, that he came to the Bishopric not suddenly, but having been promoted through all the Ecclesiastical offices, he ascended to the height of Priesthood by all the degrees of Religion.

In the Council of Serdica , it is decreed, That if any rich man o • Rhetorician , be from the court desired to be Bishop, he shall not be ordained, until he have performed the ministry of a reader, Deacon and Presbyter, that so through every degree of he be thought worthy he may by way of promotion ascend unto the height of Bishopric, and the degree of every order shall have a good time, &c. and he being thought worthy of the diu • es: Priesthood, shall be made partaker of the greatest honor. The same Council in their Synodical Epistle report of the Arians, that they had not only received thos • who had been expulsed for Arianism, but also preferred them to a greater degree, as from Deacons, to be Presbyters, and from Presbyters, to be Bishops. The Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, diverse times for a penalty threaten Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, with the losss of their degree. And most plainly the Council of Carthage mentioneth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , these three degrees, 〈◊〉 Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons. And again, all the degrees of Clerks from the highest to the lowest.

The like testimony to that which Cyprian gave to Cornelius, doth Nazianzen give both to Athanasius, that he 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , having gave through all the degrees in order, and having been in every of them, as Theodoret saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , was chosen Bishop ; and also to Basil, that he ascended to his Bishopric, by the order and law of the spiritual ascent; and Socrates to Pr • clus, that he was first a Reader, then by A • ticus preferred to the Deacon-ship, afterwards, when he was Presbyter, he was by the same Attic •• , made Bishop of Cyzicum. Op • a • us , as I alleged in the Sermon, assigneth to Deacons, the third ministry, to Presbyters, the second, to BB whom he calleth principes omnui • ̄, the first.

Burchardus citeth this saying of Augustine being a Bishop: You Presbyters know ye, that your degree is the second, and next to ours: for even as Bishops have the place of the Apostles in the Church; even so the Presbyters of the other disciples: the former, have the degree of Aaron, the high Priest; the latter, of his sons.

In which words the third point also is testified. Whereunto Jerome himself in more places then one giveth testimony, affirming that in the Church, the Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons are answerable to the high Priest, Priests, and Levites.

Now to reject these testimonies, as being under age, as though they did historically relate only what was in their own times, and not dogmatically set down the orders, and degrees of the ministry, perpetually observed in the Church of Christ; is a very unlearned shift. If any one of these, as namely Jerome, shall but seem to favor any of their assertions, though in their sense he contradict himself, and gainsay all others, both Councils, & fathers; against such a testimony no exception, either of minority of age, or singularity of opinion will be admitted; but that authority must ouerweigh all, that himself, and others say to the contrary. It is a world to see how Jerome in this case is magnified, and preferred before all antiquity: Who can tell better then Jerome? who better acquainted with the history of the Church then Jerome? &c. But when most pregnant & plain testimonies are produced out of Jerome, proving the superiority of Bishops, agreeable with all antiquity, then Jerome is a youngling, and under age.

But where I said in the judgment of antiquity, Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, are answereable to the high Priest, Priests and Levites, he saith,

The which is wickedly spoken, and desperately, as many things of late have been uttered by that faction; as that the Papists arguments for the Popes Supremacy, were as good as ours, for the superiority of Bishops. But of these blasphemous speeches, whereby they match the ordinance of Christ by his Apostles, with the height of Antichrists pride; I hope this Refuter, & his consorts will one day have the grace to repent. I confess it is ordinary with the Papists, to allege out of the Fathers for the Popes supremacy, what they testified for the superiority of Bishops. But will any be so desperate, as to say, the same testimonies abused and detorted by Papists, do as substantially prove that for which they are alleged besides the true meaning of the fathers; as that, for which they are truly and faithfully alleged? Good reason therefore had Calvin, and the rest to refute that argument, because, as Calvin saith. There is not the like reason between one small people, and the whole world. The whole Church hath no head, or universal Bishop, but Christ: But each several. Church may have their head, and several Bishop, answerable to the high Priest of the Jews, as diverse of the Fathers have taught: Therefore Ignatius requireth the Smyrneans to honor the Bishop 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as the high Priest: and it is an usual thing with the Fathers, not only to apply those things which were spoken of the high Priest to Bishops, but also to call the Bishop 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , po • tificem, Sacerdotem summum &c. and Bishopric, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

There remain yet the testimonies of Ignatius to be discussed, which I produced in this 2. argument. The authority whereof the refuter first calleth in question. Wherein he may seem to prejudice his own cause: for T.C.W.T.D.F.H.I. and others of that alphabet, have oft times dragged some testimonies out of him: yea this refuter himself oft times doth cite him; and once I remember he threatened to prove his lay Presbyters out of Ignatius, when he should come, to answer my allegations out of him: which how it will be performed, the reader is now to expect. In the mean time, little reason had he so much to cleuate the authority of those godly and learned epistles: for his own confession, that they are recorded in Eusebius, is a good proof they are not counterfeits.

But he is pleased to hear him speak.

The vanity of which conceit J have sufficiently declared before, if anything will suffice. And I am ashamed for the refuter, that he should be either so ignorant, as not to know; or so unconscionable, as not to acknowledge, that these three, Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, have always since the Apostles times been esteemed three degrees of Ministers, by the universal and perpetual consent of all Christendom until our age.

Notwithstanding, his arguments, such as they are, must be answered. And first for Deacons (he saith) they were no Ministers of the word, but employed only in looking to the poor : and that he proveth, by the confession of D. Bilson. What manner of men the Deacons were, of whom Ignatius speaketh, Ignatius himself sufficiently declareth, in his Epistles to the Trallians , where he calleth the Deacons, the ministers of the mysteries of Christ ; and to the Smyrneans , Deacons of Christ unto the word of God ; to the Philadelphians , ministering to the Bishop in the word ; to the Antiochians , the sacred Deacons. Neither doth D. Bilson deny it. Only he maketh question of the 7. which were elected Act. 6. whether they were such, as properly were called Deacons, and are the third degree of the ministry, or such as were chosen only to be overseers of the poor: to which purpose he citeth the general Council held in Trullo , correcting the Canon of the Council held at Neocaesaria , which appointeth that in every Church there should be 7. Deacons, in imitation of the act of the Apostles, in ordaining 7. But (say they) we comparing the sense of the Fathers, with the speech of the Apostles, do find, that they spake not of men serving at the mysteries (such as properly be called Deacons) but at tables ; alleging Chrysostom, who enquiring what the office of these 7. was, plainly denieth, that they were Deacons : whereupon they denounce (as D. Bilson hath alleged) that the foresaid 7. Deacons, must not be taken for those that served at the mysteries, but for such as were trusted with the dispensation of the common necessities of those that were assembled together. 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 use in the primitive church, being a degree inferior to Presbyters: for these 7 or the most of them, were, as E •• phaenius, & others do testify, chosen out of the 70. Disciples, & were (no doubt) principal men among them, full of the holy Ghost & wisdom, being before this ministers of God's word. For as the Apostles, the chief and principal ministers, thought it to appertain to their duty to take care of the poor; so whē the Apostles were disburdned thereof, that care was committed to 7▪ others, who were chief men among the disciples. Neither may it be doubted, but that as Stephen was a worthy preacher; so the rest (whē their tēporary function at Ierusalē was ended by the dispersion of the faithful vpō the death of Stephen ) gave thenselves to the preaching of the word, as appeareth in Philip , who was one of the 7. And whereas the Refuter saith, that D. Bilson confesseth the Deacons to have been only employed in looking to the poor; the contrary is evident: for speaking evē of those 7. he collecteth by S. Paul's precepts concerning Decons, that their office was not only a charge to look to the poor, but also to attend the sacred assemblies & service of the Church, & even a step to the ministry of the word, meaning, as I suppose, to the Presbytery.

As for those who properly are called Deacons; it is most evident by innumerable testimonies, that they were the third degree of the ministry, whose office was a sacred ministry , helping the Bishop or the Presbyter in the divine service, offering the bread and the cup, & performing as it were the office of a crier in the Church, (which is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) in dismissing those which were to depart, in commanding silence, and exciting the people to devotion, and attention. In the Council of Nice , fault is found with Deacons, who in some Cities did give the Eucharist to the Presbyters: but they are commanded to contain themselves within their bounds, knowing that they be the Bishops ministers, & are inferior to the Presbyters, and to receive the Communion after the Presbyters, at the hands either of the Bishop, or the Presbyters.

Justin Martyr , speaking of the Eucharist, saith, after the president hath given thanks, and the people hath blessed, they, who with us are called Deacons, do give and communicate to everyone that is present, of the bread & wine, and do carry it to those which are absent. And having repeated the same again, he speaketh of the collections for the poor: showing that what was collected, was committed (not to the Deacon, but) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the President, by him to be distributed. Tertullian saith, The chief Priest, which is the Bishop, hath the right of giving Baptism, then the Presbyters, & the Deacons, but yet not without the authority of the Bishop. Cyprian everywhere speaketh of thē, as being of the sacred ministry. The ancient Council of Eliberis hath this canon , If any Deacon, ruling, or having 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. Jerome hath these words , If at the prayer of the Bishop alone the holy Ghost descendeth, they are to be lamented, who in villages, and towns, & other remote places, being baptized by Presbyters, and Deacons, do sleep, or depart this life, before they be visited of the Bishop. The safety of the Church dependeth upon the dignity of the chief Priest (meaning the Bishop.) To whom, if a power peerless, and eminent above all be not given, there will be as many schisms in the Church, as Priests. Hence it is, that without the Chrism, (which the Presbyters & Deacons were wont to receive from their own Bishop) and commandment of the Bishop, neither Presbyter nor Deacon hath right to baptize.

In the 4. Council of Carthage, which is so oft alleged by the Disciplinarians, there is direction givē for the ordination of the Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon, & other of the Clergy. The Deacon is taught to acknowledge himself to be the minister as well of the Presbyter, as of the Bishop. The Deacon is authorized even in the presence of a Presbyter, if there be necessity, & he be cōmanded, to deliver the Eucharist of Christ's 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 term the Deacons Levites, & make them answerable to the Levites, as they do the Presbyters to the Priests, do evidently declare, what they thought concerning the office of Deacons.

That the Presbyters were not ministers of the word, the refuter proveth thus.

Therefore they were not Ministers.

The proposition is proved by 2. reasons.

First, to the proposition it self, I say it is very false, and that the contradictory in all the parts of it is true: viz that they who might, yea ought to preach, baptize, administer the Lord's supper, and perform any other pastoral duty, being thereto licensed of the Bishop, were ministers. From which we may assume and conclude thus:

And that the proposition is false, it may appear by the practice of our own Church, and of all the ancient Churches, whose Presbyters are, and were Ministers (as I have sufficiently proved before, for the conviction, I doubt not, of the refuters conscience) and yet neither may, nor might preach, baptize, administer the Lord's Supper, and perform other ministerial functions, but by leave or authority from the Bishop. Neither yet is the ministry 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 mere novelty, disagreeing from the general practice of the most ancient Churches. For howsoever afterwards he malepertly chargeth me with not understanding the distinction of ecclesiastical power, in potestatem ordinis et iurisdictionis; into the power of order and jurisdiction: yet doth he both here and there bewray himself not to understand it. For though every Minister, as he is a Presbyter hath potestatem ordinis ; yet it doth not follow, that he may at his own pleasure exercise that power. We must therefore take knowledge of two distinctions: the one, of the power of order and of jurisdiction: for every minister hath the power of order as he is a Presbyter simply; but the power of jurisdiction, as he is praelatus, or pastor. The former he hath given him in his ordination; the latter, in his institution. By the former, he is qualified and authorized to preach and administer the sacraments, and to do other • spiritual actions peculiar to his order, which another man, who is not of that order, neither can do, nor may have leave to do. But he may not perform these duties which belong to the power of his order to any congregation, as the Pastor thereof, unless that flock be assigned and committed to him by the Bishop, who hath the charge of the whole diocese. A presbyter therefore though he have potestatem ordinis, may not perform pastoral duties to any congregation, which are part of the Bishops charge, unless he be authorized thereto by the Bishop; from whom he receiveth potestatem iurisdictionis, curamque animarum et regimen ecclesia parochialis, in his institution.

Again, we must distinguish between the power it self and the exercise & execution of it. For although every minister hath the same power of order which is common to them with Bishops in respect of preaching the word and administering Baptism and the Lord's Supper, yet the exercise of their power is, and always hath been subjected to the authority of the Bishop, to be permitted, directed, restrained and suspended by him. This subordination and subjection of the presbyters to the Bishop, for the exercise of their power, which ever hath been practiced in the Church, doth not make either their function to be a mockery of the ministry, as the refuter malepertly speaketh, nor themselves to be no ministers. But plainly proveth the contrary, as I have shown.

His words be these: Dandi baptismum ius • ab • t summus sacerdos qui est episcopus, &c. The chief Priest, which is the Bishop, hath the right to give baptism. Then the presbyters and deacons; but not without the authority of the Bishop for the honor of the Church; which being safe, peace is safe . Otherwise even laymen have right. Where Tertullian showeth, that the ordinary right of baptizing appertaineth to Bishops, Presbyters, deacons, as belonging to the power of their order; though for the honor and peace of the Church, the Bishop be superior in the exercise of that power, which the Presbyters and Deacons are not to exercise without his authority: otherwise, that is, extraordinarily, and in case of necessity, the lay man, even without the Bishops leave, hath right (in Tertullian's judgment) to baptize. I hope he will r • call this foul error, proceeding from extreme ignorance, when he hath read what before hath been alleged to the contrary. And whereas the last testimony, which I alleged out of Ignatius for these three degrees of the ministry, plainly excludeth their lay Presbyters and lay Deacons, reckoning Presbyters and Deacons as degrees of the clergy; he answereth two things; the first, He should have done well to have shown, how late the breed is. For I am well assured that Cyprian useth the word clerus for the clergy ordinarily, who was little more then a hundred years after Ignatius. And Origen, before him, mentioneth this distinction of the clergy and laity. Tertullian, who lived in the same century with Ignatius, distinguisheth each company of Christians, as sometimes , into gregem & duces, the flock and the guides; ecclesi • ordinem & laicos, the order of the Church, meaning those which were in orders, and the lay people: so sometimes in ecclesiā & clerū, the assembly and the clergy. The clergy also or guides, he distinguisheth into these three degrees, Deacons, Presbyters, Bishops. The ancient Canons, called the Apostles , often mention those of the clergy, as opposed to the laity. But if I should say, that S. Peter useth the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the same sense, when writing to Bishops, whom he calleth Presbyters, & himself their Compresbyter, he willeth them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , not exercise lordship over the clergy, I should deliver that which is agreeable to the interpretation of the ancient Writers, and as I am persuaded to the truth. Neither do I doubt but the use of the word clerus, was first taken from that place of Peter, who therein followed the phrase of the Old Testament, wherein it is oft said, that the Lord was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the portion or the inheritance of the Priests and Levites. For therefore are they called Clerici, saith Jerome , vel quia de sort sunt Domini, vel quia ipse Dominus sors. i. pars clericorū est: Either because they are the Lord's portion, (which notatiō some late writers do mislike, not without cause, the people also being God's inheritance) or because the Lord is their portion: which is agreeable with y ^e scriptures.

His other answer is, that

Let him therefore tell me whether there were any Ministers in the clergy adjoined to the Bishop or not: if he say no, he is worthy to be hissed at: if yea, who were these Ministers, if the Presbyters and Deacons were not? Besides, it is plain, that the Clergy of the ancient Churches consisted wholly of scholars, which were trained up in learning: the Clergy belonging to each Bishoppe, being the seminary of the whole diocese: out of which, not only every parish, both in the City and Country, was to be furnished with Ministers, but also the Bishop himself, in the vacancy of the See, was to be chosen. Moreover, ordinarily those of the clergy ascended by degrees from the lower to the higher, the Bishop being chosen out of the Presbyters & Deacons, (for even Ignatius his successor was his deacon, Her • : ) the Presbyters & deacons out of the inferior orders, as of sub deacons, or readers, &c. Whereby it is most evident, that presbyters & deacōs were not such, as the lay-elders and lay-deacons which are nowadays in some reformed Churches; but men brought up in learning and service of the Church, having attained degrees of the sacred Ministry, such as Presbyters and Deacons are with us. And so much of my second argument.

The third is taken from the testimony of the great Council of Chalcedon, and may thus briefly be framed: It is sacrilege to reduce a Bishop to the degree of a Presbyter.

Indeed, if the Council had testified the superiority of Bishops de facto only, there had been some color for this exception, especially if he could have proved an alteration in the state of Bishops, and the advancement of them to a higher degree, to have begun after the first two hundred years. But seeing no such matter can truly be alleged, and seeing also that famous Council giveth testimony to the superiority of Bishops, not only de facto, but also de iure, and that in such sort, as it deemeth it sacrilege to reduce a Bishop to the degree of a Presbyter ; it cannot therefore be denied, but that this is a most pregnant testimony, if it be rightly alleged. Let us therefore consider the occasion of those words, which in the copy whereon Th. Balsamo doth comment, and in some manuscript Greek copies, is the twenty nine canon of that Council. When Eustathius Bishop of Berytum (for so I find him termed diverse times in the Acts of that Council, in Euagr • m , in Photios , and Balsamo ) and not of Tyre, (as in Tilius his Greek edition it is corruptly printed) when Eustathius J say, had withdrawn diverse Bishoprics from the Metropolitan Church of Tyrus, deposing the Bishops, whom Photios the Bishop of Tyrus had ordained, and bringing them down to the degree of Presbyters: complaint was made to the great Council of Chalcedon, and the matter therein in propounded by the Princes, in these words : Concerning the Bishops ordained by Photios, and degraded by Eustathius, and after they had been Bishops, commanded to be Presbyters, what is the sentence of this holy Synod? Whereto Paschasinus and Lucentiu • Bishops, and Bonifaciu • Presbyter, vicegerents of the Church of Rome, answered : To reduce a Bishop to the degree of a Presbyter, it is sacrilege: if any just cause depose them from their Bishopric, neither ought they to retain the place of Presbyters. But if without any crime they have been removed from their honor, they shall return again to their episcopal dignity. Ana • olius the Archbishop of Constantinople said, These Bishops who are said to have descended from the episcopal dignity unto the order of Presbyters, if for just cause they are condemned, neither are they worthy of the honor of Presbyters. But if without any reasonable cause they have been dejected to a less degree, they are worthy, if they be blameless, to recover again the dignity and priesthood of their Bishopric. If you think that these were but the private opinions of these men, hear the censure of the whole Council: All the reverend Bishops cried; Righteous is the judgment of the Fathers, we all say the same things; the Fathers have decreed justly, let the sentence of the Archbishops hold.

My fourth argument is drawn from the testimony of Jerome : whose authority in this cause ought to be of greatest weight, because he is the only man almost among the fathers, whom the Disciplinarians can allege against the superiority of Bishops. Jerome therefore saith, that at Alexandria from Mark the Evangelist, unto Heraclas and Dionysius Bishops, evermore the presbyters having chosen one from among themselves, and placed him in exce • siori gradu, in an higher degree, called him Bishop▪ even as an army chooseth a General. This testimony the Refuter eleuateth in two respects. The first, because Jerome is under age. Which is a very simple evasion. For Jerome doth not only testify what was in his time, but also giveth plain evidence, that in the first two hundred years, even from S. Mark until Heraclas, Bishops were placed in a superior degree above Presbyters.

To omit how odiously this is set down, I do profess, that I may with better credit agree with Bellarmine, wherein he consenteth with all antiquity, then the Refuter and his consorts can agree with Aërius ; wherein he dissenting from all antiquity, was by Epiphanius, Philaster, Augustine, and all the Catholic Church in his time, condemned for an heretic.

This answer might become our refuter better then Chamier. For first it is untrue, that Jerome in these words proveth that a Bishop and a Presbyter differ not. For doth he not plainly say that the Bishop was placed in a higher degree? and doth he not compare him in respect of the Presbyters which chose him, to the Chieftaine or General, chosen of the Army?

Secondly, he faileth in setting down Jerome's purpose; which was not to prove there was no difference betwixt Bishops and Presbyters; but to prove, that Presbyters were superior to Deacons. That he proveth by many arguments. First, because the name Episcopus, Bishop, in the Scriptures is given to Presbyters. Secondly, because the Apostles and Bishops are in the Scriptures called Presbyters : to which purpose he allegeth 1. Tim. 4.13. 1. Pet. 5.1. 2. John 1. and 3. John 1. And thirdly, whereas it might be objected, the Bishops were set over Presbyters ; he confesseth it was done for avoiding of schism ; but yet so, as by the Presbyters the Bishop was chosen out of the Presbyters, ever since S. Marks time, until Heracla • and D ••• ysius, as a General by the Army, or the Arch-deacon by the Deacons, out of their own company. Whereby he would also insinuate, that a Presbyter is so much better then a Deacon, as a Bishop is superior to an Arch deacon.

It is plain, that in another place he confesseth Mark to have been the first Bishop of Alexandria. If Mark therefore were superior in degree to the Presbyters at Alexandra, as no man will deny; then must the same be confessed of Anianus, and the rest of his successors, as Jerome plainly testifieth.

Which answer, if his meaning be as our refuter conceiteth, is unsound. For first where he saith the order was changed in Heraclas and Dionysius, that is spoken but by guess, because Jerome nameth them. Upon which conjecture, T. C. and H. I. as you have heard, did build their two diverse fancies. For Jerome's meaning was not to signify that the superiority of Bishops was altered: but as I have shown, that until Heraclas and Dionysius, who were not Presbyters, but Teachers of the school in Alexandria, the Presbyters ever since S. Marks time, did choose one out of their own number. That which the Refuter addeth, is absurd, and against Jerome's plain words: And Jerome saith, that ever from Saint Mark, and therefore even in the Apostles times, the BB. had been placed in a higher degree.

My fifth argument is also from the authority of Jerome, which yieldeth a double proof; the former, that the superiority of Bishops over Presbyters, and Presbyters above Deacons, is an ordinance or tradition apostolical.

Secondly, that as the high Priest was in degree superior to the other Priests, and they to the Levites: so by an apostolical ordinance the Bishop is superior to the Presbyters, and the Presbyters to the Deacons. That we may know, saith he, the apostolical traditions are taken out of the old testament, look what Aaron , and his sons and the Levites were in the Temple; the same let the Bishops, Priests and Deacons challenge in the Church. To this testimony containing two impregnable proofs for the superiority of BB. not only de facto, but also de iure ; the refuter thought it his wisest course to say nothing.

To these arguments this may be added: That as the new ordination of a Deacon, when he was made a Presbyter, doth prove that he was advanced to a higher degree of the ministry: even so when a Presbyter was chosen to be Bishop, he was by a new ordination promo • ed to the Bishopric, as to a higher degree. The two first canons, among those which are called the Apostles, appoint , that a Bishop should be ordained of two or three Bishops : but let a Presbyter, say they, be ordained of one Bishop, and likewise a Deacon, and the rest of the clergy. Valeriu • the Bishop dealth with the Primate, the Bishop of Carthage, by letters entreating him that Augustine (who then was Presbyter) might be ordained Bishop of Hippo: which being obtained , Augustine took upon him the care of the Bishopric, & maioris loci 〈…〉 , and ordination of a greater place. The council of Serdica , taketh order, that before a man may be a Bishop he must first perform the ministry of a Reader, then of a Deacon, then of a Presbyter, that so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by every degree, if he be worthy, he may arise 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , unto the height of the Bishopric. Theadoret testifieth, that John (Chrysostom) having been the chief of the Presbyters at Antioch a long time, oft times might have been chosen to the Bishopric (which he calleth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Apostolical presidency ) but always did fly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that principality. So that though he were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the chief of the Presbyters ; yet he was no Bishop, neither durst he for a long time take upon him that degree of principality. So much of the superiority of Bishops in general.

CHAP. III. Showing wherein the superiority of Bishops did and doth consist: and first of the singularity of preeminence.

T He superiority of Bishops over other Ministers, I place in three things: singularity of preeminence during life, the power of ordination, and the power of jurisdiction: all which I ground on Tit. 1.5. But where I say, during life, he saith,

In the former he showeth how audacious he is, seeing, Beza the chief patron of the pretended discipline, holdeth that the Presidents of the Presbyteries (which afterwards, as he saith, were called Bishops) ought to be but for a short time, and that by course, and esteemeth them which had a perpetual presidenship, to be Bishops human , as I have shown before. The practice also of those Churches where the discipline is used, doth prove what their Founders thought was agreeable to God's word. This their conceit is evidently confuted by the Epistles to Titus and to Timothy. For seeing they do confess, that they were the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in the Churches of Crete and Ephesus; it is evident, that they continued in this Presidentshippe, whiles they lived there. For it is absurd to imagine, that Titus was sent to Crete, and Timothy to Ephesus, to be presidents there in their turns, and when their turns were ended, to be subjected to other of the Presbyters there in their course. But these things the refuter doth but cavil at by the way. For he granteth that Titus had this superiority which we speak of: his main answer is, Which afterwards J prove in the Sermon, by the common consent of the ancient and most approved Writers of the Church; with whose affirmation, in a matter of fact, if this Refuters denial shall be weighed in the balance of an impartial judgment, it will be found as light as vanity it self. But of this question more hereafter . In the mean time, J will but desire the Reader to take this for granted, because it cannot be denied, that if Titus was Bishop of Crete, then Bishops had this threefold superiority which I speak of.

Where I commend this order of Church government, consisting in the superiority of Bishops, and inferiority of other Ministers; this grave and learned Refuter maketh a scorn at it, saying,

The which argueth his spite against the government of Bishops, rather then his might, being neither able to endure the just commendation of episcopal government, nor yet to confute it. For what hath he but trifles and toys to object against it? For where he saith, the conscience of the Reader, I hope also of the Refuter, will testify, that what I suppose in this behalf, hath been before sufficiently proved. Besides, those with whom I principally contend in this point, do confess the Churches endued with power of ecclesiastical government, to have been dioceses , as hath been shown. I say then (which also I proved afterwards by the testimonies of Cyprian and Jerome, whereto the authority of Basil may be added) that the unity of each Church, meaning a diocese, dependeth of the unity of the Bishoppe: and the setting up of a second, unless it were by way of coadiutorshippe, hath ever been esteemed the making of a schism in the Church. But of this more anon.

§. 2. But let us hear, if it be worth the hearing, what more particularly he objecteth against these three points. And first he trifleth to no purpose, when he asketh,

For though ech parish, if it were, according to the new conceit, an entire body within it self, vnsubordinate to any other, may perhaps have unity within it self: yet in the Church of the diocese or province, that may happen (which Jerome affirmeth is like to happen, where is no Bishoppe) that there shall be as many schisms as parishes. And surely what man of judgment and moderation, can without horror think of those manifold schisms and divisions which would ensue, if every parish should have (according to the new conceit) sufficient authority within it self vnsubordinate and independent, for the government of it self, in all causes ecclesiastical? Yea but saith he, The more particular Churches in any one visible Church are subordinate to one Bishoppe, the greater is the unity. But by one visible Church I mean the Christian people of one diocese, or of one province, or at the most of one Nation. For the Christian people living under diverse laws, as they be diverse Nations, so are they diverse visible Churches, though the faithful in them all are members of one and the same Catholic Church.

Let us hear how he proveth the assumption.

As who should say, all the Churches in the world are under the Popes government: so that whiles he denieth the superiority of Bishops, he seemeth (else there is no sense in his speech) to hold the Popes supremacy. If any man shall say, that as the unity of ech Church dependeth on the singular preeminence of the Bishoppe: so the unity of the whole Catholic Church by the same reason shall depend of the Popes supremacy, (which seemeth to have been the Refuters meaning, who desireth as much as may be that the superiority of Bishops and supremacy of the Pope may seem to be of one tenure:) I answer, that the unity of the whole Church standeth in this; that it is one body, under one head Christ. And as in a diocese, to set up a second head, is to set up an Antibishoppe, and to make a schism from the true Bishoppe: so in the whole Church, to acknowledge a second head, is to set up Antichrist, and to make an apostasy from Christ. Neither was it ever the meaning of our Savior, that as every particular Church should be under one Pastor, so the whole Church should be under one visible head, or earthly Monarch. For then would not he have furnished his twelve Apostles with equal power and authority, as I have said before.

As touching the second, he confesseth all that I said, namely that from the power of ordination the perpetuity of the Church dependeth; and yet cavilleth with me, as if either I had said, there could be

or that the Bishop had the sole power thereof. Thus being resolved to wrangle, if he find not matter to cavil at, he will fain it. I did not say there could be no ordination without a Bishoppe: but that ever since the Apostles times to our age, it hath been the received opinion in the Church of God, that the right of ordination of Presbyters and Deacons, is such a peculiar prerogative of BB. as that ordinarily and regularly, there could be no lawful ordination but by a Bishop: otherwise I do confess in the sermon, that extraordinarily, and in case of necessity, Presbyters may ordain in the want of a Bishop.

Concerning the third, he saith it

He meaneth in the several parishes, which may after a fashion be governed, where the supreme ecclesiastical officer • (I mean the parish minister) assisted with such a senate, as ech parish is like to afford, hath the reins of government in all causes ecclesiastical committed to them. But I pray you, how shall there be any good order in the government of the Churches of a diocese, or province, when every parish is so according to the new conceit an entire body of it self, (indeed a member by Schism rent from the the rest) as it hath neither consociation with▪ nor subordination to others? For they are not governed by consociation, who deny the definitive power of synods, as our new Disciplinarians do; neither do they acknowledge any subordination: for their Pastor forsooth is the supreme ecclesiastical officer, and the power of ech parish is independent, immediately derived from Christ. Now, how is it possible there should be good order in the government of so many parishes in a Kingdom, where is no subordination; no superiors, nor inferiors, but all equal? But this is enough for our Disciplinarians, if they might be subject to no superiors, but that each of them might be the supreme ecclesiastical officer in every Church.

Jn this section I prove, that the Bishops of the primitive Church were superior to other Ministers in singularity of preeminence for term of life. Which is a point very material, proving both against the new Disciplinarians, that the BB. were diocesan, there being but one for ech diocese, as hath been touched before: and against the elder, that the BB. were not such as their Presidents of the Presbytery, or Moderators of assemblies among them, whose preeminence is but a priority of order, and but for a short time, and against both, disprouing the parity of Ministers, which is the other main pillar of the pretended discipline. Here therefore it behooved the Refuter, if his cause were such, as indeed he could maintain with soundness of learning, and evidence of truth, both to have disproved this superiority of BB. and to have proved his parity of Ministers. But he passeth by in haste, touching only upon the points, as a dog by the river Nile, not daring to stay by it; & yet so brag he is, that he would seem to haste away not for fear, but rather in disdain, as not vouchsafing to waste time in a matter either so impertinēt, as the former part of this section, or so needless, as the latter. For this is his usual guise, to cast off those points of the Sermon, which indeed are most material, as impertinent or needless. The former is impertinent, because

Which is a mere evasion, unlearned, and J greatly doubt also unconscionable. Do I not plainly note that these seven Angels had this singularity of preeminence, when as I say the holy Ghost teacheth, that whereas there were many Presbyters▪ who also were Angels in every Church: yet there was but one, who was the Angel of ech Church? For to his objection of their not being diocesan Bishops, I have answered before. And for the time, do I not affirm, that Timothy had this singularity of preeminence at Ephesus, Titus in Crete, Epaphroditus in Philippi, Archippus at Colossae in the Apostles times? As for the rest of my witnesses, they do either testify de iure, which in their judgment is perpetual; or if they speak de facto, it is of that which was in the Apostles times. Cornelius the worthy martyr, who was Bishop of Rome about the year two hundred fifty, avoucheth, that there ought to be but one Bishop in a Catholic Church, though the number of Presbyters and other clergy men were very great, and imputeth it as a matter of great ignorance to Nouatian, that he did not know 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , there ought to be but one Bishop in a Catholic Church, wherein he knew there were forty six Presbyters, &c. This testimony is rejected, because it was given fifty years after the date: which were but an evasion, if it did testify de facto only. But seeing Cornelius speaketh de iure, of what ought to be, I hope that which ought not to have been in Cornelius his time, was not lawful before, unless the Refuter can show, that before Cornelius his time, plurality of Bishops in one Church was counted lawful.

§. 5. The Council of Nice (whose testimony I also alleged) was of this judgment, that there ought not to be two Bishops in one City. For having decreed, that when the Catharists, that is, Puritans or Novatians, returned to the Catholic Church, those who were of the clergy should retain their degree, as he that was a Deacon or a Presbyter should so continue, and likewise a Bishoppe (for even the Puritans or Catharists themselves had their Bishops) if there were not another already in the Catholic Church. But if there were a Bishoppe of the Catholic Church already, then it is manifest before hand, that the Bishoppe of the Church shall have the honor of the Bishoppe: but he that was called Bishoppe among the Catharists shall have the honor of a Presbyter: unless it please the Bishop to communicate unto him the honor of the name. But if that like him not, he shall find him out either a Chorepiscopus, that is, a country Bishops, or a Presbyters place, that still he may be retained in the clergy, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that there may not be two Bishop▪ in one City Which words in Ruffinus are the tenth Canon: Ne in vna Ciuitate duo sint Episcopy. Augustine also understood, though somewhat too late, that it was forbidden by the Council of Nice, that there should be anymore Bishops in a Church then one. For how soever, whiles he was ignorant thereof, he was drawn to take upon him the B • shopricke of Hippo, whiles Valerius was alive; yet when himself was old, and desired that Eradius might be his Coa •• utor, whom also he nominated for his successor; yet he thought it unlawful that whiles himself lived he should be ordanied Bishop Whiles Valerius lived (saith he ) I was ordained Bishop, and I sat with him, both of us being ignorant, that it was forbidden by the Council of Nice. But what was reprehended in me, shall not be blamed in him. Or as Possidonius speaketh, Quod sibi factum esse doluit▪ alijs fieri noluit.

In the next place, I bring the testimonies of Jerome , Chrysostom, Ambrose, Theodoret, and Oecumenius on Phil. 1. All which (I confess) lived after the two hundred years: but they testify, that in the Apostles times there could be no more Bishops then one. And the like hath Primasius on the same place.

To all this he answers, that

which no • withstanding he can never prove to be human; and I trust the singularity of preeminence in each of these Angels, in Timothy, in Titus, &c. was no human device. But though he will not strive, yet he allegeth that little which he was able, and that also more then himself doth believe to be true. For he objecteth that Founders they both were of the Church of Rome, as Irenaeus testifieth, and having founded the Church, ordained Linus Bishop: but that either of them both, and much less that both at once were Bishops of Rome, the Refuter himself doth not believe. To what purpose then doth he allege that which himself is persuaded to be false? Would he have his Reader believe that to be true, which himself believeth to be untrue?

That which he quoteth out of Athanasius that there were diverse Bishops in someone Church, though I cannot find, it may be true in time of schism and division; as at Antioch sometimes there were three Bishops, &c.

His allegation out of D. Sutcliffe is very childish: as though when he saith, that Paul ordained in every Town or City Presbyters and Bishops; his meaning were, that in every City he placed more Bishops then one. If I should say; there are Bishops placed in every City or diocese throughout England, J should speak truly: and yet my meaning would be, that in every diocese there is but one.

Where I say, that as this singularity of preeminence was ordained for the preservation of the Church in unity, and for the avoiding of schism; so is it for the same cause to be retained; he would seem half amazed, that I,

But the Read • r that fauoreth the Refuters person and cause, hath more cause to be amazed at his dealing. For first, is not this a plain lie, and a notorious falsification of my words, to say I plainly avouch a necessity of retaining the government of diocesan Bishops, &c? Where do J mention or mean that necessity he speaketh of? Could those words, so is it for the same cause to be retained, no otherwise be expounded, then as implying an absolute necessity? That is to be retained which is meet, or fit, expedient or convenient, profitable or needful to be retained. Secondly let the reader remember how oft the refuter hath charged me for saying the Bishops calling to be holden ^d , iure diuino, implying a perpetual necessity thereof, and chargeth the doctrine of my sermon to be in that respect contrary to the laws of our land, which make the form of Church government to be alterable by the King; and yet here acknowledgeth for advantage, that I hold no such matter. Thirdly let it be observed, how under this pretence of amazement, he shifteth of the testimony of Cyprian, which sitteth so near to him, and his consorts. But the reader I hope will bear in mind the words off Cyprian , noting the source of all schisms to be this, when the Bishop, who is but one, and governeth the Church, by the proud presumptiō of some is contemned &c. And in the same epistle, you ought to know, saith he, to Pupianus, that the Bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the Bishop, and that whosoever are not with the Bishop are not in the Church; and that they do flatter themselves in vain who have not peace with the Priests of God (that is the Bishops) &c. To this purpose Cyprian often writeth. , Neque enim ali •• de heresies, &c. Neither have heresies or schisms any other beginning then this, that God's Priest (meaning the Bishop) is not obeyed. Neither is one Bishop for the time, nor one Judge in Christ's steed acknowledged, &c. Again, haec sunt initia haereticorum , these be the beginnings of heretics, these the risings and indeuors of ill minded schismatics, that they please themselves, and contemn their B. with swelling pride. Sic de ecclesia receditur, thus do men depart from the Church, &c. And in another place : Hence do men rush into heresies and schisms, when they speak evil of Priests, and envy their Bishops, &c. The Lord open their eyes who are faulty in this behalf, that they may see their sin, and touch their hearts that they may repent thereof.

Out of Jerome, (who is the only man among the Fathers, on whose authority the Disciplinarians in this cause do rely) I produce three most pregnant testimonies, the first affirming, that unless this singularity of preeminence be yielded to the Bishop, there will be as many schisms as Priests. The second, that ever since Saint Marks time, the Presbyters having elected one, placed him in a higher degree, and called him Bishoppe. The third, that when some began to say, J am of Paul, I of Apollo, (which was in the Apostles time) it was decreed by the whole world, that one being chosen from among the Presbyters, should be set over the rest in every Church, unto whom the care of the whole Church should appertain. Of these allegations, the first giveth testimony to this superiority de iure: the other two testifying de facto, bear witness that it hath been so in and ever since the Apostles times. These testimonies are featly avoided, with a promise to answer them afterwards, when he will say never a word to the present, not almost to any purpose.

The second part of this section, wherein I prove against Beza, and the better sort of the Disciplinarians, that the BB. had this singularity of preeminence, neither for a short time, nor by course, but were elected for term of life; this Refuter rejecteth,

Refuted oft? I would be sory that he should be able with soundness of reason and evidence of truth to refute any one sentence in the Sermon. All the refutation of this point, which hitherto we have had, was this: that I charged them with untruths, that I threaten kindness on them, that I had need to be as eloquent as Pericles, if I could persuade that any of them have said this, when as I have brought forth most plain and evident allegations to this purpose. And although I forbear to mention Beza, tendering his credit, yet what I here confuted, is avouched by him in his twenty third chapter of his book, concerning the degrees of Ministers, chiefly in the 141.142.143. pages.

Now because this point is of great moment, though the Refuter have tripped over it so lightly, like a dog over a hot hearth, as if I were afraid to touch it; I will therefore endeavor to give the Reader some further satisfaction therein, by adding some other proofs. What antiquity thought of the singularity of Bishops, may appear first by these two testimonies out of Cyprian and Theodoret.

For when Nouatian was ordained a second Bishop in Rome besides Cornelius, some of the Clergy having ben before Confessors, who also had consented to him, moved with repentance, and returning from schism unto the Church, confessed their error, saying , Nos errorem nostrum confitemur, &c. Neith • r are we ignorant that there ought to be one God, one Christ the Lord, whom we have confessed, one holy Ghost, one Bishop in a Catholic Church. Likewise when Constantius being entreated by the godly Matrons in Rome, gave consent that Liberius should return, but withal appointed that he and Felix should rule the Church in common: the faithful people deriding that sentence of the Arian Emperor, with one voice cried, as Theodoret reporteth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , one God, one Christ, one Bishop. After these speeches of the true Christian people adorned with piety and justice, Liberius returned, and Felix departed to another City, and shortly died. Which came to pass by God's good providence, saith Sozomen , that the seat of Peter, should not be diffamed as governed at once by two rulers, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : which is a note of dissension, and repugnant to the law ecclesiastical.

2. And that the adding of a second Bishop was judged unlawful and esteemed as a note of schism, Cyprian in some other places besides those which before I cited, doth testify. Writing therefore to the foresaid Confessors, who had joined with Nouatian , Granat me, saith he, it greiueth me &c. When I understood that you there against ecclesiastical order, against the Evangelical law, against the unity of Catholic institution, have thought that another Bishop was to be made, that is to say, which is ungodly, and unlawful to be done, that another Church should be instituted, the members of Christrent asunder, the mind and body of the Lord's flock, which is but one, to be torn with schismatical emulation.

And in another place , Where a Bishop is once lawfully ordained, whosoever now will be made Bishop, it is necessary that he should be put forth of the Church, and that he have not the Churches ordination, who doth not hold the unity of the Church. Whosoever he be, though he boast much of himself, and challenge very much to himself; he is profane, he is an alliant, he is out of the Church. And for as much, as after the first Bishop, there cannot be a second, whosoever after that one, who ought to be alone, is made, he is not the second, but none at all.

Thirdly, the singularity of preeminence in Bishops, during their life, is proved by their singularity of succession, both in and since the Apostles times, noted by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Eusebius, and other approved authors, most plainly proving, that there was but one Bishop at once in the ancient and Apostolical Churches.

Fourthly, what the preeminence and superiority of Bishops was over the Presbyters, and others of the Clergy, appeareth by this, that in good writers they are said the Bishop his Presbyters, the Bishops Deacons, the Bishops clergy. Thus Arius is said to have been Alexanders presbyter, Petrus and Irenaus , Timothy •• and Macarius to have been Athanasius his Presbyters; the vicegerents of Sylvester, in the council of Nice were his Presbyters . Thus Crispio is said to have been Epiphaniu • his archdeacon, Heraclides to have been Chrysostom's deacon. In a word, all of the Clergy were said to be the Bishops clerks, as in the council of Afric : Let no Bishop take another's clerk, without the consent of him whose clerk he is. The which is a plain argument of the great preeminence which the Bishops of the primitive Church had over the Presbyters, and others of the clergy. To these we will add the testimony of Bucer , against whom the Refuter cannot except, as being partial for Bishops. By the perpetual observation of the Church, saith he, even from the Apostles themselves, we see it seemed good to the holy Ghost, that among the Presbyters, to whom the charge of the Church is specially committed, one should have the singular charge of the Churches: and in that charge and care governed all others; for which cause the name of Bishop was attributed to these chief Governors of Churches: Howbeit, without the counsel of the other Presbyters they ought not to determine anything &c.

Thus much of the Preeminence of Bishops.

CHAP. IIII. That Bishops were superior in power, and first in the power of ordination.

T His testimony is handled by him as Sir Christopher Blunts head was used, after his apprehension; first healed, and then cut off: For first, he explanes the testimony, and then rejects it. He restraineth Jerome's speech to the Church in his own time, viz. in the end of the fourth age, saying,

Which is as unlearned a shift, as ever was heard of. As though Jerome had spoken only of that which was in his time, and not of that which in his judgment ought to be. Was it Jerome's judgment, that the superiority of Bishops was needful for the avoiding of Schisms in his time only? doth he not plainly teach, that the superiority of Bishops began in the Apostles times, and that at the first they were ordained for avoiding of Shismes? For the former, doth he not say, that James was Bishop of Jerusalem, Timothy of Ephesus, and Titus of Crete? Doth he not say, that ever since Saint Marks time, there have been Bishops placed in a superior degree above the Presbytes? Doth he not call the superiority of BB. a tradition Apostolical? and doth he not say, that it began in the whole world, when divisions began in the Church, saying, I am of Paul, &c. which was in the Apostles time? &c.

As touching the latter, he saith, indeed that at the first the Churches (under the Apostles, before BB. were ordained) were governed by the common Counsel of Presbyters. But whereas afterwards one was elected, who should be set over the rest, In Schismatis remedium factum est, It was provided as a remedy against Schism, lest every man drawing after him, should rend in pieces the Church of Christ. And least we should think, that afterwards to be referred to the times after the Apostles; he addeth in the next words, Nam & Alexandriae, For even at Alexandria, ever since Mark the Evangelist (who died 5. or 6. years before Peter, and Paul, and almost 40. years before Saint John, ) the Presbyters have always chosen one, and placed him in a higher degree, and called him Bishop. The like he hath in Titum 1. that when divisions began in the Church, it was decreed in the whole world, that one should be set over the rest, to whom omnis Ecclesiae cura pertineret, & Schismatum semina tollerentur, the care of the whole Church, or all the care of the Church should appertain, and that the seeds of Schisms might be taken away, or as he speaketh afterwards, vt dissensionum plantaria euellerentur ad vnum omnem solicitudinem esse dela ••• ▪ that the first plants or sets of dissensions might be plucked out, the whole care was committed to one. It is most plain therefore, that in Jerome's judgment, the superiority of BB. was needful for the avoiding of Schism, not only in his own time, but even in the Apostles times, when Bishops were first ordained. And as he teacheth, that BB. were instituted for avoiding of Schism, so his judgment in the place alleged was, that for the same cause they are necessarily to be retained: Yea, he saith, Salus Ecclesia, The safety of the Church dependeth on this dignity of Bishops, and that unless a peerless and supereminent power be given unto them, there would be as many Schisms in the Churches, as there be Priests.

But the refuter wants no reasons (J warrant you) to restrain Jerome's words to Jerome's time:

Thus Jerome, if he agree not with the conceits of some giddy heads, shall be judged wild-headed. And why so I pray you? For three reasons. First, because Whereunto I answer, that this is all which Jerome in this cause saith, that Bishops, and Presbyters are the 〈◊〉 in the Scriptures. His meaning is, that before Bishops were ordained, the names Episcopus & Presbyter were confounded, and the same men were called Presbyters, and Bishops; which I do not deny. But no wheres he saith, that Bishops and Presbyters were equal: for before BB. were ordained, he could not say that Presbyters and Bishops were equal: he saith they were the same. After Bishops were ordained, which he acknowledgeth to have been done in the Apostles times, and that by the Apostles, for which cause he calleth their institution, a tradition Apostolical ; he plainly confesseth, that one, who was chosen from among the Presbyters, and was called the Bishop of the Church, to have been placed in a higher degree. But hereof we shall have occasion hereafter to entreat more fully.

His second reason:

For even at Alexandria ever since Mark the Evangelist, until the Bishops Heraclas and Dionysius, the Presbyters have always called one, being chosen out of themselves, and placed him in a higher degree, Bishop; even as an army chooseth their chiefetaine. Which words as so far from giving the least inkling of the Refuters conceit, that Heraclas and Dionysius should be the first authors of advancing Bishops, that they plainly declare the Bishops ever from Saint Marks time to Heraclas and Dionysius, to have been placed in a higher degree above the Presbyters, as the general above the soldiers. And truly of the two, T. C. conceit, who collecteth the clean contrary to our refuter, hath the better gloss: for, he imagineth, that until Heralas, and Dionysius, they who were chosen from among the Presbyters, were called Bishops, but then godly men misliking the appropriating of the name to one in a Church, ceased to call him so. And he might have added with no less color out of the words, that the Bishops till then had been placed in a higher degree above other ministers, but then good men misliking their advancement above their fellow ministers, brought them a peg lower. To these conjectures the words would seem to them that understand not the right meaning thereof, (which heretofore I have declared) to give some color of likelihood, were it not that the practice of the Church did openly proclaim the contrary. Wherefore, of all collectors, my Refuter shall bear away the bell: For, he that can collect out of these words,

His third reason that

The Refuter having thus salued this testimony of Jerome, in the end rejects it:

but this latter consequence is naught: so is the former.

Thus Jerome, on whose only authority among the ancient, the Disciplinarians in this cause rely, when he speaketh anything for the BB. his credit is no better with them, then if he had spoken for the Popes supremacy. But this is his desperate malice against the holy calling of Bishops, whereby he seeketh everywhere to parallele the Christian superiority of BB. with the Antichristian supremacy of the Pope. But all in vain: For though it be true in Jerome's conceit, that if there were no Bishops, there would be as many Schisms almost as Priests; yet it doth not follow, th • t if there were no Pope, there would be as many Schisms as Bishops. For first, experience teacheth how to judge of this matter: for until the year 607. the Pope never attained to his supremacy; and yet the Church was more free from Schisms, before that time, then since, whereas contrariwise, when there were no Bishops for a short season, in the Apostles times, in most of the Churches, everyone of the Presbyters, as Jerome speaketh, sought to draw Disciples after him: which he supposeth to have been the occasion of instituting Bishops.

Secondly, there is great odds between BB. and the greatest number of Presbyters. One Bishop, say the Fathers of the African council , may ordain many Presbyters, but one man fit to be a Bishop is hard to be found.

Thirdly, before there was one supreme or universal Bishop, there was unity and communion between all the Bishops in Christendom, whose course to preserve unity in the Churches and to avoid Schism, was to communicate the confessions of their faith one with another by their communicatorie, pacificall or formed letters. And if any were in error, they sought first severally by their letters to reclaim them; and if they prevailed not, they assembled in Councils either to reduce them to unity, or to depose them.

Cyprian saith , that the Catholic Church is one, not rent into Schisms nor divided, but everywhere knit together & coharentium sibi inuicem Sacerdotum glutino copulata, and coupled with the glew as it were of Bishops agreeing mutually among themselves. And in another place , which before hath been alleged; Therefore is the body of Bishops copious, coupled together with the glew of mutual concord, and with the bond of unity, that if any of our company shall be author of an Heresy, & shall endeavor to rend the flock of Christ, and to make havoc thereof, the rest may help &c. Whereas contrariwise, if there were one supreme and universal Bishop, whose authority were greater then of general Councils, as the Papists teach; when he doth err, who should reclame him, when he is exorbitant, who should reduce him into the way, when he shall draw with him innumerable troops of souls into Hell, who may say unto him, Domine, cur ita facis? Syr, why do you so? And as the Church is to be careful for avoiding Schism, and preservation of itself in the unity of truth, which may be provided for, as it was wont, yea, better then it was wont (where are Christian, and Orthodoxall magistrates) by the BB. singularity of preeminence in every several Church, and mutual concord of them in the truth: so must it be as careful to avoid conspiring & consenting in untruth. But where there is one supreme and universal Bishop, when he erreth and goeth astray, he becometh as we see in the Papacie, the head of a Catholic Apostasy from Christ. So that this pretended remedy against Schism, causing a Catholic apostasy, is as much, or more, to be avoided then Schism it self, the remedy being far worse then the feared malady.

Where I place the power wherein Bishops are superior to Presbyters in these two things; the Reader is to understand, that I mention the principal, and most essential: for otherwise, ancient writers mention other perogatives of Bishops, wherein their superiority doth consist; as by imposition of hands to confirm them that are baptized, and publicly to reconcile the penitents, to consecrate Churches &c. of some whereof Jerome indeed saith, they did belong ad honorem potius Sacerdotij, quàm ad legis necessitatem, rather to the honor of the Priesthood, then to the necessity of law. But what saith the Refuter?

But where good sir, do I say they must have the sole power of ordination, which you have so oft objected, and now again do repeat? make you no conscience of publishing untruths? cannot BB. be superior to other ministers in the power of ordination, and jurisdiction, which is the thing which I maintain, unless they have the sole power? or do I here dispute what Bishops must have, when I only show what the ancient Bishops were wont to have? If he shall say, that unless they had the sole power of ordination, they had not the superiority which our Bishops have; I answer, that our BB. have no more the sole power of ordination, then the ancient Bishops had. And this I added in the Sermon, that although the power of ordination was held in the primitive Church to be so peculiar to Bishops, as that ordinarily and regularlie the ordination was not thought lawful, which was not done by a Bishop: yet it doth not follow, but that extraordinarily, and in case of necessity, Presbyters might ordain. Howbeit, I must confess, I am not able to allege any approved examples thereof. If the Refuter can, which I do more then doubt of, he shall do well to produce them: it may tend to the credit of some other Churches, it cannot be prejudicial to the cause which I maintain

Seeing therefore the Refuter doth alter the state of the question, making me to prove that which I did not intend, because he could not answer that which was propounded: I should neither wrong him, nor the Reader, If I vouchsafed him no further answer in this point. But in very truth, he is so far from refuting the superiority of Bishops in the power of ordination which J propounded, that he is not able to disprove their sole power, which himself hath foisted into the question.

For as touching my first argument; whereas he frameth for me this consequence, It hath been the received opinion in the Church of God, ever since the Apostles times, that the right of ordination of Presbyters, is such a peculiar prerogative of Bishops, as that ordinarily, and regularlie, there could be no ordination, but by a Bishop: therefore BB. have sole authority of ordination, (he should have said, therefore they are superior to other ministers in the power of ordination:) he passeth by this consequence, though he would fain persuade his Reader, that it is liable to (he cannot tell what) just exception: and only insisteth on the antecedent, which is the assumption of his prolixe syllogism. But it is worth the hearing, how he doth disprove it. Forsooth

Here the Refuter, if he would have said anything to satisfy his Reader, should have produced some approved example of ordination, either in the Apostles times, or since, performed by Presbyters without a Bishop; whereby he might have disproved my assertion: but not being able so to do, he betaketh himself to his ordinary trade of answering by mere cavillations. He talketh of a supposition, whereon the assumption is grounded; when as the speech is simple, and categoricall as they speak, and not hypothetical; and the effect of his answer is not the denial of a supposition, but the taking away of the subject of the question: as if he should say; Bishops were not, therefore they had not this power: For where he addeth Diocesan, that is spoken unseasonably: for the question now is not what their authority was extensiue : whether to a Diocese or not, which in this point is not material; but what it was intensiue in respect of other ministers. By that starting hole therefore he cannot escape: especially, if it be added, that the supposition is not (as he untruly saith) false: for that error he will as I hope recant, when he shall have read, what I have alleged for the proof of Dioceses and Diocesan Bishops. And whereas he saith, he hath proved it to be false; that also is untrue: for he never went about it. Nec ausus est: nec potuit, only he rejected it in a glorious manner, as being so manifestly false, that he should not need to disprove it. But suppose for a little while, that the refuters, and the rest of the challengers conceit were true, that there were no Bishops but parishional, and that the Presbyters joined to them were lay elders: it would then be known, when the pastoral charge was void, who did ordain the new Bishop or Pastor. You will say, that is already defined. It is one of the main positions which the great challengers have offered to prove, that every parish hath within it self authority to elect, ordain depose, and deprive their Minister : Not that the whole parish doth ordain, but only the Presbyterie. Very good: this then is the effect of the new Disciplinarians conceit, that the power of ordination belongeth ordinarily neither to Bishops, nor to other ministers, but to their Presbyterie consisting of lay elders. But if they can prove by any one approved example, that lay elders had ever, or at any time, right to ordain, or to impose hands, I will yield in the whole cause.

My second proof he hath perverted, proportioning it to his own strength: for he should have framed it thus.

The former part of the antecedent I prove by Paul's substituting Timothy at Ephesus, and Titus in Crete, to that end, that they might ordain elders; notwithstanding that there were diverse Presbyters in both those Churches before. Whereto he answereth, that

That the people sometimes have had some stroke in election of their Bishops, I do not deny; but that they ever had any right to ordain, can never be proved. That the Presbyters had right to have done it, he should have declared. But what Presbyters doth he speak of? ministers? they I trust, if the new conceit be true, were confined ech man to his own parish; neither might they intermeddle in other parishes, every parish having sufficient authority within it self: neither can it be thought, that the Presbyters of latter times should be fit, and that they which were ordained by the Apostles themselves, were not fit for the execution of their power? assuredly, if it were not fit for them to ordain, but for Timothy and Titus ; by the same reason, neither is it fit for Presbyters afterwards, but for Bishops, who succeeded Timothy and Titus. If he say, the lay Presbyters and the people had right to ordain; he must first prove (which he will never be able to do) that ever there were such Presbyters; and then he must prove, that they and the people had right to ordain ministers: which when he hath performed, he may hope to prove anything.

Thus no part of my syllogism is answered, unless it be the conclusion. But to answer his reason, whereby he goeth about, 〈◊〉 cl ••• pel • ere : their being Evangelists, whiles they attended the Apostle in his peregrinations, and were not deputed to any one place, doth not hinder, but that they might be and were Bishops, (as all antiquity with one consent testifieth) when they were assigned to certain Churches. Neither is it greatly material, as touching the force of this argument, whether they were Evangelists, or Bishops: seeing the power which they had of ordination and jurisdiction, was not to die with them; but to be transmitted to them, who should succeed them in the government of the Church. Now that the Bishops of Ephesus and Crete, and so of all other Churches, did succeed Timothy and Titus, and other Apostolical men, who were the first governors of the Churches; is a most certain truth, as the singular succession of Bishops in those Churches from the Apostles times, doth inevitably evince. But hereof I shall have better occasion hereafter to speak. Now that the Presbyters were not their successors, it is evident: for they had the selfsame authority (and no greater) under the Bishops, who were successors to Timothy and Titus, which before they had under them. For they which had no other authority after them, then they had under them, could not be their successors.

M Y answer to this testimony out of 1. Tim. 4. is, That howsoever the Presbyterians do upon this place especially build the authority of their pretended Presbyteries, yet this text maketh not for them.

That it maketh not for them, I prove by this reason.

The exceptions which he taketh against this answer are very frivolous. As first

Be it so: but yet there may be question, which of the diverse expositions which be given, is the sense of the holy Ghost: unless that must needs be always the meaning of the holy Ghost, which the refuter fancieth. For my part, I did not take upon me to determine, whether sense is the more likely: Jt was sufficient for me, that whereas there be but these two expositions which are or can be given, neither of both maketh for the pretended Presbyteries. His first exception therefore is to no purpose.

Now that the former exposition understanding by Presbyterium the Priest-hood or office of a Presbyter, maketh nothing for their Presbyteries, it is more then evident. And that this exposition, which so plainly defeateth their Presbyteries, is very probable; I show first, because the word is in that sense oft used, though not in the new testament, yet in Greek writers of the Church. It sufficeth the Refuter, that it is not used in that sense in any other place of Scripture: and yet himself saying that the word is no wheres else used in all the Scriptures, doth as much prejudge his own exposition, as this. How be it I do not deny, but the word is else where used in the Scriptures; only this I say, that there is no other place, wherein it can be drawn to signify the Christian Presbyterie, meaning either the company of Presbyters, or the office of a Presbyter. This then being the only place where it is so used, we must not expect parallele places in the Scripture to confirm either sense. Secondly I show that this may be the sense, because not only diverse in former times as Jerome, Primasius, Anselmus, Haymo, Lyra, but Calvin also do so expound it. To this his answer is worse then frivolous, that though these writers do so expound it, yet

Doth not Doctor Bilson say it may be so understood, when more then once he mentioneth it as one of the received expositions of that place, approved by Calvin himself the chief patron (for I must not say founder) of the Presbyterian Discipline? neither doth his relating of Chrysostom's exposition prove that he rejecteth the other; no more, then his alleging of Jerome's interpretation doth argue, that he refuseth that of Chrysostom's: but reciting both indifferently he referreth it to the Readers choice whither to embrace.

But let us hear how the Refuter confuteth this interpretation.

as who should say, because they mistook the meaning of the word Prophecy, therefore they erred in expounding the word Presbyterie, by which reason we may argue that he which mistaketh someone thing, vnderstadeth nothing aright. What if the refuter himself doth mistake? for it is not all one to say the gift given 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by Prophecy, and , as he expoundeth it. But by Prophecy, is, by the Revelation and Direction of the holy Ghost; whereby the Bishops, who were ordained by the Apostles, were designed and chosen. But what if they did not mistake? might not they mean by the gift of Prophecy, the gift which was given by Prophecy? yea, was not the gift of Prophecying, and preaching aright, which Paul exhorteth him not to neglect (for he continueth the exhortation begun in the words going before attend to reading, exhortation and Doctrine) the gift which was given him by Prophecy at his ordination? Certes, Bullinger thinketh the words may so be understood. Donū quod tibi delegatū est ad prophet andum. and this is all which Jerome saith, Prophetiae gratiam habebat tum ordination Episcopatus. But what if some of them did not call it the grace of Prophecy? Anselmus hath no such words, but calleth it gratiam Episcopalis of • icij, which by prophecy was given him at his ordination. But be it, that their exposition were not to be rested in, because of their other mistaking; what is this to Lyras and Calvin's exposition, which is the same? What more? But was not this exception taken hand over head, and at all adventures? did not Anselmus read Presbyterij ? let his own words testify: For first, he readeth Paul's words thus: Quae gr • tia est data tibi per propheliam, cum impositione manuum Presbyterij ; and then expoundeth them after this manner : He speaketh of that imposition of hands, which was used at his ordination; which imposition of hands was Presbyterij, of the Presbyterie, or Priesthood ; and then giveth two reasons of the word, either because by this imposition he received the Presbyterie, that is the office of a Bishop; for a Bishop is often called Presbyter by the Apostles, and likewise a Presbyter is called a Bishop: or because it was the imposition of the hands of a Presbyter, that is Paul , who imposed hands upon him: for so Peter and John call themselves in their Epistles. So that he readeth Presbyterij ; though in one of his explanations he expoundeth it, as if the Apostle by Presbyterij, did mean Presbyteri. The ordinary gloss indeed readeth Presbyteri, but so doth not Lyra : For expounding the word, he saith, Est autem Presbyterium, the Presbyterie is the dignity or office of a Presbyter, & accipitur hic Presbyterium pro Episcopatu and Presbyterie or Priesthood here is taken for the office of a Bishop. Thus you see how faithfully he hath dealt with these authors. It may be he will deal more truly with Calvin. For whereas I allege his judgment in his Institutions, understanding Paul, not as if he spake of the College of Seniors, but of the ordination itself: as if he had said ; Which answer consisteth of forged cavillations. For first he would make the Reader believe, that Calvin's judgment in his Institutions, is the opinion of his younger head, and that his judgment in his Commentary is to be preferred, as proceeding from riper years. It would therefore first be known, whether that edition of his Institutions, which I alleged set forth by himself, or his Commentaries on the Epistle to Timothy, be the latter. Is it not evident that he wrote that Cōmentary in King Edwards time, whiles the Duke of Somerset was living? Whereas that edition of his Institutions, was set forth by him in the time of Queen Elizabeth. Again, where Calvin's judgment seemeth to vary, who doubteth but that is to be esteemed his settled judgment wherein he rested, which is set down in the Jnstitutions, whereunto himself doth refer his Reader for this purpose: being indeed a most accurate and elaborate work, often reuiewed, and polished by him? And therefore though the first draught of his Institutions was made in his younger days, which in process of time he did by little and little bring to perfection; yet the last edition much differing from the first, is as it were his last resolution, for those things which are contained therein. Whereas therefore of the two senses, which in his Commentaries he giveth of the word Presbytery, misliking neither, he maketh choice in his Institutions of that which understandeth the office, and plainly rejecteth the other, which thereby understandeth the College of Presbyters, and that to prove, that sometimes no more then one did impose hands, which he confirmeth by the Apostles own testimony, who saith, that himself and no more did impose hands on Timothy, and that the grace which was given him, was by the imposition of Paul's hands, it cannot be denied, that Calvin's judgment wherein he rested, was, that by the Presbytery, not the College, but the office is meant.

I answer, first, that it may be governed of the word gift, which trai • ction of words, the learned tongues do better bear then the English, which for the most part disposeth words according to the construction: and yet the English will bear it well enough, if the words between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 gift, and Presbytery, be enclosed in a parenthesis. Neglect not the gift which was in thee (which was given thee by prophecy, with imposition of hands) of priesthood or Presbytery. But indeed Jerome, Anselm, and Calvin, and the rest, to whom I add Erasmus, understand it as governed of the words next going before, without any traiection, with imposition of hands, that is ordination of priesthood, (for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is all one even in the judgment of the Refuter) that is, when thou wast ordained Presbyter. So saith Jerome, Cum ordinations episcopatus, when thou wert ordained Bishoppe. Anselm; This imposition was presbyterij, of the priesthood, because by this imposition of hands (meaning ordination) he received the Presbytery, that is the office of a Bishop. I understand, saith Calvin, the ordination it self: as if he should say; the grace which by imposition of hands thou d • st receive, when I made thee Presbyter. Calum therefore understandeth it to be governed, as if it were said, Cum ordination Presbyteratus. For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth either the Senate or company of Presbyters, which in Latin we call Presbyterium, or the office, degree, and order of a Presbyter, which we call Presbyteratus.

Yea but the Refuter will show the absurdity of this interpretation,

and yet varieth not at all from the order which I myself set down. But this is but to please the simple. For he might as well require the words in Greek and Latin, to be set down in the order of construction, as to make the order of words in Greek and Latin sentences to be answerable to the English. Howbeit, this exception is against his own conceit, of the traiection of the words; it toucheth not the exposition of Jerome, Calvin, and the rest, which is without traiection.

In his conclusion, where he bids me

; he wrongeth me egregiously, and not me alone, but all the Authors whom I alleged. For first, I did not deliver this as my exposition, but faithfully recited the interpretation given by these Authors. Secondly, if I had rested in this interpretation, as I did not, (though I see no reason why I may not) why should it be counted against reason, and against conscience in me, which I received from so approved Authors? But what a contumely is this to Jerome, Calvin, and the rest, whose exposition it is, warranted by the testimony of Paul, to say, they blear the eyes of their Readers with an exposition against reason, and their own conscience? I wish the Refuter, unless his judgment were better, to forbear to condemn other men's expositions, as void of reason: and unless his knowledge were greater, not to measure other men's conscience by his own. For that which is against his conscience, as not being within the compass of his science may be agreeable to the science, and consceince of them, who have more knowledge and better judgments. But if he would needs censure Calvin's exposition as void of reason, why did he not answer Calvin's reason, grounded on the authority of Saint Paul? For if Timothy were ordained by a Presbytery▪ then undoubtedly by more then one; But Paul (saith Calvin ) in another place saith, that he, and not anymore imposed hands on Timothy : 2. Tim 1 6.

And so much might suffice for the former exposition, saving that by way of advantage, something is to be added out of Erasmus ; who also understanding the word Presbytery, of the office, giveth notwithstanding another sense: This Paul saith, Thou hast not only the gift of prophecy, but also the efficacy by imposition of hands, to give the spirit also to others, and that by the office of thy priesthood, namely, as thou art Bishop. And to this interpretation he was led by force of the Greek preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which signifieth with, not as an instrument, but as a companion. And this may seem to have been Ambrose his judgment also, that Paul gratiam dari ordinatoris significat, signifieth the grace of an ordainer to be givē. Which sense if we follow, this place maketh wholly for the Bishops authority in ordaining, this being the sense of the Apostle, that Timothy had received the gift of the ministry together with power to impose hands on others, by virtue of his office, as he was Bishop.

The latter exposition is of them, who understand the word Presbytery, collectiue, for a Senate or company of men. In which sense, though the word receiveth from diverse learned men, a threefold interpretation; yet in none doth it either favor the Disciplinarians Presbytery, or preiudge the superiority of Bishops in the power of ordination.

For some by Presbytery, understand the Apostle, as speaking of himself by a synecdoche, led thereunto by the Apostles testimony in the place before cited, where he exhorteth Timothy to stir up the grace which was in him by imposition, saith he, of my hands. And this is one of Anselmus his expositions, with whom Dionysius Carthus. agreeth, joining both his expositions in one: Manuum Presbyterij, saith he, i. manuum meaerum, that is, of my hands who did ordain the • Bishop. By which imposition, the Presbytery or priesthood was conferred upon thee. So that in their judgment (wherewith Calvin also agreeth) none but Paul did impose hands in the ordination of Timothy. The second interpretation is of the Greek Fathers, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, and Oecumenous, who expounding the word collectiue, do understand a senate or company of Apostles and Apostolical men, who were either Bishops, or more then Bishops. Chrysostom's words be these , 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of the Presbytery: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : He doth not speak here of Presbyters, but of Bishops: for surely Presbyters did not ordain a Bishop. Oecumenium hath the like words ; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Theophylact ; Of the Presbytery, that is, of Bishops. Theodoret ; He calleth them here the Presbytery, who had received Apostolical grace. Neither doth any Writer that I know of, before our age, understanding the word collectiue, for a company, expound it otherwise: but conceiving Timothy to have been ordained Bishoppe by the company of Apostolical men, who either were Bishops, or more then Bishops. Now we do not deny, but that diverse Bishops are to concur in the ordination of a Bishop. But that hindereth not, but that Presbyters and Deacons may be ordained by one. So are we taught in the two first canons called Apostolical. Let a Bishop be ordained of two or three Bishops. Let a Presbyter be ordained by one Bishoppe, likewise a Deacon and the rest of the clergy. This exposition therefore defeating their pretended Presbytery, is so far from derogating from the superiority of BB. in ordaining, as that it plainly proveth it, because the ordination of BB. wherewith Presbyters have nothing to do, belongeth to BB.

The third exposition is of Beza, and some other new Writers, who by Presbytery, understand the order of Presbyters. By which name, saith Beza , that whole company is signified, which did labor in the word in that Church, where this was done. Neither will I reject this exposition, though it be new, being understood of Timothy, his ordination to be a Presbyter; so that they will not deny that which Paul affirmeth, that himself was so principal a man in this company, as that he doubteth not to say, that the grace which was given by the imposition of hands of the Presbytery , was given by the imposition of his hands. Which showeth, that if any Presbyters did join with Paul, it was no otherwise then as they use to do with BB. by the Canon of the fourth Council of Carthage, and by the discipline and order of our Church. And this answereth the first thing which the Refuter inferreth upon this exposition, that

For though that alone be of his own adding, yet it is plain, that Paul and ancient BB. had this power as much alone, as our Bishops.

Where I say, this place maketh nothing either for their parish Presbyteries, or lay Presbyteries whatsoever, he saith,

. Belike then it skilleth not, what becometh of the main pillar of your Discipline, so you can make any poor shift to maintain the point which presently is in hand. But if this be the only place of scripture, which mentioneth a Christian Presbytery, on which also the Disciplinarians do principally build the authority of their pretended Presbyteries, it maketh not a little (me thinks) for the justifying of our cause, that it maketh not at all for their Presbyteries; which (by the confession of Calvin ) have no right to impose hands. Neither can it be denied, but that it is sacrilegious usurpation, and horrible intrusion upon the right of the Ministry, if lay men shalt take upon them to ordain by imposition of hands. Besides, it skilleth something, that the Greek Fathers understand by Presbytery, a company of Bishops: which, as it proveth the Prerogatiue of BB. in the ordaining of BB. so doth it not impeach their superiority in ordaining Ministers. And where he maketh 〈◊〉 say, they were no Presbyters ; he mistaketh the matter, unless he understand mere, or only-Presbyters. For BB and Apostolical men, yea the Apostles themselves were Presbyters, and so call themselves; but they were not bare, or only-Presbyters, as those be which are not Bishops. If the word be understood collectiue, he calleth the company of them which imposed hands on Timothy, the Presbytery. And forasmuch as not only inferior Ministers, but Bishops and Apostles are called Presbyters, it being a common name to all Ministers of the word and sacraments, it should not seem strange that a company or senate of Bishops, or Apostolical men, should be called a Presbytery. Now that they were not mere Presbyters, the Fathers prove: Because Presbyters might not ordain a Bishop: neque enim fas erat, saith Ambrose , nec licebat, vt inferior ordinaret maiorem. , saith he. Bluntly and peremptorilie spoken. But the Fathers that before I mentioned, take it for granted: and it is the general consent of all the ancient Fathers, as we shall hear; the authority of someone whereof, in a matter of fact, ought to ouerweigh the whole nation of Disciplinarians contradicting the same.

In fine, distrusting this burrough, he flieth to his old starting hole, out of which he hath been so often ferretted: that

The absurdity of which evasion, the Reader may easily discern, if he will but call to mind what were the Greek. Fathers words before cited, and upon what occasion they were uttered. He speaketh here, saith Chrysostom and Occumenius, not of Presbyters but of Bishops. For Presbyters did not ordain Bishops. Is it not most plain, that they speak of the Apostles time? And were it not absurd to understand them thus, Paul by the Presbytery which ordained Timothy, understandeth Bishops, and not Presbyters; because howsoever in those times Presbyters might ordain, yet in our times they cannot?

But let me ask the Refuter this question: Seeing it is agreed upon by all, that Paul here speaketh of Timothy his ordination: to what function he thinketh he was ordained? If to be a Presbyter, or Pastor, as Calvin saith, or to be a Bishoppe, as all the Fathers acknowledge, then was he not only ordained to an ordinary function in the Church, but also assigned to a particular Church, whereof he was made Pastor, as Calvin speaketh, or Bishoppe, as the Fathers affirm. But that his last ordination, whereof the Apostle speaketh, was not to the degree of a Presbyter, but of a Bishoppe, appeareth by the whole Epistle; wherein his singularity of preeminence over Presbyters, and superiority in power both for ordination and jurisdiction, is presupposed. If he say, that he was ordained to be an Evangelist, to omit the singularity & the novelty of the conceit; it would be known what Presbytery this was, that imposed hands on Timothy. Had the Presbytery of any parish (such as our Disciplinarians dream of, consisting for the most part of laymen) or the Presbytery of any particular Church, though consisting wholly of Ministers, authority by imposition of hands to ordain an extraordinary function, and that to be exercised in other parts of the world, where themselves had nothing to do?

Here the Refuter meaning to make short work, having little to say, hath made a long section, which he might better have divided into three. For three diverse things are here performed. The first, an answer to the objection our of the fourth Council of Carthage. The second, a new supply of proofs for the superiority of BB. in the power of ordination. Thirdly a prevention of popish cavils, in favor of some reformed Churches, where the Presbyterian discipline is established.

As touching the first, the Refuter saith,

But because he perceiveth, by that which I answered, that that Canon, though greatly urged by the Disciplinarians, maketh nothing against the superiority of BB. in ordaining, and that it agreeth with the discipline of our Church, and consequently convicteth him of untrue dealing: (seeing he • udgeth, that BB. by that canon have not sole authority of ordaining, and yet will make his Reader believe, that I defend their sole power of ordaining: which by the discipline of our Church, is no more sole in our BB. then it was by that canon in the BB. of Afric :) for thes • causes, I say, he refuseth to urge this canon: though he pretend, he Perhaps his conscience told him, that he knew of no testimony nor example of the Presbyters concurrence with the B. in ordination, before that time: and that in the foresaid Council, their assistance to the B. in ordaining, was first ordained: which if it did, as worthily it might, then had he no reason to urge that canon to prove the practice of the Church in the first two hundred years in a particular, which by that canon was first appointed.

Having thus removed their two main objections which stood in my way, I proceeded in the proof of my former assertion, that the right of ordination was in the judgment of the ancient Church appropriated to BB. As first, that the Councils and Fathers speak of the ordainer as of one, and consequently presuppose the right of ordaining to be in one, which I proved by four testimonies. This reason, because the Refuter did not well see how to answer, he passeth by it, as if he had not seen it. To make it therefore more conspicuous, I will enlarge it; affirming, that both Scriptures, Councils, and Fathers speak of the ordainer as of one. Timothy was ordained by the imposition of Paul's hands. Paul left Titus in Crete, that he should ordain Presbyters, and chargeth Timothy that he should not lay hands hastily on any man, &c.

The Canon called the Apostles, appointeth that a Presbyter, and so a Deacon, be ordained of one. The Council of Antioch acknowledgeth every Bishop within his own diocese, to have authority to ordain Presbyters and Deacons. The Council of Afric : 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , one Bishop may ordain many Presbyters. The Council of Hispalis or Civil; A Bishop alone may give to Priests and Deacons their honor.

Chrysostom describeth the Bishop by this property, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he that is to ordain us. The people of Hippo wanting a Presbyter, lay hold on Augustine, and as it was wont to be done, bring him to Valerius the Bishop, desiring him to ordain him. To these add the penalty inflicted upon the B. alone, when any ordination was irregular. Sozomen reporteth, that Elpidius, Eustathius, Basilius of Ancyra, Eleusius, among other faults objected against them, were deposed, because every of them had ordained contrary to law. The afore • aid Council of Carthage decreeth, that if a B. wittingly ordain a penitent, he shall be deprived of the power of his Bishopric, at least from the power of ordaining. And to the like penalty doth it subject a Bishop, who shall ordain such a one, as hath married her that is divorced, &c. But you shall never read, that the Presbyters were found fault with for unlawful ordinations, unless that any of them did encroach upon the Bishops right in ordaining: which is a plain evidence, that the power of ordaining was in the B. and not in the Presbyters. When Epiphanius being at Constantinople ordained a Deacon, he was blamed as offending against the Canons, not because he wanted the presence of his Presbytery, but because he did it in Chrysostom's diocese.

Secondly, that the power of ordination was peculiar to the Bishop in the judgment of the Fathers, J prove first by the authority of Councils: then, by the testimonies of Epiphanius and Jerome. To the former he answereth;

Here let the Christian Reader judge what credit he deserveth, that so contemptuously shaketh off the authority of ancient Councils, even the second among the four ancient general Councils, which are and have been from time to time received in the Church , as it were four Gospels. But let us examine the particulars, & consider whether they deserved to be so lightly rejected. The first testimony was taken out of an Epistle written by the Presbyters and Deacons of Mareot, in the behalf of Athanasius the Great, their Bishop, who was accused, for that by his appointment Macarius had disturbed one Ischyras, a pretended Presbyter in the administration of the Communion, and had broken the sacred cup. They testify these things to be false, and among the rest they deny, that Ischyras was a Presbyter, because he was ordained of Colluthus, the Presbyter, who was but an imaginary, or fantastical Bishop; and afterwards by a general Council , to wit, by Osius and the BB. who were with him, commanded to remain a Presbyter, as he had been before. For which cause, all that were ordained of Colluthus, among whom was Ischyras, returned to their former place and order. The like is testified by the Synod of Alexandria , which denieth that Ischyras could be ordained Presbyter by Colluthus, seeing Colluthus himself died a Presbyter, and all his ordinations were reversed, and all that were ordained by him were held as lay men. Hereunto we may add another most pregnant testimony, expressed in the acts of the same general Council of Serdica , wherein it was decreed, that forsomuch as Musaeus and Eutychianus were not ordained Bishops, that therefore such Clerks as they had ordained should be held as lay men.

My second testimony is out of the second general Council , concerning Maximus, who being by birth an Alexandrian, & by profession a Cynic Philosopher, before he was converted to Christianity, and received into the Clergy by Gregory the Divine, against whom he ambitiously sought the Bishopric of Constantinople, bribing the BB. of Egypt: Who being come to Constantinople, and excluded out of the Church, went into a certain minstrels house, and there unlawfully chose Maximus the Cynic to be Bishop of Constantinople. The general Council therefore assembled at Constantinople, determineth thus concerning Maximus ; that he neither was, nor is a Bishop, neither they Clerks who had been ordained by him, in what degree so ever of the Clergy. And to this I will adjoin another testimony out of the fourth general Council , where Bassianus who had been Bishop of Ephesus, and now sought to recover it, alleged for himself, that if he were not Bishop, then were not they clerks which had been ordained by him.

Neither were ordinary Presbyters alone forbidden to ordain, but Chorepiscopi also, that is, country BB. sometimes were restrained, and sometimes forbidden altogether to ordain Presbyters and Deacons. Restrained, whiles there were such as had received episcopal ordination, that they might not ordain without the leave of the Bishop of the City, whereunto both the Chorepiscopus himself, and his Country is subject. Forbidden altogether, when they ceased to have episcopal ordination, and were ordained, as other Presbyters by the B. of the City alone.

It seeemeth to me, that Chorepiscopi, until the Council of Antioch, had sometimes episcopal ordination, being ordained by two or three Bishops. And therefore to the Council of Neocaesaria, and Nice, they subscribed among other BB But forasmuch as they being but (for matters of less importance) vicegerents in the Country to the Bishop of the diocese, whose seat was in the City, being after the manner of the seventy disciples, Presbyters rather then BB. did encroach upon the Bishops rights and perogatives, not knowing their own measure; therefore they were restrained, as in other matters of importance: so in ordinations, to do nothing without the leave of the Bishop. Thus the ancient Council of Ancyra determined; That it was not lawful , that Country Bishops should ordain Presbyters, or Deacons, unless they had leave granted unto them by the Bishop, with his letters: for so Theod. Balsam. expoundeth that Canon; the Fathers of this Synod determine, that the Country Bishop may not ordain Presbyters or Deacons, without the letters of the Bishop.

The Council of Antioch thus : It seemeth good to the holy Synod, that those which are placed in villages, and country Towns called Country-Bishops , although they have received the ordination of BB. should know their own measures, and administer the Churches subject to them, and content themselves with the charge and care of them, and to ordain Readers, Subdeacons, and Exorcists, and to content themselves with preferring of them. But that they should not presume to ordain a Presbyter or a Deacon without the Bishop in the city, whereunto both himself and his country is subject. If any shall dare to transgress this definition, he shall be deposed from that honor which he hath; and that the country Bishop should be made of the B. in the city, whereto he is subject. Which last clause (as I suppose) was added, to take from them that colorable pretence, whereupon they had presumed before to ordain Presbyters, and Deacons; viz. because they had Episcopal ordination by the Metropolitan, and two or three other BB. To prevent this, the Council decreeth, that from that time forward, they should be ordained, not as other BB. by the Metropolitan, and two, or three other Bishops; but as other Presbyters, by the Bishop of the city: and so having not so much as an Episcopal ordination, to make them (as they were before) titular Bishops, they might acknowledge themselves to have no right of ordination of Presbyters, and Deacons. Harmenopulus in his abridgement of the Canons, setteth this down as the sum of both these Canons, 13. Ancyr. and 10. Antioch. Let not a Country Bishop ordain a Presbyter or Deacon 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 without the license of the Bishop.

To the like purpose the Council of Laodicea determined, that Bishops may not be ordained in villages, and Country towns, but visiters: and that those which were before ordained, may do nothing without the consent of the Bishop in the city. By these two Councils therefore, as Episcopal ordination for the time to come was denied to the Country Bishops, so also power of ordaining Presbyters, and Deacons. To the same purpose I quoted Damasus, and Leo, who prove, that Chorepiscopi were not indeed Bishops, but Presbyters; and therefore had no right to ordain Presbyters, and Deacons. Chorepiscopi, saith, Leo, according to the Canons of Neocaesaria, and decrees of other Fathers, are the same with Presbyters, bearing the figure of the sons of Aaron, and being after the manner of the 70. Disciples. And although in respect of the ministry they have a common dispensation with Bishops, notwithstanding some things are forbidden them by the authority of the old law, some of the new, and by Ecclesiastical Canons, as the consecration of Presbyters, and Deacons, &c. And to his sentence the Council of Hispalis subscribed. Basil likewise plainly signified to the Chorepiscopi, that if any without his appointment were received into the ministry, he should be held for a lay man.

These testimonies plainly evince, that in the primitive Church the power of ordination was so in Bishops; as that either themselves did ordain, or if this power were communicated to others, it was by leave and permission from them. And little reason had the refuter so lightly to esteem these testimonies, as being under age. For unless he be able to show, that in the first 200. years the Presbyters either had de iure the power to ordain, or that de facto