English Puritan & Reformed

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

George Downame (d 1634) · 251,902 words · 1120 min

Large work readerShowing section 6 of 8. Corpus search still uses the whole work; source find opens the first matching section.

Section 6/8

de facto they did use to ordain, which he will never be able to show; the worst of these testimonies for the Bishops, is of more worth then all that he shall be able to say against them. Let him produce, if he can, any one testimony of Scripture, any one sentence out of Councils, Histories or Fathers, proving that Presbyters without a Bishop had right to ordain, and I will yield to him. But he doth not go about by sound learning and evidence of truth to refell my assertions, which indeed he cannot do; but by unlearned shifts, and sophistiall cavillations, to elude them, as he can; either not doubting, but such refutations would serve his turn to retain the people in their preconceiued alienation from Bishops, or else hoping, that J would not vouchsafe him an answer.

But to return to my proofs: For one there remaineth yet out of the Councils; showing, that in ancient times, they were so far from permitting Presbyters without a Bishop to ordain, that when as a certain Bishop in the ordination of one Presbyter and two Deacons used only the help of a Presbyter to read the words of consecration, and to bless them, himself laying on his hands, but being not able for the pain of his eyes to read; the Council of Hispalis reversed the ordination, as unlawful. This is the Council, which the refuter judged

to deserve neither imitation, nor approbation:

by which censure of this one, though he durst not give it of any of the forenamed Councils; yet it being indefinitely propounded, he discrediteth the rest with the unlearned, who are not able to distinguish. But let us hear more particularly his grave censure of this Council;

What a toy was it for the Council of Civil in Spain, to reverse the ordination &c.

What a boy is this (might these Fathers say) that presumeth thus to censure us? was not Isidor the Archbishop of Civil, the president of this Council, and author of these Canons, one of the most learned writers which have been in the Church within this 1000. years with whom this Refuter for learning is not to be named the same day? was not this Council held against the Heretics called Acephali, & did it not learnedly and judiciously confute them? did these grave fathers toy, when by grave censures they sought to preserve the discipline, and canons of the Church, to maintain the lawful authority of BB. and to prevent the presumptuous usurpation of Presbyters, contrary to the Canons of the Church? had not the ancient council of Orenge decreed, That if any Bishop should by any infirmity or weakness, either fall into the dullness of his senses (as this Bishop did) or loose the faculty of speech, he should not suffer Presbyters (as this Bishop also did) under his presence, to do those things which are not done, but by Bishops; but that he should call for a Bishop, to whom he may commit that which is to be done in the Church ? But if we must talk of toys, what a toy was this, that (all these things which I have alleged, being duly considered) diverse of our disciplinarian Ministers have renounced their ordination, which they had received from a Bishop, that they might be ordained by such as themselves?

And thus you have heard, how easily he hath answered the Councils, by vouchsafing them no answer.

Now let us weigh his answers to the testimonies of Ephiphanius and Jerome. His common answer to both, is such, as unlearned, yet obstinate Papists use to give; that though they cannot tell how to answer our arguments, yet there be learned men which can.

There be Lectures of the par •• ie of Ministers one day to be published, which will show the weakness of Epiphanius his reasons ; and there is another learned man that hath answered the allegation out of Jerome.

Why, but hath the Refuter no answers of his own, that he referreth us thus to other men? yes no doubt; such answers as his are never to seek. First, he wrangleth with Ephiphanius, and then with me for alleging him. He telleth Epiphanius,

that he beggeth the question

. Alas good man, he wanted the Refuters acumen in disputing. And what was the question I pray you? was it not the same which is now between you and us, whether Bishops and other Ministers be equal, as Aërius held? This assertion of Aërius, Ephiphanius disproueth by two main arguments, as I do yours; proving that BB. are superior to other Presbyters, both in the power of ordination, and jurisdiction. His former argument may thus be concluded.

That order, which hath power by ordination to beget Fathers to the Church, is superior to that which hath not that power.

The order of Bishops hath power by ordination, to beget Fathers to the Church, which the order of Presbyters is not able to do:

Therefore the order of Bishops, is superior to the order of Presbyters.

Call you this begging of the question?

Yea, but Aërius denied, that Bishops had power more then Presbyters, to beget Fathers. How is this proved? he said they were equal. It followeth not.

Arius being a giddy-headed fellow, because he perceived the Presbyters to do the same things, that the Bishops did in some particulars; by an insufficient enumeration or induction, concludeth, that therefore there was no difference between them. The parts of Aërius his induction concern the superiority and preeminence of the Ministry in general above the people, noting those things which be common to Bishops, with other ministers, as their imposing hands on the penitent, their giving of Baptism, their executing of Divine service, their sitting in the chair or pulpit to instruct the people; but considered not the respect which was between the Bishop and the Presbyters themselves. Epiphanius therefore showeth, that although it were true, that Bishops and Presbyters did the same things, which argue their Preeminence in common above the Laity: yet this hindereth not, but that Bishops were superior to the Presbyters: and this Epiphanius proveth by two instances, which Aërius himself could not deny: because the Bishops were ordainers of the Presbyters, having the power of ordination of Presbyters and Deacons, which Presbyters had not; the second, because the Bishops were also governors and judges over Presbyters. The Refuter therefore should rather have suspected the shallowness of his own judgment, then have laid such an imputation upon Epiphanius.

What then doth he answer to Epiphanius his syllogism? He denieth in effect, though perhaps he intend not so much, both the proposition, and the assumption: and first the assumption.

For where Epiphanius saith, that Presbyters were not able to beget Fathers: he asketh, What hindereth them, but the usurpation of Bishops?

In which words, two things are implied: The first, that the power of ordination, which the BB. have, is usurped by them: The second, that Presbyters have as good right to ordain as they. But you will say, how are those things proved? you must be entreated to take them upon his word: for proo • e he hath none: and yet can he by no means abide begging of the question. But such is the boldness of our new Disciplinarians, that they doubt not to prefer their new-fangled opinions, & self-set assertions, which have no ground nor warrant in the word of God, or true reason, before the judgment and practice of all the ancient Fathers, of all the approved Councils, of all true Christian Churches of former times. We prove, that the Apostles had the right of ordaining; that this right was from them derived to their substitutes, and to their successors; to their substitutes, as to Timothy in Ephesus, and Titus in Crete, to Mark at Alexandria, to Polycarpus at Smyrna, to Euodius at Antioch, to Linus at Rome, &c. to their successors, as to Simon the son of Cleophas, the successor of Saint James at Jerusalem, &c. that from these substitutes and first successors of the Apostles, the same was derived to their successors, which without all doubt were the BB. of the several Churches. And hereunto we add the general consent of the Fathers, and Councils; many of them affirming and confirming, not one, I say not one, denying the superiority of BB. in ordaining: the perpetual practice of all true Christian Churches, not one approved instance to be given to the contrary: and yet he shameth not to avouch the Bishops right in ordaining to be but usurpation. As touching Presbyters, that they have right to ordain, we see no warrant in the word, but rather the contrary; no testimony of Fathers, no decree of Councils for it, but many testimonies and decrees against it; no approved example to warrant it; how then could he say the Presbyters have as good right to ordain as BB▪ But because he shall not carry the matter without proofs, this I will offer him; that if he can bring any one pregnant testimony or example out of the Scriptures, any approved authority or example out of the ancient Fathers, Councils or Histories of the Church, proving that the Presbyters had by and of themselves an ordinary power or right to ordain ministers, J mean Presbyters, and Deacons; I will promise to subscribe to his assertion. But if he cannot do this, as I know he cannot; then let him for shame give place unto the truth.

Again, whereas Epiphanius in the assumption saith, that BB. beget Fathers, meaning that they have power to ordain ministers of the word, and sacraments, or as he expoundeth himself, teachers; he fondly cavilleth at Epiphanius words, saying,

that ministers are no spiritual Fathers until they beget children unto God.

Why, but their calling is to be spiritual Fathers, ordained of God to this end, that they may by the laver of regeneration & ministry of the Gospel beget children unto God▪ when Stephen said that Jacob begat the twelve Patriarchs, meaning those whom God appointed to be the first Fathers of the twelve Tribes; will the refuter wrangle with him, because when they were begotten, they were not Fathers? even so BB. are said to beget Fathers, because by ordination they beget such, as by the institution of their calling, and ordinance of God, are to be spiritual Fathers.

And thus much of the assumption. The proposition also he denieth, finding great fault with me, saying, that

it is a strange and fearful thing that I having so worth: he set out in my former Sermon the excellency of the ministers calling in regard of his laboring in the word, do now turn all topsey tur •• y, and prefer making of ministers before begetting souls. And to this purpose he alledgeth that to beget one child unto God, is more precious then to beget a thousand Fathers to the Church, and of more comfort at the day of judgment, &c.

But be of good comfort, this fault which he layeth to my charge, is but as he saith,

in his poor understanding

. For there be three things which show the poverty of his conceit. The first, that he thinketh I do therefore prefer the ordaining of Ministers before preaching, because I say that Bishops are superior to other ministers in the power of ordination. It seemeth he hath not learned the distinction of those three things wherein superiority consisteth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, excellency, imperie, and power. The magistrate is superior to the minister, in imperie, and civil authority; but the minister notwithstanding is superior to the magistrate in excellency. But the second thing doth much more show the shallowness of his conceit: he conceiveth of ministers, as having alone the power of preaching; and of Bishops, as having only the power of ordination: whereas if he had but considered that the authority of preaching is common to the Bishop with other ministers, and the Bishop in respect of his office superior in the exercise; because he may license, and he may upon just occasion suspend this power in others (though perhaps in personal gifts the Presbyter may excel the Bishop:) he could not but have discerned the superiority of Bishops, without any disparagement to the ministry of the word; for that they being at least equal in (respect of their function) to other ministers in the power of preaching, are superior in the power of ordaining. The third, that he conceiveth Epiphanius to have made a comparison between preaching, and ordaining, which he doth not, but between baptizing, and ordaining. How is it possible, saith Epiphanius, that a Bishop and a Presbyter should be equal? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . For the calling of Bishops is an order generatiue of Fathers, begetting Fathers to the Church; but the order of Presbyters being not able to beget Fathers, doth by the laver of regeneration (that is baptism) beget children to the Church, and not Fathers, verily, or teachers. And you are to mark how he speaketh of begetting Fathers and children to the Church. And who can deny, but that it is a matter of greater consequence, the begetting of a Father to the Church, then of a child? But Epiphanius his meaning was, that the Bishop having power of baptizing common to them with Presbyters, as Paul had, though he did not greatly use it, whereby they might beget children to the Church; hath also the power of ordaining, (which Presbyters have not) whereby he begetteth spiritual Fathers to the Church. And so much of Epiphanius.

Now I come to Jerome : For the Refuter thinketh it

very strange, that I should bring him as a patron of the Bishops sole power in ordination.

It seemeth, that the Refuter conceiveth nothing aright. I bring in Jerome in this place, not as a patron of BB. but as one, who pleading for the superiority of Presbyters above Deacons, & desiring to raise them as near as he can to BB. doth notwithstanding confess, that Bishops are superior in ordination. What doth a Bishop (saith he) excepting ordination, which a Presbyter may not do? To which, the Refuter having no answer of his own, entreateth another to answer for him; which done, he craketh, as if he had laid me on my back. The answer is, that Jerome speaketh of his own time. No doubt: for speaking in the present tense, whereby he signifieth

actum continuum

, he doth not exclude his own time. But doth he speak therefore of his own time only? or doth he signify, that there was a time since there were first Bishops, (which he confesseth, was in the time of the Apostles) when the Bishops had not this power? if this could be shown, then Jerome might be thought not to speak of the Apostles times. Nay, doth not Jerome speak as well de iure, as de facto, when he saith, What doth a Bishop &c. that is, what hath a Bishop right to do by the power of his order, which a Presbyter hath not right to do by the power of his order, only except ordination? that I confess to be above the Presbyters power.

Well, and to what end doth Jerome speak this of his own time? That having shown before out of the Scriptures, and the practice of the Church at Antioch, that of old a Bishop, and a Presbyter were all one; he might see, that in his time also, there remained a proof thereof: because a Bishop then did nothing, except ordination, which a Presbyter could not do.

Out of the Scriptures Jerome proveth, that in those times when the Scriptures were written, the name Episcopus, and Presbyter were confounded; because, as the name Episcopus, was given to Presbyters, Phil. 1. Act. 20. Tit. 1. So the name Presbyter, to Apostles, and Bishops: as 1. Tim. 4.14. Where Jerome understandeth, as before, by Presbyterium, Episcopatus ; 1. Pet. 5.1. John. Epist. 2. & 3. And this is Jerome's first argument that Presbyters are superior to Deacons. But hence it doth not follow, that therefore the offices of a Bishop, and Presbyter, are confounded; especially, after the institution of a Bishop. Doth Jerome think, that every Presbyter is equal in degree with Timothy, because the office of Timothy in Jerome's understanding is called Presbyterium ? or that they are equal with Peter, and John, because they called themselves Presbyters? His second argument to prove the superiority of Presbyters above Deacons, is, because Bishops were chosen out of Presbyters, and by Presbyters; whereas contrariwise, he that is chosen from among Deacons, by Deacons, is but an Archdeacon. The former part he first illustrateth by the end, which was to avoid Schism; and then proveth it by the Practice of the Church of Alexandria. In his setting down the end, he lets fall one word, which if it be not fauourablie expounded, will make him contradict himself, and the truth. For upon the allegation of Saint John's second and third epistle he saith, Quod autem post • vnus electus, that one afterwards was chosen who should be set over the rest, it was provided as a remedy against Schism, lest everyone drawing after him should rend the Church of Christ. What say you Jerome, were Bishops first ordained after Saint John's time? do not yourself testify that Saint James a little after the ascension of Christ was by the Apostles made Bishop of Jerusalem, that Mark was Bishop of Alexandria? that ever since his time (and he died almost 40. years before Saint John ) there hath been a Bishop, in a degree superior to other Presdyters? that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus &c. That word afterwards therefore, is not to be referred to Saint John's time, but to those testimonies where he proved the name Episcopus to be given to Presbyters; which custom, as he supposeth, continued, until one of the Presbyters, being chosen from among the rest, was called Bishop: for indeed whiles Apostles or Apostolic men were made BB., BB. were called the Apostles of the Churches: But when out of the Presbyters one was chosen, he began for difference sake to be called, the Bishop, the Angel of the Church. Now that BB. were chosen out of Presbyters, and by Presbyters, he proveth by the example of the Church at Alexandria: For even at Alexandria, from Mark the Evangelist unto Heraclas and Dionysius BB. (who were not chosen from among the Presbyters) the Presbyters have always called one, chosen from among themselves, and placed in a higher degree, the Bishop: even as if an army do choose their general, or Deacons choose from among themselves one, whom they know to be industrious, and call him the Archdeacon.

His fourth argument is this. There be many things which a Bishop by the power of his order may do, which a Deacon cannot: but there is nothing which a Bishop may do by the power of order, excepting ordination, which a Presbyter may not do. A Presbyter is therefore by so much superior to a Deacon, by how much he is nearer to the Bishop: this is the very scope of this place, and to the same are all the arguments following referred &c. the sum whereof is, that the Presbyterie is a degree between the Bishops, and Deacons.

You see then what Jerome proveth out of the Scriptures; not that the office, but the name of Bishop, and Presbyter were for a time confounded.

Now let us see what he proveth by the practice of the Church at Antioch: he would say at Alexandria, that of old a Bishop, and a Presbyter were all one.

See you not how he proveth it, when he saith, that ever since Marks time the Bishop hath been placed in a higher degree above the Presbyters? Was this to prove that a Bishop, and Presbyter are equal, or all one? or did Jerome intend anything else, but to prove the Presbyters superior to Deacons, and that by such arguments as before I analysed? We have heard what Jerome proveth out of the Scriptures, and practice of the Church at Alexandria; now at the last, let us hear the end of his speech.

That he (I know not who) might see, that in his time also there remained a proof thereof, because a Bishop even then did nothing except ordination which a Presbyter could not do.

Toto coelo errat : it was not Jerome's end, to prove the Presbyter equal with the Bishop, but superior to the Deacon: For if the former had been his intent; this, and the other from the practice of Alexandria: had been very untoward arguments to prove his purpose. At Alexandria the Bishop ever since Marks time was superior to Presbyters in degree, therefore they were equal. The Bishop is superior in the power of ordination, therefore Presbyters be his equals. Hath not the Refuter now great cause, think you, to crake of this answer? was this, among all the testimonies which I alleged, chosen as most misalledged, by occasion whereof, he

might pay me mine own, and tell me that it was wherried in with • are • by him that looked another • ay?

Blessed be God, that so guided me in the way of truth, that among all my allegations, the refuter hath not been able to charge me with misalledging any one. As for this; nothing could be more pregnant, and pertinent to prove, that BB were superior to Presbyters in ordination, then as I said in the sermon, that Jerome himself, even when, and where he seeketh to advance the Presbyters, as high as he can, above the Deacons; doth confess ordinatiō to be peculiar to Bishops.

Now, whereas Jerome saith a Presbyter may do anything which a Bishop doth, excepting ordination; I did easily forsee it would be objected, that if BB. be superior only in the power of ordination, then are they not superior in jurisdiction. This objection I prevented in these words, Where you are not to understand him, or other of the Fathers speaking some • time to the like purpose, as though the B. were not superior, in anything else; but that potestate ord • nis, as touching power of order, • e is superior only in ordination. For that he is superior potestate iurisdictionis, they everywhere acknowledge. I know some answer, that in Jerome's judgment BB. are iure diuin • superior to other Ministers, only in the power of ordination: but in the power of jurisdiction iure apostolico ; in that he acknowledgeth, that superiority of BB. was brought in by the Apostles necessarily for avoiding of schisms. Which answer I refusing, because Jerome saith the like of the superiority of the BB. in general, and of the power of ordination in particular, that it was reserved to the B. ne a multis disciplina ecclesia vendicata, concordiam sacerdotum solueret, et scandala generaret ; made choice of this other, as the more like to be true. Not that J absolutely was of this judgment, that the right of ordination doth belong to the power of Episcopal order; as appeareth by that supposal which J made in the sermon page 44. l. 3. but that I supposed it to be the judgment of Jerome, and some other fathers, who acknowledging the Bishop to be superior in jurisdiction, and yet affirming that he is superior only in the right of ordination or imposing hands: must thus be understood, as judging the Bishop to be superior only therein, quoad ordinis potestatem, as touching the power of order: they holding other things belonging to the power of order, as the ministry of the word and Sacraments of Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, to be common to BB. with other ministers: but the power of ordination to be peculiar to the BB. and in their judgments not communicable to Presbyters: because as Thomas saith, ea quae sunt ordinis non possunt committi nisi habenti ordinem. Hereunto the Refuter, after his malepert and saucy manner, answereth: that

I understand not this distinction. For, saith he, potestas ordinis, power of order is not potestas ordinationis, power of ordination, but power to do all that which belongeth to the order of that ministry which he hath received, as Tolet showeth.

But whether of us spake without understanding, let the judicious Reader hereby judge. For he conceiveth me, as no man would that is not of a very shallow conceit, as if I confounded the power of order with the power of ordination, and as though the power of order contained nothing else but the power of ordaining, whenas I plainly made it, according to those Fathers judgment, but one part of the power of Order: they supposing other parts of the power of order to be common unto Presbyters, but that of ordaining to be peculiar to the Bishop: and in that sense say, the Bishop in respect of the power of order, is superior only in ordination.

Yea but Bellarmine (for even his authority when he saith anything that may seem to make for the Refuter, must serve the turn) saith that Potestas ordinis refertur ad sacramenta conficienda, the power of order is referred to the ministry of the Sacraments. Me thinks the Refuter should add, that it is also referred to the ministry of the Word. But what doth Bellarmine and all other Papists understand by Sacraments ? Do they not mean five others besides Baptism and the Lord's Supper, the ministry of two whereof, viz. of confirmation, and of orders they make peculiar to BB. and of the other five common to them with all Priests? and doth not Bellarmine therefore prove, that the order of Bishops is superior to that of Presbyters, and that Bishops are superior in the power of order, because the Bishop may confer two Sacraments, which the Presbyters may not, viz. the Sacrament of confirmation and of orders? Howbeit of the former, Jerome saith , that it was reserved as peculiar to BB. potiùs ad honorem sacer dotij, quàm ad legis necessitatem.

It is true, that some Popish writers make BB. and Presbyters to be but one order; but you must withal take the reason of that Popish conceit: They hold, that the Sacrament of the altar (as they call it) is the Sacrament of Sacraments, whereunto the Sacrament of orders is subordinate ; all their orders of Clerks being ordained to the ministry of the altar; and that everyone of their 7. orders (all which they call Sacraments) is only to be counted a Sacrament, as it hath reference to the Eucharist: to which purpose Thomas Aquinas doth somewhat ridiculously distinguish their 7. orders, according to their diverse offices referred to that Sacrament. And forasmuch as in the whole power of order this is the supreme act, by pronouncing the words of consecration to make the very body of Christ, which is as well performed by a Priest, as a Bishop: therefore they teach , that Bishops, and Priests are both of one order; and that the order of Bishops, as it is a Sacrament, is not superior to that of Presbyters, but only as it is an office, in respect of certain sacred actions; & in this sense, saith Thomas, that the Bishop hath power in sacred and Hierarchical actions in respect of Christ's mystical body above the priest, the office of a Bishop is an order. For you must understand that they make all Ecclesiastical power to have referrence to the body of Christ, either verum, his true body in the Sacrament of the altar, which they call the power of order; or mysticum, mystical (that is, the the Church and members thereof) which they cal the power of jurisdiction.

This new Popish conceit therefore of confounding Bishops and Presbyters into one order, ariseth from their idol of the Mass, & their doctrine of transubstantiation, whereby every Priest is as able to make his maker, as the Pope himself. I call it new, because all the ancient writers do confess (as before hath been shown) Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons to be three distinct degrees, and consequently orders of the Ministry: for what is an order but that degree, which, among things or persons which are subordinate one to another, some being higher, some lower, any one hath obtained?

Wherefore laying aside these popish conceits, let us consider what is to be determined concerning this matter according to the truth.

1. And first, that ecclesiastical power is to be distinguished into the power of order and jurisdiction.

2. That the power of order is a spiritual power, whereby ecclesiastical persons are qualified and enabled to do sacred actions appertaining to the service of God and salvation of men, which they who are not of the same order at the least, may either not at all, or not ordinarily perform.

3. That this power is that which is granted to ecclesiastical persons in their ordination, and appertaineth to them as they simply are of that order, though they have no jurisdiction or charge, and therefore cannot be taken from them whiles they continue in that order.

4. That of Ecclesiastical order there are three degrees, in Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons: and because neither of the two superior orders may be granted to any per saltum : therefore each superior order includeth the inferior, so that a presbyter may do that which belongeth to a Deacon, and a Bishop that which belongeth to to a presbyter, but not contrariwise.

5. That the power of the order of Presbyters is besides the performance of the divine liturgy and power to administer the sacrament of Baptism and to preach, common to them with Deacons (who shall be thereunto authorized by the B.) a power also to minister the holy communion, and authority to remit and retain the sins of men: which last I do not doubt to refer to the power of order. First, because it is given to the minister in his ordination, and belongeth to him as he is simply a Presbyter, without jurisdiction or relation to a charge. And secondly, because it continueth with him whiles he is of the order, though his charge and jurisdiction should be taken from him. Besides, this power of remitting and retaining sins is called the key of order, and according to the Popish doctrine , belongeth to the conferring of the sacrament of penance.

6. The power of order in B.B (besides all this power which is in the Presbyters) is power by imposition of hands to convey grace , as the ordinary instrument of the holy ghost, either to parties baptized for their confirmation; or to penitents, for their reconciliation; or to parties designed to the ministry, for their ordination. As touching the former, the ancient writers gather it to be peculiar to BB. because howsoever many in the primitive Church were converted and baptized by men of inferior order, yet the Apostles alone, and after them the BB. had authority to put their hands upon them that they might receive the holy Ghost. Acts. 8. & 19.

And for the latter, we read, that both the Apostles themselves and such as they ordained Bishops, did ordain ministers by imposition of hands: insomuch that whereas at Ephesus and in Crete (where were diverse Presbyters before) Timothy and Titus were appointed to ordain ministers.

I hold this authority to impose hands to belong to the power of order: First, because imposition of hands is a sacred action of spiritual efficacy, indeed a sacrament, not only by the doctrine of the scholemen and Papists, but also by the confession of Calum ; though not such a sacrament as Baptism and the Lord's supper, which are seals and pledges of our union and communion with Christ; yet in a more general sense, as a sacrament is defined a visible sign of invisible grace.

I say it is a sacred action of spiritual efficacy, consecrating a man to the service of God in the Ministry, conueiing unto him the power of that order whereunto he is ordained, whereby he is qualified to perform sacred actions of spiritual and supernatural efficacy. Wherefore I do not see, why the power of begetting spiritual Fathers to the Church by ordination, as Epiphanius speaketh, should not be thought to belong to the power of order in BB. even as the begetting of sons to the Church by baptism, to the power of order in all Ministers.

Secondly, because this power is conferred upon each Bishop in their consecration, and belongeth to him as being a Bishop simply, and cannot be taken from him whiles he remains a Bishop, though his Bishopric be taken from him, and may be exercised by him, where he hath no jurisdiction. Whereof examples might be produced of Athanasius, Eusebius▪ Vercellensis, and other godly Fathers, who when they were turned out of their Bishoprics, and others placed in their rooms, not only retained their power, but also exercised the same, as occasion was offered in other Churches.

Thirdly, because all ecclesiastical power, being referred either to the power of order or of jurisdiction, this must therefore be referred to the power of order, because it cannot be referred truly to the power of jurisdiction: and that for these two reasons: both because the Bishop cannot communicate this power to others, as he may jurisdiction: and also because he doth not lose it with his jurisdiction, but retaineth it when his Bishopric is taken from him, and may as well exercise it without his diocese, where he hath no jurisdiction, as another Minister may preach or baptize out of his own parish.

Whenas therefore I expounded Jerome and some others, who say the B. is superior to the Presbyters only in ordination, as not meaning that he is not superior also in the power of jurisdiction, but that in respect of the power of order, he was superior only in the right of ordaining; because whereas other parts of the power of order be common to him with Presbyters, that of ordaining is his peculiar right and prerogative, I did not speak without understanding. Contrariwise the Refuter, as in laying to my charge that I confound the power of order with ordination, he spake he knew not what: so in the inference which he bringeth upon his former words, he pratleth without understanding.

Now if the power of ordination did belong properly to the office of BB. then were the BB. superior to the other Ministers potestate ordinis, (but the former I have manifestly proved, therefore the latter must be granted) but that is the question, saith he; as who should say, he were resolved to deny the conclusion.

But hear him I pray you.

Notwithstanding (to let him enjoy his own distinction) of BB. differ only in ordination from Presbyters, quoad ordinis potestatem, then in the power of jurisdiction, Presbyters are equal with them potestate ordinis, by the power of their order. Wherefore where afterwards he draweth unto BB. the whole power of censuring under the name of potestas iurisdictionis, he maketh that to be adiuine, which is but an human preeminence by his own distinction.

All which is mere babbling, without sense, or understanding what he saith, as the Reader who understandeth what I have delivered concerning this distinction, will easily judge.

There remaineth the third part of this section; wherein out of a Christian and charitable desire to preserve the credit of such reformed Churches as have no BB. I endeavored to prevent the objections of Papists, who reason thus against them: The right of ordination being peculiar to BB. it followeth, that where is no B. there is no ordination; where is no ordination, there are no Ministers; where are no Ministers, there is no Church. I answered, that although the ordinary right of ordination belongeth to BB. in the judgment of the ancient Church, that yet it was not to be understood, as so appropriating it to them, as that extraordinarily and in the case of necessity it might not be lawful for Presbyters to ordain, and much less teaching absolutely a nullity of the ordination, which is performed without a B. Which answer I confirmed by diverse reasons. Whereunto I now add, that there seemeth to be the like reason for imposition of hands, in confirmation of the baptized, in the reconciliation of public penitents, as in the ordination of Ministers. But although the two former were reserved as well as the third, to the B. yet extraordinarily, in the case of necessity, and in the want or absence of the B. the ancient Church held it lawful for Ministers to impose hands either for the confirming of parties baptized, or for reconciliation of the penitents. The former is testified by Ambrose and Augustine, the latter by Cyprian and diverse Councils. And moreover, the Popish Writers themselves do teach, that the Pope may give license to him that is not a Bishop to ordain: so that he to whom such license is given, have those orders himself, which he would give to another. If therefore by the Popes license, a Presbyter may ordain Presbyters, much better may a company of Presbyters, to whom in the want of a Bishop the charge of the Church is devolved, be authorised thereto by necessity, which, as they say, hath no law. To this passage, inserted by me only in favor of the Churches where the presbyterian discipline is established, which I would not lay open to popish cavils; the Refuter, if he had been led with a good spirit, would rather have answered with thanks, then have set himself to wrangle and cavil therewith, as if he cared not, so he may have something to speak against, what becometh of those Churches, which notwithstanding he would seem to favor more then myself. The which ungracious course he taketh again in answering the 95. page of my Sermon; where I forced myself, as in this place, to speak as much as the truth would permit in favor of the aforesaid Churches. But if my answers for them either here, or there, do not please the Refuter and his consorts, I will hereafter give them leave to answer what they please. Neither will I anymore disaduentage the truth, which I defend, in a desire to gratify them, seeing my indeuor is so ungratefully taken. Which I speak, not as though I thought his exceptions against my defense anything worth. For where he objecteth, that

if the Fathers had thought the power of ordination to have been peculiar to BB. by any ordinance of God, they would not have allowed any such ordination as I speak of without a B:

it follows not. For though they held the right of Baptizing to belong to the Ministers of the Church by God's ordinance; though they held the right of imposing hands to be peculiar to the Apostles and their successors: yet in a case of necessity, they held baptism without a Minister, and confirmation without a B. to be lawful. In like manner, though they held that the right of ordination was peculiar to Bishops by Apostolical institution, & therefore taught that none but Bishops could regularly and ordinarily ordain: notwithstanding in a case of necessity, we may well think they would have allowed of such an ordination as J spake of, though (as I said) not as regular, according to the rules of ordinary Church government, yet as effectual and justifiable in the want of a B. If he still say they wou • d not, then must he confess that the practice of the Disciplinarians is such, as the Fathers of the Primitive Church would in no case have allowed: and that is all the inconvenience that can come to our cause, if my defense of them be not sufficient.

As for his cavil at my supposal of the right of ordination, to belong to the power of order in BB. I have answered before. To such objections one answer is enough, two is too many.

And thus much of the Bishops right in ordaining.

CHAP. V. That Bishops were superior to other Ministers in the power of jurisdiction.

( Serm. sect. 9. pag. 45. Now I am to show, that the B. is superior also in the power of jurisdiction. The Presbyters indeed, &c. to the end of the page. )

H Ere the Reader is to observe, what is by me propounded to be proved, not that the BB. had, or have the sole power of jurisdiction, the defense whereof the Refuter everywhere would fain force upon me, but that they are, and were superior in the power of jurisdiction or government. I deny not the Presbyters (which have charge of souls) to have jurisdiction both severally in their parishes, and jointly in provincial synods. And I have confessed before, that Presbyters have with, and under the Bishops exercised some jurisdiction. I grant that godly BB. before they had the countenance and assistance of Christian Magistrates, and direction of Christian laws, used in all matters of moment to consult with their clergy; imitating therein, as Jerome speaketh, the example of Moses, Qu • cùm haberet in potestate solus praesse populo; who when it was in his power to govern the people alone, he chose seventy with whom to judge the people. This was practiced by Cyprian , who resolved from the beginning of his Bishopric, to do nothing of importance alone, because he would prevent dissension and scandals. Ambrose , also teacheth that there was a time, when nothing was done without the advice of the Presbyters, who therefore by Ignatius , are called the counselors and coassessours of the B. Which course if it were used still, as it would ease the Bishops burden very much; so would it nothing detract from their superiority in governing: the sway of their authority being no less when they used the advice of their Presbyters, then when they used it not. For the assistance of the Presbyters was to help and advice, but never to overrule the Bishop. Neither will any man say, that the authority of a Prince who useth the advice of his counsel, is the less for it, but the mo • e advised.

But what the authority of BB. was in the primitive Church in respect of government, I will first show absolutely, and then by way of comparison with Presbyters. What the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as the Council of Carthage calleth the authority of BB. was, may first appear by this, that they were accounted the governors and rulers of the Churches, meaning thereby dioceses. For though there were many ministers, who were Angels, Pastors, Bishops: y • t there was but one in every Church, who was the Angel, the Pastor, the Bishop, the governor of the Church; bearing as Ignatius saith, the sway of authority above and over them all. But I delight to hear Jerome, the only pretended patron of the Disiplinarians; who confesseth, as we have heard , that of necessity a peerless power and eminent above all, is to be attributed to Bishops, and that the safety of the Church dependeth thereon. He therefore in his Commentary upon Isaiah chap. 60. verse 17. reading according to the Septuag. , I will give thy Princes in peace, and thy Bishops in righteousness, saith, Herein the Majesty of the holy Scriptures is to be admired, which calleth, principes futuros ecclesiae episcopos, the Princes or Rulers which should be of the Church, Bishops, whose visitation is all in peace, and the name of their dignity (meaning their superintendencie) in righteousness. And on those words , of the 45. Psalm, Instead of fathers children shall be borne unto thee; O Church, saith he, the Apostles were thy fathers, for they begat thee. Now forasmuch as they are gone out of the world thou hast BB. who were borne of thee. For these also are thy fathers, because thou art governed of them. And on the words following, whom thou shalt make Princes in all the earth: for, saith he, in the name of God the gospel is spread in all ends of the world, in which Principes ecclesiae, i. episcopi; the princes of the Church, that is to say, the Bishops are placed. On which words Augustine also doth comment to the like purpose: Instead of the Apostles, sons are borne to thee, BB. are ordained: think not thyself forsaken, because thou seest not Peter and Paul who beg at thee; of thine own issue is sprung a fatherhood: Agnoscant qui pr • cisi sunt, veniant ad vnitatem, &c. Let them which are precise or cut off by schism, acknowledge it and come unto unity. The Church hath borne sons, and in steed of her fathers, hath made them princes over all the earth. Optatus likewise calleth the BB apices & principes omnium.

The Council of Carthage decreed, that when the Donatists returned to the Church, they should be received each one in their degrees, according to the will and pleasure of the B. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , who governeth the Church in the same place, if he shall think it expedient for the peace of the Church▪ Cyprian , though he had approved Cornelius his courage, in that Felicissimus a wicked schismatic, attended with a troop of desperate fellows, was by him vigore pleno, quo episcopum agere oportet, pulsus de ecclesia, with full vigor of au • hority and courage, wherewith it behooveth a B to deal, driven out of the Church ; yet perceiving him to be somewhat daunted with the threatenings of those lewd companions; if this be so, saith he, that the •• daciousnes of wicked men be feared, that what they cannot do by right and equity, they may • ccomplish by rash and desperate courses, actum est de episcopatus vigore, & de ecclesiae gubernandae sublimi ac diuina potestate, then farewell the vigor of episcopal authority, and that high and divine power of governing the Church. But more fully is this authority described in the Councils of Antioch and Constantinople, and also in the writings of Jerome. Every Bishop (saith the Council of Antioch) hath authority of his own See, both to govern it according to the fear of God which is before his eyes, and to have a provident care of the whole Country which is under his City, as also to ordain Presbyters and Deacons, and to govern all things with judgment. The Council held in Trullo decreed, that forasmuch as some Cities being occupied by the Barbarians invading Christian kingdoms, the Bishops of the said Cities could not enjoy their seat, and perform such offices there as belong to the episcopal function; that they should retain their eminent dignity and authority, so that they may canonically exercise ordination of the diverse degrees of Clerks, and that they may use within their bounds 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the authority of their Prelacie, and that all their administration be firm and lawful. But what saith Jerome? He having entreated of the other degrees of the Clergy, at the last cometh to entreat de praecipuo gradu Ecclesiae of the chief degree of the Church, qui ordo episcopalis est, which is the order of Bishops : the power whereof he setteth down in these words: He ordaineth Priests and Levites, that is, Presbyters and Deacons, &c. He governeth the Church of God: he showeth what everyone ought to do: he cond • mneth, he receiveth, he bindeth, he looseth that which was bound, he hath the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he openeth and shutteth the throne of God, (meaning heaven) having nothing (meaning no ecclesiastical order) above him, &c.

But the superiority of Bishops over Presbyters I shown in the sermon, by comparing the jurisdiction of BB. with that which Presbyters have, both in regard of the greatness and largeness, and also in respect of the derivation thereof.

The Presbyters jurisdiction is over the flock of one parish: the jurisdiction of the Bishop is over the whole Diocese. The Presbyters is private in the court of conscience: the Bishops public, and in the external Court also. The Presbyter governeth the people only of one flock: the Bishop governeth not only the people of the whole Diocese, but the Presbyters also themselves. The Presbyters receive institution unto their jurisdiction from the Bishop, and exercise it under the Bishop of the Diocese, who hahauing (as the Council of Antioch and Jerome say) the care of the whole Church or Diocese, admit the Presbyters in partem solicitudinis, into part of their care, by giving them institution to their several parishes. The Presbyters do answer to the sons of Aaron, and are the successors of the 70. Disciples, as diverse of the Fathers do teach: but the Bishops answer to Aaron, and are the successors of the Apostles, as I prove by the testimony of Jerome, who saith, that in the true Church Bishops do hold the place of the Apostles; and of Irenaeus, that the Apostles left the Bishops their successors, delivering unto them their own place of government.

To all this the Refuter maketh a dilatorie answer, not purposing indeed to answer these allegations at all.

Of these points I purpose not (saith he) to say anything in this place, because the former concerning the difference of the Bishops and Presbyters jurisdiction, must presently be disputed: the latter is to be discussed in the last point of his five.

And thus hath he by a cleanly device au • ided these allegations, which he knew not how to answer, and very featly rid his hands of them. But if the Reader shall upon examination find, that he speaketh nothing to these allegations, and proofs in the places whereunto he is deferred, he must needs think, that their cause of sincerity (as they call it) is not very sincerely handled.

Having thus in general noted the superiority of Bishops in the power of jurisdiction, let us now descend unto particulars.

The authority therefore of the Bishop respecteth either the things of the Church, or the persons. Whatsoever things (saith the Council of Antioch) appertain to the Church, are to be governed, husbanded, and disposed by the judgment and authority of the Bishop, to whose trust the whole people is committed, and the souls of the congregation. And again: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that the Bishop hath the power or authority of those things which belong to the Church. And this authority the Bishops had from the beginning; for, as what was at the first given to the Church, was laid at the Apostles feet, so afterwards what was contributed, was committed (saith Justin Martyr ) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to the Bishop. Heereof you may read more, Conc. Gangr. c. 7. & 8. Council. Tol. 3. c. 19. & 4 c. 32. Balsam. in Council. Carth. Gr. c. 36. alias 33.

As touching persons, they were distinguished at the first into Clericos & Laicos, unto whom afterward, a third sort was added, viz. Monachi, monastical persons ; who, though they were sequestered from the company and society of secular men, as they count them, yet were they not exempted from the jurisdiction of the Bishop. The great Council of Chalcedon determined, that no man should build a monastery anywhere, or house of prayer, without the consent of the Bishop of the City: and that those which in every City or Country, did lead a monastical life, should be subject to the Bishop. See more, c. 8. Conc. Afric. c. 47. Agath. c. 27. & 58. Theod. Balsam. saith, that Monks were more subject to the Bishop, then to the Governor of the monastery.

As touching the Laity, I said, Serm. sect. 10. pag. 46. to pag. 47. l. 6. I should not need to prove the Bishops authority over the people of their Diocese, if I demonstrate their rule over the Presbyters thereof, &c.

Not need (saith the Refuter?) Ye • you must prove the power of censuring the people to be their only right, unless you yield that preeminence to be given them jure humano, as indeed it must be, seeing they have it not potestate ordinis, by the power of their order.

The Refuter is to be borne with, if he talk at randon, seeing he is (as it seemeth) out of his element.

The thing which I was to prove, if it had been needful, was, that whereas Presbyters did govern each one the people of a parish, and that privately, the Bishop governeth the people of the whole diocese, and that publikelie: the which I held needless to prove, because before it was proved, that they had the charge of the whole Diocese, and were Pastors thereof: And secondly, because if I prove they governed the Presbyters, who were the governors of the several flocks, then much more their jurisdiction did extend to the flocks themselves. Where he saith, J must

prove that the censuring the people is their only right

; I answer, it is sufficient to prove their superiority in jurisdiction, which I intended, and that none in the Diocese doth exercise external jurisdiction, but from the B. and under him. A notable evidence whereof we have in Siluanus the famous Bishop of Troas, who perceiving those of his Clergy to make gain of men's suits, appointed others whom he thought good, to be the Judges of men's causes, whereby he got himself great renown. And as for the power of binding and loosing in the court of conscience, it is common to Bishops with all Presbyters, howsoever in respect of the use and exercise thereof, they are subject to the Bishop.

Where he saith, that

Bishops have their jurisdiction jure humano, because they have it not potestate ordinis, by the power of their order

, he seemeth to harp upon something, which he doth not well understand. For although the Schoolmen and Papists teach, that to the power of order belongeth a character and grace which God alone doth give in their ordination; yet they grant also, that the jurisdiction which is conferred to them by the will of man, doth also mediately proceed from God. And howsoever it be true, that Bishops with us are assisted iure humano, to exercise their public and external jurisdiction, and to judge in causes ecclesiastical by the Kings ecclesiastical Law; yet this doth not hinder, but that they are authorized thereunto iure Apostolico, as is manifest by the Apostles themselves, by Timothy and Titus, and all the ancient Bishops of the Primitive Church, who by authority derived to them from the Apostles, did exercise the ecclesiastical censures over the people and clergy, before there were any laws of Christian Magistrates to authorise or assist them thereunto.

But he is pleased to see how I prove the BB. to have been superior to the Presbyters in jurisdiction; though not pleased that I speak in general of BB. for here his Coccysme again hath place, that

I should have proved the Angels of the seven Churches to have had jurisdiction over ministers under them.

Which is a miserable poor shift indeed. Was not this the thing propounded to be proved, that the BB. of the primitive Church were superior in jurisdiction? doth not himself confess, that the ancient Churches were all of one Constitution? And is not the proof of the general, a proof of the particular also? If I should say, these seven Angels had this jurisdiction; some such exception of singularity in them, would with as great reason be taken, as against Timothy and Titus. But when I prove, that BB. in general had this superiority, I do more then prove, that these seven Bishops had it.

The reason which I use is an induction. The Bishop had superiority in jurisdiction both to the Presbyters, that were parts of the Presbytery assisting him, and to the Pastors assigned to several cures. Therefore he had superior jurisdiction to all the Presbyters in the diocese. But the Refuter maketh me reason thus:

If the Bishops had maiority of rule both over the Presbyters that assisted them, and also over the Pastors allotted to their several charges, then had they power of jurisdiction.

But they had maiority of rule over the Presbyters, assisting them and the Pastors, &c.

Therefore they had power of jurisdiction.

Why? Needs this to be proved, that Bishops had power of jurisdiction, which every parish Minister hath? Or doth the Refuter deny, that Bishops had power of jurisdiction? Or if he cannot but grant the conclusion, what a folly is it to wrangle with the premises? And yet for fear of granting the conclusion, first he picks a quarrel with the proposition.

For though they had maiority of rule, &c. yet w • ll it not follow they had sole power of jurisdiction.

Whence cometh this sole I pray you, that hath so oft been foisted in? I fear greatly from an evil conscience, resolved to oppugn and deface the truth. Cannot the B. be superior to Presbyters in the power of jurisdiction, unless they have (as none have) the sole power of jurisdiction?

Then he flatly denieth the assumption. But what reason doth he give of his denial? what evidence of truth doth he bring to prove the contrary? Alas, he troubleth not himself that way, all his care and endeavor is to find out starting holes and evasions to elude the truth.

I prove first in general, that BB. had maiority of rule, or superiority of jurisdiction over the Presbyters, even those of the City, who were the chief. Then in particular, in the next section. The former I prove, first, by the testimony of Jerome , who confesseth, that of necessity a power eminent above all and admitting no partner, at least no compeere, is to be granted to the B. To this besides the poor evasion of Jerome's minority, and being under age, before answered, he saith,

Jerome speaketh of such BB. as he acknowledgeth to 〈◊〉 no warrant in the scriptures, and to have been brought into the C •• rch by occas ••• of schism after the Apostles times.

Both which I have before proved, and shall▪ again prove to be manifestly false. Doth Jerome deny BB. to have warrant in the scriptures? besides the places of the new testament often alleged, call to mind those two , on Psalm 45. and Isaiah 60. Where he calleth them, principes ecclesia by warrant of those scriptures. Doth Jerome say, they were not brought into the Church until after the Apostles times? doth not he confess James, Mark • , Timothy Titus, and diverse others to have been BB. in the Apostles times, and that ever since S. Mark there have been BB. at Alexandria?

Secondly, I allege Ignatius , whom themselves oft allege for their Presbyteries. But see what hard hap some men have: he, whose authority is so good when he is alleged by them, is but a counterfeit when he is produced by me. And yet those who suspect five of his epistles, because Eusebius and Jerome mention but seven, acknowledge this ad Trallianos to be none of the five which are suspected, but one of the seven which are received. This • uasion should not have been used, if he could tell how to answer his testimony otherwise. Yes that he can.

For though Ignatius do say that a B. is such an one as holdeth or manageth the whole power and authority above all, yet that proveth not the sole jurisdiction of BB. God amend that soul, that so oft foisteth in that sole besides my meaning and my words.

And yet truly Ignatius saith fair for the sole power. For if the B. have the whole power and authority above all, why may he not be said to have the sole power and authority over all? what? saith the refuter, he alone?

May not a man say as much of the Duke of Venice, or of the King of Polonia? yet are neither of these soueraignes: no more had the B. for all these words any supreme and sole authority.

Do I anywhere say, that the BB. have or ought to have supreme and sole authority, which here again he objecteth to make the BB. according to my judgment forsooth absolute Popelings? will these odious slanders willfully devised to disgrace the truth, which I taught, never be left? and yet that is untrue which he saith of the Duke of Venice, and that is more then we desire, that the B. in his diocese, should be like the King of Polonia in his kingdom. For though the Duke of Venice be above any other in Venice; yet he hath not the whole power and authority above all: neither do we make the B. to have supreme power in his diocese, as the King of Poland hath in his realm; though in respect of the election of him to his kingdom, and of BB. to their sees, there be somelikenes.

In the third place I allege another testimony of Ignatius, where he exhorteth the Presbyters of Antioch, where himself was Bishop, to feed the flock which was among them, using the words which Peter doth 1. Epist. 5. Until God should declare who should be their Governor, meaning the Bishop. Where the B. in plain terms is called the governor of the Presbyters. There can be no question but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is a maiority of rule. And yet he saith this

testimony doth not prove any such maiority of rule: and that for four worthy reasons. First, because this is one of those places which the disciplinarians absurdly allege for the proof of only-governing elders (which never were) the duty inioined them being pastoral. Secondly, because the Church whereof he was B. was but one congregation at that time.

And yet he expressly calleth himself the Bishop of Syria: which plainly proveth, that he was not only a diocesan, but a Metropolitan B. Yea but

in his epistle to Jerome he calleth it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

. I will not urge the error in the name Jerome, for Heron : perhaps it was not our Jeremiah's , but his Barucks fault. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which he absurdly translateth, Synagogue and parish, signifieth congregation, and is the same with ecclesia, or Church. For Ignatius having signified to him that he should be his successor in the Bishopric, he saith ; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and the congregation of the Lord shall not be as sheep without a pastor. But hereof I have spoken heretofore. Howbeit, both this and the former answer here are mere evasions. For suppose that (which I have proved to be most false) that there were only-governing elders in Antioch, and that the Church had been but one parish, can he be so absurd asto say, that none of the Presbyters in Antioch were ministers? If any were (as indeed they were all as I have abundantly proved before) is not the B. here plainly noted to be their governor? and if he were their governor, was he not above them in the power of jurisdiction or government? Or what is this to the present question, whether the Church of Antioch contained one congregation or more, if it cannot be denied that the B. was superior in the power of jurisdiction to the Presbyters of that Church, how great or how little soever it was?

His third reason of all others is most impertinent. For what is this to the purpose, if it were true, that

the duty which Ignatius inioineth them of feeding, that is, of instructing and guiding the people, was not perpetually belonging to their office, but only in the time of the vacancy, till they had another governor

, seeing he noteth that himself had been, and his successor should be their governor? But it is untrue which he saith, concerning the perpetuity of the duty. For Ignatius his meaning was, that as they were at all times to feed the people, so especially in the absence or want of the Bishop, the care and attendance of the flock in the defect of a B. being devolved to them.

Fourthly,

If M. D. do urge, saith he, that Ignatius was, and so also his successor their governor, (which was indeed the only thing for which the place was alleged, and to which point alone he ought to have directed his speech) the answer is easy, that he might be so, and yet the Church but a parish, and those Presbyters governing Elders.

An easy answer indeed: as who should say, though the allegation do prove that for which you bring it, yet it doth not disprove some other of our absurdities, for the disproof whereof you do not bring it: as that the Church was a parish, and the Presbyters only governing elders. Was the disproof of those points to be expected from this place, and at this time? do you not say, it is one of the places which is ordinarily brought out of Ignatius, for proof of only-governing Elders? And must this be your shift to avoid my argument, proving out of this place the superiority of Bishops in the power of jurisdiction, that for anything can hence be alleged, the Presbyters might be only governing Elders? Js not the Refuter near driven, think you, when he would bear his Reader in hand, that his lay Presbyters be sufficiently proved, if the place which themselves bring for them, doth not disprove them; but especially, when he is driven to allege this as a poor shift to avoid another thing in question? Yea but if the Church were a parish, and they only governing Elders, then was Ignatius but as a Parson of a parish: and

Parsons, though they be called, rectores ecclesiarum, governors of the parish Churches, are far enough from the maiority of rule in question.

Whereto J answer, that if he would need • make Ignatius but the Parson of a parish, assisted with a Presbytery of lay Elders, he should have conceived him to be such a one as themselves fancy, and not as ours are. For he should not have been subordinate and subject as ours are (and as all Presbyters of parishes ever were) to the Bishops, but as they fancy, endued with a power vnsubordinate and independent; and therefore had a supremacy, rather then superiority, as being the supreme ecclesiastical officer in all that Church. But how I beseech you is it proved, that Ignatius was but a parish Bishop? Because, forsooth, the Church of Antioch might be a parish, and the Presbyters thereof only-governing Elders, for anything that I have here said to the contrary, which indeed I intended not in this place. But now I discern a worthy stratagem of this Refuter, in choosing rather to answer the places out of Ignatius, being brought for superiority of Bishops, then himself to urge them for the lay-elders: hoping to persuade some kind of Readers, both that their Elders are sufficiently proved, if they be not disproved out of the places which themselves do bring to prove them: and also, that by such an answer, the superiority of Bishops is sufficiently avoided. But to conclude this point, whiles the Refuter goeth about to prove, that Antioch (which was the Metropolis of Syria, and the chief City of all the East) was but a parish Church: and the Bishop of Antioch, who was also (as Ignatius testifieth of himself) the Bishop of Syria, and as Theodoret saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the chief or pr •• ate of all the Bishops in in the East, to have been but a Parson of a parish Church; the Reader will hereby learn, what conceit to have of his learning and judgment, and what credit to give to his new- • angled opinions.

( Serm. sect. 11. pag. 47.) Now the Presbyters were subject to their B. both as their ruler to be guided, &c. to page 50. med. )

Having in general shown the Bishops superiority in jurisdiction over the Presbyters, even those of the City; in this section J prove it more particularly by the parts of government, which are, both to rule and direct; as also to censure and correct. I show therefore, that the Presbyters of the City were subject to the Bishoppe, both as their ruler, to be guided and d • rected by him, and also as their Judge, to be censured and corrected of him. Where the Refuter, if he would needs be analysing and syllogising, should have framed this argument:

To whom the Presbyters were subject, both as to their ruler, to be guided and directed by him; and as to their Judge, to be censured and corrected of him, he was superior to them in the power of jurisdiction, and maiority of rule.

To the B. the Presbyters were subject, both as to their ruler, to be guided and directed by him; and as to their Judge to be censured and corrected of him.

Therefore the B. was superior to the Presbyters in power of jurisdiction and maiority of rule.

The proposition of this syllogism is of evident & undeniable truth. The assumption consisteth of two parts: the former concerning the rule of direction, the latter concerning the power of correction: which I do in order prove by evident testimonies, whereunto he opposeth nothing but cavilling shifts and evasions. By way of analysis he saith thus:

The former proof of the assumption touching the Bishops maiority of rule, was general, concerning diocesan and parishional Presbyters. Now follow the reasons for each of them in particular: and first, for the Bishops jurisdiction over the diocesan, in regard of direction. Where I desire him to tell us, what he meaneth by diocesan Presbyters, whether such as assisted the Bishop in the diocesan government?

If yea, he dreameth of that he cannot prove. To omit the commendation of his skill in analysing, which is not great, his resutation here is, as you plainly see, not only a dream, but the dream of a dream. He saith,

I dream of diocesan Presbyters

, when himself (belike) did dream so. Where speak I one word of diocesan Presbyters? where do I once name them? Is the Refuters conscience no better, then still to father upon me untruths for his own advantage? doth he not thereby bewray what a cause he maintaineth, which cannot be upheld but by forgeries? Neither if J had spoken of diocesan Presbyters, would I have used the word in that sense. For as parts of the diocese in the country are sometimes in the Councils called dioceses; so are Country Ministers called dioecesani, qui per dioeceses ecclesias regunt: which in the Council of Neocaesaria, are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, Country Ministers, and are opposed to the Presbyters of the City, who are there called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and else where , ciuitatenses Presbyteri. Of whom it may be truly said, that the College or company of them was the Presbytery, which being not assigned to any one parish, was provided to assist the Bishoppe in the feeding and government of the diocese, as I have proved before, and in that sense might be called dioecesani.

But let us see his reason, saith the Refuter. If the 40. Canon of the Apostles saith he (I said, the ancient Canon,) if the Councils of Arles and Ancyra, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Ignatius affirm, that BB. had maiority of rule for direction over Diocesan Presbyters, then they had such maiority. But all these affirm so: therefore they had so.

The former part of my aforesaid Assumption, that the Presbyters of the City were subject to the B. as their ruler to be directed by him, I prove, first in general, because they might do nothing of importance without his direction or consent, then particularly, in respect of those things which did belong to the power of their order. For as touching the former; if the Presbyters might do nothing without the B. nothing without his appointment, or consent; then were they subject to him, as their ruler, to be guided and directed by him. But the former I prove by these testimonies, whereto more may be added; therefore the latter cannot be denied.

Of the Syllogism which he framed, he denieth first the Consequence of the proposition; not shaming to affirm, that although the ancient Canon called the Apostles, though the ancient Councils of Ancyra and Arles, though Tertullian, Cyprian and Ignatius, do all testify the maiority of rule in BB: yet it

would not follow

that they had it. It will follow then, that the ancientest Councils, and Fathers deserve no credit: which whosoever shall affirm, doth much more without comparison, deserve not only no credit, but no audience, nay no sufferance, he is not to be endured. But what pretence hath he, to discredit their authorities? forsooth none of them, excepting Tertullian and Ignatius lived in the first 200. years.

As if all truth were confined within that periode: or as if some of the Fathers which succeeded (as Cyprian by name) deserved not as much credit as they.

As for Cyprian, he came 40. or 50. years after: and the Council of Ancyry some 50. or 60. years after him. No doubt, but great alteration in discipline, and Church-government, was or could be pretended to have been in the Church, before Constatines time whiles it was under the Cross. But let the Refuter esteem of these authorities as he pleaseth; there is no modest or moderate Christian, but will prefer the affirmation of any of these, especially, in a matter of fact, before the negation of a thousand such as the libelling refuter.

After he hath thus eleuated their authority, he cavilleth with their testimonies, denying also the assumption. And first to the ancient Canon, forbidding Presbyters & Deacons to do anything 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , without the appointment and consent of the Bishoppe, he frameth such an answer, as every word whereof almost doth argue extreme either vnconscionablenesse, or ignorance.

He saith, It doth not prove they had maiority of rule, or sole sovereignty over them▪

Sole soueraignity? O defiled conscience, which ceasest not to ascribe such odious and absurd assertions to me! But why is not the maiority of rule in the Bishoppe hence proved, and the subjection of Presbyters to him as to their ruler, to be guided and directed by him, seeing they are charged to do nothing without his direction and warrant? what can be more plain? forsooth,

the like Phrase is used Can. 35. and Conc. Antioch. c. 9. where BB. are enjoined to do nothing without the sentence of the Archbishop, nor he in their Parishes without the sentence or appointment of them all. If therefore the Maiority of rule in BB. may be proved from this Canon, then in like manner from the other two Canons, the maiority of rule not only in Archbishops in those days over BB. but also of Bishops in their Parishes, over the Archbishop. But the consequent is false in both the parts of it: the former, for there were no Archbishops in those days; the latter, because BB. had not authority over Archbishoppes: therefore the Antecedent also is untrue.

Here the refuter under some show of learning hath bewrayed much ignorance. For first, as touching the proposition: his reason is unlike, and his allegation out of the 34. Canon is untrue. The Bishoppe of every natiō m • st agnize him that is the first or Primate among them, and esteem him as the chief, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . It is not said as in the Canon by me cited, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 simply, as the refuter citeth it; but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Is there no difference between these two speeches, to do nothing simply, and to do nothing more, or exceeding their own bounds? For that this is the meaning of the Canon, the words following do plainly declare, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but that they do only those things which appertain to their own See, and the countries under it. But more plainly in the Council of Antioch , that the rest of the Bishops do 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , nothing more then those things only which concern every man's own Church and Countries which be under it. And that you should not understand them, as the Refuter doth without understanding, they add; for every Bishoppe hath authority of his own City, both to govern according to the fear (of God) which he hath, and to have care of all the Country, as also to ordain Presbyters and Deacons, and to administer euerything with judgment. And yet I do not deny, but that the Metropolitans are superior to their Comprouinciall Bishops, in the power of Jurisdiction; although all Bishops whatsoever, are equal in the power of order. Neither should the Bishops by the like reason be superior to the Archbishops in their parishes, as he ignorantly addeth. For the Canon doth not speak of the several Bishops in their Dioceses, which he absurdly calleth Parishes ; but of the whole Company of them assembled in a Provincial Synod, saying that he must do nothing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , without the consent of them all. Howsoever therefore either the Metropolitan, or any other of the Bishops in their own several Dioceses might do those things which concerned their own proper charge; yet provincial businesses (which exceeded the bounds of any one man's charge) were to be dispatched in Provincial Councils; wherein the Metropolitan was to be acknowledged as the chief and President thereof, who called them together, and moderated the assembly; but so, as the Bishops might do nothing without him severally, so he might do nothing without them all jointly; and as he was superior to them severally, so was he inferior to them all jointly, that is, to the Synod.

The Assumption likewise in the former part of it is false, and the reason of it also. For there were Metropolitans in the first two hundred years, and they were superior in the power of jurisdiction to their Bishops.

But before he will let this testimony pass, he hath one point of ignorance more to show, and that is, because Archbishoppes are mentioned, c. 35, alias 34. therefore these Canons were none of the Apostles, nor any others above an hundred, he will not say (whatsoever he thinks) two hundred years after them. For Archbishops were not hatched (so reuerentlie he speaketh) a long time after, all men being judge.

The antiquity of these Canons I have touched before; showing, that within little more then two hundred years after the Apostles time, they were then accounted ancient Canons. But to the point. If he speak of the name Archbishop, it is not mentioned in the Canons, called the Apostles; if of the office of a Metropolitan, which is meant in the aforesaid Canon; I have proved before, that it hath been ever since the Apostles times. Those learned men, which hold Archbishops to be of a latter edition, by that name understand Patriarchs ; and those of 2. sorts, being either so called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as the Patriarchs of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem; or such as are more usually called Archbishops, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 governors of large provinces, being in a degree between, Metropolitans, and Patriarchs, which seem to have been ordained in the first Council of Constantinople, as Socrates witnesseth. Hence it is, that Isidor saith Ordo Episcoporum quadripartitus est, i. in Patriarchis, Archiepiscopis, Metropolitis atque Episcopis : and the same distinction is noted in the Council of Chalcedon, and in the Code, and constitutions of Justinian, and in the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 made by Leo the Emperor &c.

To the same purpose I alleged the ancient Council of Arles , that Presbyters may do nothing without the knowledge, and consent of their BB. and of Ancyra the most ancient approved Council that is extant , Non licere Presbyteris ciuitatis, sine Episcopy praecepto amplius aliquid imperare, nec sine authoritate literarum eius in vnaquaque parochia aliquid agere. That it is not lawful for the Presbyters of the city to do anything of importance without the Bishops appointment, no • to do anything in any parish without the authority of his letters.

To these J add the first Council of Toledo; Sine conscientia Episcopy nihil p • nit •• Presbyteri agere praesummunt, Let the Presbyters presum • to do nothing at all without the knowledge, and consent of the Bishop.

And forasmuch as for a poor evasion he alledgeth, that these Councils by me cited, though the ancientest that are extant, are under age; which ill becometh him to object, who hath no witnesses to the contrary before this present age; I will therefore produce one or two more, who lived in the Apostles times, and conversed with them. Ignatius therefore in an Epistle which the Refuter hath before cited, saith that neither Presbyter, nor Deacon ought to do anything without the B. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , neither let anything seem reasonable unto you, which is done without his warrant. To him I will adjoin a testimony of Clement, wishing the Reader to credit it no further then he seeth cause. He therefore reporteth it as a doctrine of Peter, that no Presbyter ought to do anything in any Bishops parish or diocese, without his permission; and that all Presbyters ought without delay to be obedient to their BB. in all things.

§. 14. But as I proved that Presbyters might do nothing without the Bishops appointment or consent, so I noted especially those things which belong to their power of order; as the actions of their ministry, to baptize, to celebrate the Communion, to preach, to say the public Liturgy, or divine service.

As touching Baptism, I alleged Tertullian , testifying, that the Bishoppe hath the right to give Baptism; then the Presbyters and the Deacon • : but yet not without the authority of the Bishoppe, for the honor of the Church, (that is, the honor due unto him in the Church) which being safe, peace is safe. Where note in Tertullian's time, within the first two hundred years, the Bishoppe was so greatly honored, that the peace of the Church was supposed to depend on the honor of the Bishoppe, as Jerome also speaketh, & that the ordinary right of baptizing was primarily in the Bishop; secondarily, in the Presbyters & Deacons, but not to be exercised by them without his authority: whereas extraordinarily, and in case of necessity, lay men in his judgment might baptize. To this the Refuter giveth five answers, but never a good one.

As first, that Tertullian speaketh not of their iuresdiction in the Apostles times, or af • er by authority from them.

He speaketh nor de facto, but de iure ; noting what right Bishops had: and he showeth the ordinary right of baptizing which the Presbyters had, was not without the Bishops authority.

That the preeminence he giveth them was for the honor of the Church, and preservation of peace.

What then? was this peculiar to his time? Were they not as careful of the honor of the Church, and preservation of peace in the Apostles times, as after?

Neither doth he speak of the authority of the Bishop in general, but of an honor given him in one particular.

And for one particular belonging to the power of order, did I allege it, that having proved this point in general, I might also show it in the particulars, which cannot otherwise be done, but sigillation, one by one. Yea

but this honor no one particular, might well be in a titular Bishoppe, that had no such jurisdiction.

Titular Bishops in the primitue Church were such, as had the name and title, but not the authority of a Bishop granted to them. Such a one was Meletius, who by the censure of the Council of Nice , was not to have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the authority, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the bars name of a Bishop. And such were Nouatian Bishops, returning to the Church permitted to be, if the Catholic Bishop would gratify them with the name and title of a Bishop.

I read of Eustathius , the Metropolitan B. of Pamphylia, who being desirous to lead a more quiet and solitary life, gave up his Bishopric: whereupon Theodorus was chosen in his room. For it was not meet 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that the Church should continue a widow, and that the flocks • f our Savior should remain without a governor. But he afterwards repenting him of the abdication of his Bishopric, putteth up a petition to the Council of Ephesus, that he might at the least retain the name and honor of a Bishop. At his request, the Council writeth to the Synod of Pamphylia, that he might have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the name, the honor, and communion of a Bishop: but yet so, as that neither he do ordain, nor taking upon him the charge of the Church, should perform sacred actions by his own authority Thus we see who were titular Bishops in the primitive Church, such as were gratified with the name, but wanted the office and authority of a Bishoppe. As for those who had the office of a Bishoppe, of whom Tertullian speaketh; they had also vigorem episcopatus, the vigor of the episcopal office : whereof Cyprian so oft speaketh, and the sway of authority ecclesiastical was in their hands: insomuch that Presbyters and Deacons, who by the power of their order had right to baptitize, might not even in Tertullian's time exercise that power, but by authority from the Bishop.

In the fourth place the Refuter objecteth

, that these Presbyters were not ordinary Ministers of the word and Sacraments, but such as he and his fellows dream of; because Tertullian in the very next words affirmeth, alioquin etiamlaicis iut est, otherwise lay men also might baptize.

That the Presbyters were Ministers, I have manifestly proved before, and I have noted already, that Tertullian signifieth the ordinary right of baptizing to be in the Bishop, Presbyters & Deacons, that yet extraordinarily and in the case of necessity, lay men might baptize. And so Jerome seemeth to exhound Tertullian's meaning. Hence it is that without Chrism (which the Presbyters of the several parishes were to fetch from their B.) and without the commandment of the Bishop neither Presbyter nor Deacon have right to baptize. Which notwithstanding we know to be oft times lawful for lay men to do, si tamen necessitas cogit, but yet so, if necessity do compel. But nothing is more evident then that the Presbyters were Ministers, by that which hath heretofore been delivered. Whereunto this helpeth somewhat, that Tertullian opposeth Presbyters and Deacons to laymen. This objection the Refuter thought to prevent, by saying, that

the governing Elders and Deacons were accounted among the Clergy.

Which also is an unlearned assertion. For to omit the arguments which before were brought to prove, that the Presbyters and Deacons were degrees of the sacred Ministry; it is plain, that the clergy of each diocese was a company of such as were trained up in learning, it being the seminary of the whole diocese. And as they profited in years, learning, and piety, so they were preferred to be Readers, then Exorcists, then Acolythi, then Sub-deacons, after that Deacons, then Presbyters, out of whom ordinarily was chosen the Bishoppe. And moreover, the Presbyters and Deacons, with the rest of the Clergy, had all their maintenance according to their place and degree in the Church. And therefore our disciplinarians, if they will have such Presbyters and Deacons as were in the primitive Church, they must fetch them from the University, and schools of learning, as we do, and maintain them by the charges of the Church, as well, though not with so large allowance▪ as the Bishop.

His last evasion (for none of his answers is better) is,

that the lower Tertullian speaketh of, might well be, and was on a parish Bishop, the Presbyters being subject to him, as his assistants for that one Church.

But parish Bishops, such as they speak of, and lay elders be of one edition, never heard of before our age. For the more manifest proof whereof, I refer you to that which before hath been by me alleged. Jt is evident therefore by the testimonies of Tertullian and Jerome, that such was the superiority of Bishops, in respect of jurisdiction, that the Presbyters and Deacons, though the right to baptize belonged to their power of order, yet they might not exercise that power, without jurisdiction and authority granted them from the Bishop.

The like I alleged concerning the Lord's Supper. Ignatius saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : Let that Eucharist be allowed as firm and warrantable, which is celebrated under the Bishop, that is, in his presence; or by such (namely in his absence, or in those Congregations where he is not present) as he should permit or appoint. The words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , prevent the Refuters cavil, who saith, that

the Church was but one Congregation, wh • rein no man had authority to minister the word or Sacraments, but with the liking of the Pastor.

For that Eucharist which was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , was in the congregation, where the Bishop was present, it being administered in other congregations by such as the Bishop did authorize. But the idle conceit of one only Congregation in the greatest Churches hath been before sufficiently refuted.

Where I alleged Cyprian, reproving the Presbyters of Carthage, for giving the Communion to some which had fallen in time of persecution, without warrant from him, though he were absent, therein not regarding as they ought praepositum sibi Episcopum, the Bishop who was set over them, nec Episcopo honorem Sacerdotij sui & Cathedrae servants, nor reserving unto the Bishop the honor of his Priesthood and Chair:

the Refuter saith, the same answer which he gave to Tertullian, will serve (as a poor shift) for Cyprians testimony, who had just cause to complain, that the Presbyters, who in his absence were to feed the Flock, had taken upon them to admit to the Communion, &c.

Doth not the Refuter see his former shift will not serve the turn? Is it not plain, that the Presbyters which Cyprian speaketh of, who as he saith elsewhere, were cum Episcopo sacerdotali honor coniuncti, joined to the Bishop in the honor of Priesthood, who were to feed the people, and whose office it was to deliver the holy Communion to the people, were Ministers of the word and Sacraments? Again, will it serve the turn to say, either that the Presbyters had authority only in this particular of the Sacrament, or that Cyprian was either but a titular or a parish B. whom I have proved before to have been a Metropolitan? In the end he resteth in his first answer, that Cyprian is under age. Alas good Cyprian, how hard was thy hap, that thou wert not Bishop one forty years sooner, that the Refuter and his consorts, which now have excluded thee without the compass of their imagined Primitive Church, might have esteemed thy testimony as good as Tertullian's, or others who wrote in the first 200. years!

The like I might have added concerning other ministerial functions. The second Council of Carthage decreed, that if any Presbyter without the consent of the B. should in any place agenda celebrare, celebrare divine service, and perform such actions as belong to the ministry, he should be deposed. The Council of Gangra pronounceth him accursed, who shall perform the actions of the church, meaning those things which appertain to God's public service, and the ministry of the word and sacraments, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , there being not present a Presbyter by the appointment of the Bishop.

The ancient Canon, called the Apostles, appointeth, that such a Presbyter as will of his own authority, without the appointment of the B. hold assemblies for the service of God, & use of the sacraments, that he should be deposed, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as ambitious. The same hath the Council of Antioch, in the fifth Canon; which Canon being recited in the Council of Chalcedon, all the BB. gave it this acclamation: This is a just rule; this is the rule of the Fathers. This case being propounded in the Council of Carthage, if a Presbyter being condemned by his own B. shall swell with pride against him, and think he may apart celebrate the divine service, and offer the Communion, &c. the Council determined, if any Presbyter swelling with pride against his B. shall make a schism, withdrawing himself from the Communion of his B. &c. let him be anathema.

For a conclusion, I alleged the words of Ignatius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Let no man without the B. that is, without his leave and authority, do anything that belongeth to the Church. To which the Refuter maketh this one only answer, of one congregation, which I have confuted more then once.

To prove the Bishops power and authority in correcting Presbyters, in the first place I alleged Cyprian, who telleth Regatianu • a B. who had been abused of his Deacon, that pro Episcopatus v • gore & Cathedrae authoritate, for the vigor of his Bishopric, and authority of his chair, he might himself have censured him as he thought good; & counselleth him, if the Deacon did persist, he should exercise the power of his honor towards him, and either depose him, or excommunicate him. Secondly, Jerome maruelling that the B. where Vigilantius was Presbyter, did not virga apostolica, with the apostolic and with an iron rod, break that unprofitable vessel, and deliver him unto the destruction of the flesh. Both these the refuter casteth off, as vncompetent witnesses,

who speak but of the practice of their own times

; as who should say, it had been otherwise before their times. But it is plain almost by innumerable testimonies, some whereof I will cite anon, that the ancientest Canons, Councils, and Fathers acknowledge and allow this corrective power in the Bishops over the Presbyters and Deacons in the Primitive Church. As for the Apostles times, I prove the same out of the Apocalypse, but more plainly out of the Epistles to Timothy and Titus.

The former reason, if the Refuter will give me leave to frame it, is this:

Those who either are commended for examining, and not suffering such in their Church, as called themselves Apostles, and were not, or were reproved for suffering false Teachers, had a corrective power over other Ministers.

The Angel of the Church of Ephesus is commended for the former: the Angel of the Church of Thyatira is reproved for the latter.

Therefore these Angels, which before I have proved to be BB. had a corrective power over other Ministers.

His answer is frivolous, that

neither these Angels were diocesan Bishops, which before hath been proved, nor these false Teachers diocesan Presbyters, which word himself devised for a shift. Is it not against sense (saith he) that the Presbyters which were subject to the B. should call themselves Apostles?

If they were not subject to him, why is he either commended for exercising authority over them, or reproved for suffering them? And if they were not Presbyters, because they called themselves Apostles, be like they were better men. Js it not then against sense, to deny that Presbyters were subject to the censure of the Bishop, because he imagineth these, who were subject to their censure, were better men? Whatsoever they were, whether Presbyters, or in a higher degree; whether of the Bishops presbytery, or not; whether of his diocese originally, or come from other places, it is plain, that they were Teachers, and that being in their diocese, the Bishops had authority either to suffer them to preach, or to inhibit them; to retain them in the Communion of their Church, or to expel them.

My other reason, that BB. had corrective power over the Presbyters, is, because Timothy and Titus had such power over the Presbyters of Ephesus and Crete: as I prove by most evident testimonies out of Paul's epistles written to them, and Epiphanius his inference on these words to Timothy: Against a Presbyter receive not thou an accusation, but under two or three witnesses, &c. Therefore (saith he) Presbyters are subject to the B. as to their Judge. To my inference out of S. Paul he answereth,

that Timothy and Titus were not BB. and that I shall never prove they were.

I desire therefore the Reader to suspend his judgment until he come to the proofs on both sides; and if he shall not find my proofs for their being BB. to be better then his to the contrary, let him believe me in nothing. In the mean time let him know, that if the general consent of the ancient Fathers deserve any credit for a matter of fact, then must it be granted that Timothy and Titus were Bishops.

Against Epiphanius he objecteth, that

he took for granted that which Arius constantly denied.

But this is one of his presumptuous and malapeit conceits; for when Epiphanius proveth against Arius, that Bishops were superior to other Presbyters, because Timothy was, taking it for granted that Timothy was a Bishoppe: what moderate or reasonable man would think otherwise, but that this assertion, that Timothy was a Bishoppe, was such a received truth, as he knew Aërius himself would not deny it?

( Serm. sect. 12. pag. 50. But consider also the Presbyters as severed in place from the Bishop, and affixed to their several Cures, &c. to offenders, pag. 52.

My first Argument to prove the jurisdiction of Bishops over Presbyters assigned to their several cures, is, that when any place in the country was void, the Bishoppe assigned a Presbyter to them out of his Presbytery, which as hath been said before, Calvin confesseth; and is an evident argument, as to prove the jurisdiction of the Bishop over the country parishes, and Presbyters thereof, so to demonstrate that the Bishops were Diocesan. This reason because he could not answer, he would as his manner is, persuade the Reader that it is

needless

Secondly, I allege that these Presbyters might do nothing but by authority from the Bishoppe, from whom they had their jurisdiction, and therefore were subject to him as their ruler.

Thirdly, that they were subject to his judgment and censures. These two points with their proofs, he passeth over, as if he made hast to the reason following, which he supposeth to be the weakest. For this is his manner, to pass by in brevity, or in silence the best proofs, and if he meet with anything which seemeth to him weaker then the rest, there he resteth like a • lie in a raw place. But by his leave I will insist a little on these two points. And first, for the former point in general, the ancient Council of Laodicea having ordained that Country Bishops might do nothing without the consent of the B. in the City; in like manner commandeth the Presbyters to do nothing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , without the consent of the B. The same hath Damasus, who having spoken of Country Bishops, in like manner saith, this must be held concerning Presbyters; vt sine iussu proprij Episcopy nihilagant, that they do nothing without the commandment of their own B. To omit those actions that belonged to the power of order, which I have already proved they could not perform without license and authority from the Bishop: consider, how in respect of their persons those of the Clergy were subject to the Bishop, to be disposed by him. First, he had authority to promote thē from one degree to another, as he saw cause; insomuch that if they refused to be promoted by him they were to loose that degree from which they would not be removed.

Secondly, they might not remove from one Diocese to another without his consent. If they did, he had authority to call them back. Or if any other Bishop should ordain any of his Clerks without his consent, or letters dimissory , and in that Church prefer him to a higher degree; his own B. might reverse that ordination, & bring him again to his own Church. Con. Nic. c. 16. Arel. 2. c. 13. Sard. c 15. Constant. in Trullo. c. 17. Venet. c. 10 Epaun. c. 5.

Thirdly, they might not so much as travel from one City to another, without the B. license, & his commendatory letters. This was decreed by the council of Laodicea , and diverse others, as Con. Agath. c. 38. Epaunens. c. 6. Aurelian. 3. c. 15. Venet. c. 5. Turon. c. 11.12. Hereby the Reader will easily discern, that the whole Clergy of every Diocese was subject to the B. as to their Ruler.

And that he was their judge, it is evident. Cyprian testifieth, that heresies and schisms arise hence, that the Bishop is not obeyed, nec v • us in Ecclesia ad tempus sacerdos & ad tempus index vice Christi cogitatur, neither is one B. in the Church and one judge for the time in the stead of Christ acknowledged. First, in their controversies: for when Clerks are at variance, the B▪ shall bring them to concord, either by reason, or by his power. If there be a controversy between Clerks, saith the Council of Chalcedon , they shall not forsake their own B. but first their cause shall be tried before him. And if in their suits they thought themselves wronged in their Bishops court, then were they either to se • ke to the next BB , if the matter could not be deferred to the next Synod: or else they might appeal to the Metropolitan, or Provincial Synod. But that the B. should be overruled, controlled, or censured by his own Presbytery, it was never heard of, unless it were by way of insurrection or rebellion.

Secondly, in causes criminal, that the Presbyters and others of the Clergy were subject to the BB. censures, it is everywhere almost in the ancient Canons and Councils either expressed, or presupposed. If any Presbyter or Deacon, saith the ancient Canon , be excommunicated by the B. he may not be received by another into the Communion, then by him who did excommunicate him whiles he liveth. Which Canon is ratified in the Council of Nice in these words; as touching those which be excommunicate, whether they be of the Clergy or Laity, by the BB. in every Province, let that Canō be observed, that those that are excommunicated of one should not go to another, &c. The Council of Antioch decreed, that if any B. being deposed by a Synod, or a Presbyter or Deacon by his own B. shall presume before they be restored by a Synod to exercise their ministry, their degree should be irrecoverable; and that they which communicate with them, should be cast out of the church. Again, If any of the Laity, or Clergy, whether Presbyters or Deacons &c. shall be excommunicated by his own B. he may not be received of another. And yet again, If any Presbyter or Deacon being deposed by their own Bishop, &c. The Council of Serdica forbiddeth a Bishop to receive a Presbyter or Deacon, &c. whom he knoweth to have been excommunicated by his own Bishop. Again, If any B. through choler shall rashly excommunicate a Presbyter or Deacon, it shall be lawful for them to appeal to the Metropolitan. Exuperantius a Presbyter being excommunicated by Triferius his Bishop for some misdeamenour towards him, the Council of Taurin left his restitution to the arbitrement of the Bishop; by whom he had been excommunicated. The Council of Carthage decreed, that they which received those which be excommunicated, shall be guilty of the same fault with them, who do fly from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the canonical sentence of their own B. Out of the same Council I cited before a decree concerning Presbyters which were condemned of their own Bishoppe. And in the African Council there is another decree concerning Clergy men of what degree soever, that have been condemned by the judgment of their Bishop. In the 4. Council of Carthage it was decreed that the Bishop should excommunicate the accusers of their brethren, and that if they did repent, he should receive them unto the communion, but not into the Clergy. The council of Ephesus , that if any for their misdeeds being condemned, either by a Synod, or their own Bishop, should be restored by Nestorius or his complices either to the communion or to their degree, that they should notwithstanding remain excommunicated or deposed. The Council of Agatha appointed▪ that disobedient Clerks should be corrected of their Bishop. In the Council of Chalcedon there is a Canon concerning such Clerks as being excommunicated by their own Bishops, got themselves to the City of Constantinople, &c. In the same Council Carosus useth these words; They are Bishops, they have power to excommunicate, and to condemn. These testimonies for councils may suffice. For I will not descend to those of latter times, the latest which I have cited being the 4. general Council. For examples, the like plenty might be shown of them, who have been excommunicated or deposed by the B. Thus Alexander deposed Arius ; and Chrysostom diverse of his Clergy. Euryches was canonically deposed by his own Bishop, and diverse Presbyters excommunicated by Ibus the Bishop, &c. To conclude, Bishops, saith Balsam • , have authority either to excommunicate their Clergy or to depose them.

Thus have I proved by evident testimonies, that all sorts of Presbyters, and other clergy men in every diocese were subject to the Bishop. Whereunto this I add, that since the first institution of Bishops, which was in the Apostles times until our age, it was never otherwise: but all clergy men, if either they withdrew themselves from their subjection to their orthodoxal B. they were counted schismatics; or if they lived under no Bishop, they were wont to be called headless Clerks. By no means, saith the council of Paris, are they to be accounted Clerks, or Priests, who do not live under the government and discipline of some Bishop: for such the custom of the ancient Church called acephalos, that is, headless.

To these testimonies in the end I added a reason, wherein the refuter, because he hoped to find some advantage, is pleased to insist. The reason standeth thus:

The pastors of several parishes in the primitive church were either subject to the authority and jurisdiction of the Bishop; or they had associates in the parishes joined with them in the government thereof, or ruled alone without control ••• t, being neither restrained by associates, nor subject to BB.

But neither had they associates in the parishes joined with them, neither did they rule alone without controlment, being neither restrained by associates, nor subject to the Bishop.

Therefore the pastors of several parishes in the primitive Church were subject to the authority and jurisdiction of the bishop.

First he taketh exception against the conclusion, saying that I do not conclude that which he looked for. What he looked for, I know not, nor care not; the thing which I propounded to prove, was, that the Bishops in the primitive Church were superior to the Presbyters in the power of jurisdiction or government. Which is most evidently proved by this argument a relatis : If the Presbyters were inferior and subject to the jurisdiction and government of the Bishops, then were the Bishops superior to them in the power of jurisdiction and government.

What can be more plain? or how could they be, as he absurdly imagineth subject to the jurisdiction and government of the B. if he neither had power to rule and direct them, nor authority and jurisdiction to censure and correct them?

His exception therefore against the conclusion is a very frivolous cavil, like all the rest of his answers.

To the proposition he answereth, by denying

the destruction as insufficient, because a fourth thing might be added, and that is the authority of the congregation.

But though this might be added according to the fantastical conceit of some fanatical spirits in our time, who make the government of the Church to be neither monarchiall, nor aristocraticall, but democratical, or rather ochlocraticall; yet was it not to be added, because there could be no question thereof according to the judgment and practice of the primitive Church, whereof I spake. But let him add it if the please; for it may as easily be denied in the assumptiō, as added in the proposition. The proposition will perhaps seem somewhat the better, and the assumption will be never the worse. Therefore, this also was a mere cavil.

As touching the assumption: that part which denieth them to have ruled alone, as being neither restrained by associates, nor subject to Bishops, he saith

he would have granted, but that I proved it.

See the spirit of contradiction. What then? will he deny it? No, but hereby he will take advantage to infer his triumphing conclusion, that

our Bishops forsooth he Popes, & then say it is my conclusion.

But to this their conclusion, which they have published in print in most glorious and vaunting manner five times that I know of, arguing nothing but their gerat malice & small judgment, I have answered before to their shame. How oft must they be told, that we neither make our Bishops supreme governors, as they do their parish Bishop: nor sole, as theirs would be, if they had not the assistance of their Presbyters? And who knoweth not, that it is the supremacy that maketh a Pope: and supremacy they give to their parish Bishop.

The other part of the assumption, which saith they had not assistants in the parish to restrain them, he denieth. But before he will examine my reasō which I brought to prove it, his gravity thoght good to cavil with the phrase, which ( saith he )

soundeth very strangely in our ears. Assistants are for his help whom they assist, not to hinder in the execution of his office; so do the Justices of peace assist the Judges at the assizes. Therefore he should either, not have called them assistants, or forborne the term of restraining.

Where were so many ears, as he speaketh of, there were more heads then one that joined in this work, as I understand there did. But where so many heads were, it is strange there was no more judgment. Are your Presbyteries assisting your parish Bishop, to be compared to the Justices of peace at the assizes, who have no right of suffrage or giving sentence? or not rather to the Judges assisting the chief Judge in every Court? have not all in your Presbyteries or consistories equal right of suffrage, and are not all things carried by plurality of voice? Is it not plain, that the Judges in the Kings bench, or common plees, who are assistants to the L. chief iustices, are joined to either of them, as to he • lpe him in giving right judgment, so to restrain him, that he judge not alone, according to his own pleasure? Is it not evident when more are joined in one commission, that they are joined as well to restrain him that is the chief, that he shall do nothing alone, as to help him in the execution thereof? What a shallow conceit then was this, that assitants might not be said to restrain; seeing their office is, as to help him whom they assist to do right, so to restrain him that he do no wrong.

Let us now hear what he can say to the reason; which is this:

If the pastors of every parish had assistants, then Presbyteries, either of lay-presbyters or of Ministers But they had not presbyteries to assist them, neither of lay-presbyters, nor of ministers. Therefore they had none assistants.

The Proposition is grounded upon this hypothesis, which I took for granted, that all assistants or coassessours joined with the Bishop or pastor in the government of the Church, that are any wheres noted to have been in the primitive Church, were Presbyters. For that which again he addeth concerning the whole congregation, is a very fond conceit.Whoeuer heard that the whole congregation assisted the pastor in the government of it self? assuredly they which attribute authority to the whole congregation ascribe unto it the chief authority, as in popular states: which the refuter hath before acknowledged, saying, that

they subject both the pastors & elders to the whole congregation,

turning the world upside down, and making the flock to rule their pastor. And yet how this standeth with their other position, that the pastor is the supreme ecclesiastical officer in every Church. J cannot sell, unless they mean the highest under the Church it self. Which if it be so, then is not the Church according to their conceit assistant to the Pastor, but the Pastor is the Churches deputy and lieuetenant for the government of it self, in which government of the Church the Presbyters be his assistants. But whatsoever might be added to the proposition, according to the unstaid fancies of certain innouators, which I respected not, the proposition is necessary according to the practice of the primitive Church whereof only J sp • ke.

But he denieth the assumptiō also, saying,

that they had other Presbyters which were not ministers.

But I hope he will unsay that saying, when he shall have read what before hath been delivered concerning their only-governing Elders. Besides, against their parish-presbyters I alleged the practice of the Churches in Scotland and Geneva. For in Scotland they had not a Presbytery or consistory in every parish, but in such circuits as are answerable to our deanries. And whereas he saith, that

neither I nor he 〈…〉 truly what the practice of Geneva is, but by uncertain reports

; he should have spoken for himself. For what I report concerning Geneva, I have read, as in other Authors, so in Beza himself, showing that they have but one Ecclesiastical presbytery, or consistory, for all the parishes both in the city and territory thereto belonging, consisting of eighteen seniors, whereof 6. are Ministers constant, and 12. chosen every year out of their 3. councils of state, viz. 6. out of the council of 200 4 out of that of 60, and 2. out of the 25. as I have noted before. But where he saith that

Geneva may well be taken for one parish, seeing it hath no diocesan Bishop

, it seemeth he doth not greatly care, what he saith. Belike there is but one parish church, and all the rest, being above 20. be chapels of ease; and who then is the pastor of the whole Church of Geneva ? and what be they that are set over the Churches, if they be not the pastors of them? Again, it is not long since Geneva was under a Bishop, and then was it a Diocese, and is it now come to be but a parish? or shall we not rather say, that as the Bishop in his time was Diocesan; so the presbytery now, is not a parishional, but a Diocesan presbytery, and that the whole Church of Geneva consisting of many parishes, is as well a Diocese now, as it was before?

It remaineth therefore as I said in the sermon, that the ministers of several parishes were subject to the Bishop, whose pastoral care extended it self to all, even theremotest parishes in his Diocese &c.

CHAP. VI Titles of honor given to BB.

( Serm. sect. 13. pag. 52. Thus have you heard, that the Angels or BB. of the Primitive Church, were for the substance of their calling such as ours be. &c. to the end of the fourth point. )

H Eere (I thank him) he compareth me to such as be called Jugglers, because as they can persuade men they see what they do not see: so I would persuade my hearers that they heard which they did not hear.

Whether of us doth use more plain evidence of truth, and whether of us tricks of legerdemaine, I appeal to the conscience of the Reader; though it be the refuter himself. But good sir, though it was not in me to persuade everyone that did hear, yet me thinks I might without offense say they had heard that which they did hear, whether it were true or false. And I hope in God, that which now I have written in defense of that which they heard, will not only satisfy those which are not willfully addicted to your novelties; but also convict the conscience of the gainsayers: whom I desire in the fear of God, to take heed how they resist a truth whereof their conscience is convicted. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , it is hard to kick against the pricks.

To that which he objecteth concerning the

mentioning of provincial Bishops, whom I did not name before

, I answer: that although I did not expressly and by name argue for provincial Bishops: yet diverse of my proofs were directly of them, and by a consequence from the greater to the less applied to Bishops: as also by this reason, because eeuery provincial Bishop is a diocesan Bishop, though not contrariwise. To his other cavil of not direct concluding, I have answered already 4. or 5. times.

But before I ended this 4. point, I thought it needful to prevent an objection which is usually made; that whatsoever the office of the ancient Bishops was, yet they were not called Lord's, as ours be. Whereunto I answered, that men were not to be offended at that title, for these two causes:

1. Because it is a title in the holy scriptures given, both to natural and spiritual Fathers, as I proved out of Genesis 3 • .35.1. Kings. 18.7.13. 2. Because the title of Angels, which the Holy Ghost in this place giveth to them, is a title of greater honor, then the other, by how much the heavenly governors of men under God, are more excellent then the earthly. To the former, besides some insulting speeches, which he will be ashamed of, when he shall find himself put to silence: he answereth, that

the word Lord was a term common too all superiors as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Greek, and Dominus in Latin:

which I confess to be true in the vocatiue case, the words being used as our English, Sir. But otherwise, where the word is to be translated Lord, it is both in Hebrew and Greek a word of like honor with our English, Lord. And therefore it was a great oversight in those, which translating 1. Pet. 3. where Peter saith that Sara called Abraham 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Lord, read, that she called him Sir. For her words, whereunto Peter had relation, were these, Vadoni zaken, and my Lord is old. It were something foolish to say, and my Sir. Yea but saith he,

the word Lord with us is appropriated to men of Nobility and special place in civil government.

To omit that it is not so appropriated to them, but that even mean gentlemen are so called in respect of the manours which they hold, it appeareth by that which hath been said, that Bishops not only now have, but in the Primitive Church had, as special and as honorable a place in the government of the Church, as the civil magistrates he speaketh of, have in the common wealth. Their calling also being more honorable, I see no reason, why they should be enuyed an equal title of honor.

To the latter reason he answereth 2. things. First, that the titles of honor now given to Bishops were also inferior to the title of Angels, which the holy Ghost giveth them; and yet then they had them not, nor till Popery (he meaneth the Papacie) was grown to his full height. His simple Reader would think that he speaketh upon certain knowledge, and cannot but believe him, and so be deceived by his confident speeches; but he speaketh at all adventures, as his affection, not as his knowledge lead him. The Papacie came not to the full height until the time of Hildebrand, which was above a thousand years after Christ: when the Pope had gotten the temporal supremacy, and so both the swords. The beginning of that, which our writers call the Papacie, was when the Pope first obtained the spiritual supremacy, which was about the year six hundred and seven. If therefore I shall prove, that Bishops had as honorable titles in the first six hundred years, as they have now with us; I shall evince, that not only before the height, but before the arising of the Papacie, they were called Lord's, and by other titles no less honorable then Lord. But I will not desire so large a scope; the most of my proofs shall be contained within three or four hundred years after the death of Christ.

Alexander therefore the Bishop of Alexandria, writing to Alexander Bishop of Constantinople giveth him this style, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , To my most honorable brother : Not long after, Arius writeth thus to Eusebius of Nicomedia, , 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to my most desired Lord. The same Eusebius 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to my Lord Paulinus Bishop of Treuers, using also the same title more then once in the same Epistle of Eusebius of Caesaria, calling him my Lord Eusebius. For though these two whom I last cited, were not sound in the faith; yet their writing showeth, what was the custom of the Church before the Council of Nice. Not long after the same Council, Athanasius succeeded the foresaid Alexander: in his behalf the Bishops which came out of Egypt write to the Bishops assembled in Council at Tyrus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to our most honorable Lord's. The Synod held at Jerusalem writing also in his behalf to the Presbyters, Deacons, & people in Egypt, Libya & Alexandria move thē to be thankful unto God, who hath now, say they, restored unto you 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , your pastor and Lord. About the same time, certain BB. direct their letters to Julius B. of Rome the great Patron of Athanasius, under this style 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to the most blessed Lord &c. Gregory Nazianzen writing to Gregory Nyssen concerning a false report which had been spread, that the BB. had put him by the bishopric, saith, let no man speak untruths of me, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , nor of my Lord's the BB. The council held at Illyricum writing to the Churches and Bishops of Asia and Phrygia &c. hath these words , we have sent 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , our Lord and fellow minister Elpidius to take notice of your doctrine, whether it be as we have heard 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of our Lord and fellow Minister Eustathius. George the Bishop of Laodicea writeth to certain BB. thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to the most honorable Lord's. The fathers of the second general Council direct their letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to the most honorable Lord's Damasus, Ambrose, &c. And in the same epistle, speaking of BB. call them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , most reverend and most honorable brethren. The said Ambrose holding with other BB. a Synod, and writing a synodicall epistle to Syricius then B. of Rome, among other BB. Aper a Presbyter subscribed thereunto for his B. using these words: Exiussudomini Episcopy Geminiani, at the commandment of my L. B. Geminianus. And this was the usual style which Presbyters did use when they did subscribe to Councils instead of their B. whose place they supplied. As to the Council of Arles, Desiderius Presbyter directus à Domino meo Ioanne Episcopo, directed from my Lord John the B. have given my consent, and subscribed: and so three others there mentioned; & in like manner to diverse other Councils. Whosoever will peruse the Acts of the great Council of Chalcedon, he shall seldom read any B. mentioned without some title of great reverence and honor; as reuerendissimus, sanctissimus. And long before that, Socrates acknowledgeth, that it was the usual manner in his time, not to speak of BB. without titles of great honor, calling them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , most religious, most holy, or such like. And Chrysostom saith plainly, that Heretics have learned of the Devil, not to give due titles of honor to Bishops. But where he findeth fault with them, for that instead of those titles which argue their authority, they said, your reverence, your wisdom, and such like; what would he have said to the terms that have been usually given to our Bishops by the Disciplinarians among us? I say, among us: for Calvin, Beza, and others, when they have had occasion to write to our Bishops, have not refused to give them their titles of honor. To omit the rest, Calvin writing to Archbishop Cranmer, useth these titles, Illustrissime Domine, Ornatissime & clarissime Praesul, &c. Zanchius to Bishop Grindall, Reuerendissime Antistes. Beza and Sadeel to Archbishop Whitgift, Reuerendissimo viro, & in Christo Patri, Domino Archiepiscopo Cantuariensi, serenissimae Reginae Consiliario, & totius Angliae Primati, &c.

His second answer containeth two things: the former, that

the title of Angels which the holy Ghost giveth to BB. (for that only J mentioned) is quite besides the purpose

, my argument being this:

The holy Ghost giveth BB. a more honorable title, in calling them the Angels of the Churches, then if he had called them Lord's.

Therefore we should not think much that they are called Lord's.

He answereth: The Angels are glorious creatures of heaven, and have some fit resemblance of the Ministers office: Lord, Lordship, and grace, are terms of civil honor, not so well befitting the Ministers of Christ Jesus. I confess they do not so well befit them, because they come short of that honor and excellency, which in the name of Angels the holy Ghost ascribeth to them. For they are called not only Angels, that is, messengers and ambassadors of God, as all ministers are, in respect of their ministry; but also each of them is called the Angel of the Church, whereof he is B. in respect of his government, and gardianship of the Church: as the holy Angels of God are said to be their Angels, over whom they are appointed Governors, and gardians. Therefore the name Lord given to them in respect of their government and authority, is a title of less honor, then that which in the same respect is given them by our Savior Christ. Neither are they therefore civil Lord's, because they have that title of Lord's common to them with the Lord's temporal. For who knoweth not the distinction between the Lord's spiritual and temporal, so often mentioned in the Acts of Parliament? And whereas in the second place he would insinuate, that our Savior Christ expressly forbiddeth these titles of Lordship and grace, Luc. 22. where though he readeth thus, The Kings of the Gentiles reign over them, and they that bear rule over them, are called gracious Lord's; but you shall not be so: yet he is not so ignorant of the Greek tongue, as not to know, that neither gracious nor Lord's are there mentioned in the original text. That was an affectionate translation of those, who were too partial in this cause. That very title, which our Savior speaketh of, two of the Ptolemies, Kings of Egypt, did assume unto themselves, either of them being called Ptolomeus Euergetes, Ptolemy the bountiful or benefactor. But indeed in the language, wherein our Savior spake, the word which is translated Benefactors, is often used for Principes or Heroes, as Psa. 118.9. It is better to trust in the Lord, then to put our trust in Princes. And that seemeth to have been Luke's meaning, as not only Merceru • but Beza also supposeth. The 70. translate the word, Prov. 19.6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the King ; in Psal. 118 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in Princes. So Psal. 47.10.83.12.113.7. But 1. Sam. 2.8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Pro. 8.16. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . It is also plain, that the disciples imagining that Christ should be a wordly Monarch, expected, that themselves should be earthly Princes, in great authority about him, everyone affecting a nearer place about him then his fellows, as appeareth by the two sons of Zebede, whose ambitious suite to Christ, that they might sit one on his right hand, and the other on his left in his kingdom, gave occasion of this speech, as Matthew noteth. Whereas therefore they both erred in their imagination, thinking that they should be great Princes under an earthly Monarch, and were corrupt in their affection, each one of them ambitiously seeking superiority over the rest, our Savior seeketh to reform both, telling them that neither they should be earthly Princes, as they imagined, in these words, But you not so ; neither ought they to affect ambitiously superiority over others, but that by how much they should exceed others in dignity, they should labor by so much the more to excel them in humility, imitating his example. Neither did our Savior Christ interdict his Apostles, either superiority of authority over others, or titles of eminent honor. The authority and dignity of being his Apostles, is greater then any, either honor or title, that is given to our BB. Jerome writing on Paul's style which he assumeth to himself, Tit. 1.1. saith, Where he calleth himself the Apostle of Jesus Christ, it seemeth some such thing as of he had said, Pr • fectus pr • terio Augusti Caesaris, Magister exercitus Tiberij Imperatoris. For even as the Judges of this world, that they may seem the more noble, take names from the Kings whom they serve and from the dignity wherewith they are puffed up, even so the Apostle challenging to himself great authority among Christians, he signified before hand that he was the Apostle of Christ, that by the authority of the name be might bring in awe those that should read, showing thereby, that all which believe in Christ, must be subject to him.

Having thus answered the first objection, I did easily foresee, that three other things would be objected: the first, if Bishops may be called Lord's, then they may behave themselves as Lord's of the Churches: I answered, that although they may not behave themselves as Lord's of the Churches, yet being the Angels of the Churches, and spiritual Fathers, to whom a paternal and pastoral authority is committed, may worthily be honored with the title of Lord's. To this he replieth, that

we call not Shepherds nor Fathers Lord's, and therefore the paternal or pastoral authority of Bishops doth not make them capable of such Lordly titles.

J answer, that Magistrates, yea Princes, both in Scriptures and profane Writers, are called Pastors, as well as Bishops, and for the same cause are Lord's. Neither do I doubt, but that the title of Father, being given by way of honor to him that is not a natural Father, is a word of as great honor at the least, as Lord: and that is the signification of the name Papa, which having been given in the Primitive Church to all Bishops, as a title of eminent honor, is for that cause by the Pope of Rome appropriated to himself.

The second, there is too great odds between the titles of Bishops and other Ministers, the one being called Masters, the other Lord's. I answered, there is no such great difference between Master and Lord, that inferior Minister, which assume to themselves the title of Master, should deny the title of Lord to Bishops. He replieth, as conceiving my speech simply, that there was

no great difference

between Master and Lord. If you respect their use in relation, as they are referred to their correlatiues, there is no difference; if the use, without relation among us, there is great difference; but yet not so great, as that Ministers which assume the one to themselves, should deny the other to Bishops, there being as great difference betwixt their degrees, as their titles. Where he saith,

it is not assumed, but given by custom to them, as Masters of Arts

; both parts are false: for both it is given to all Ministers, as they are Ministers, though not Masters of Arts, though not graduates; and also I especially meant certain Ministers, who not enduring the title of Lord to be given to Bishops, will neither tell you their name by speech, nor set it down in writing, without the preface of Mastership.

The third, if Bishops be called Lord's, then are they Lord's of the Church. I answered, it followeth no more that they are therefore Lord's of the Church, because they are called Lord's, then the Ministers are Masters of the Church, because they are called Masters: for neither of these titles is given to them with relation, but as simple titles of honor and reverence.

No? saith he, let their stiles speak, Lord of Hath and Welles, Lord of Rochester, &c. What? Lord of the Cities? nothing less, but Lord's of the Diocese.

They are Lord's of neither, but Lord BB. both of the City and Diocese. And the relation is not in the word Lord, but in the word Bishop, though it be not expressed always, but many times is understood.

The Refuter having thus weakly, friuolously, and fondlie shifted off my arguments and testimonies, rather then lie shifted off my arguments and testimonies, rather then answered them, there being not one line in my Sermon hitherto, which I have not defended with evidence of truth against his cavillations; notwithstanding, concludeth with a most insolent brag, as if he had (as his favorites give out) laid me on my back. And therefore as some wrestlers, after they have given one the foil, will iet with their hands under their side, challenging all others; even so he, having in his weak conceit given me a strong overthrow, because he findeth me too weak to stand in his arms, he challengeth all comers, saying,

Let him that thinketh he can say more, supply his default.

I do unfeignedly confess, there be a great number in this Land (blessed be God) who are able to say much more in this cause then I am: notwithstanding, a stronger propugner thereof shall not need against this oppugner. And because I am assured in my conscience of the truth and goodness of the cause, I promise the Refuter, if this which now I have written, will not convince him, as I hope it will; whiles he will deal as a Disputer, and not as a Libeller, I will never give him over (God giving me life and health) until I have utterly put him to silence. In the mean time, let the Reader look back to that which hath been said on both sides: let him call to mind, if he can, what one proof this Refuter hath brought for the parity of Ministers; what one sound answer he hath given to any one argument, or testimony to my one proposition or assumption which I have produced; and then let him consider whether this glorious insultation proceeded not from an evil conscience, to a worse purpose, which is, to retain the simple seduced people in their former terms of factiousnes.

THE FOURTH BOOKE, Maintayning the fifth point, that the Episcopal function is of Apostolical and divine Institution.

The I. CHAPTER: Prouing the Episcopal function to be of Apostolical institution, because it was generally received in the first 300. years after the Apostles.

Serm. pag. 54. It remaineth, that I should demonstrate not only the lawfulness of the BB. calling. &c. to page 55. li. 7.

T HE Refuter finding himself unable to confute this discourse of the lawfulness of the BB. calling, would fain persuade his Reader that it is needless; moved, and moving thereto by as frivolous reasons as ever were heard of. For though it be true, that this point hath already been proved by one argument, is it therefore needless to confirm the same by a second? Did ever any man meet with such a captious trifler, as would not permit a man to prove the same truth by two arguments, but the one must straight be rejected as needless? but indeed his analysis was forced; as he could not but discern, both by the distribution of the Sermon page 2. and also by the transition here used, neither was this point handled before, but the former assertion, whereby the text was explicated; that the Angels or Bishops of the primitive Church were diocesan Bishops, and such for the substance of their calling, as ours be, superior to other ministers in degree, &c. This which now we are to handle, is the second assertion, being a doctrine gathered out of the text, so explicated. I confess the former doth prove the latter; and that doth commend the method of my Sermon, and both being disposed together may make this Enthymeme.

The Pastors or governors of the primitive Church, here meant by the Angels, were diocesan Bishops, and such for the substance of their calling, as ours be.

Therefore the calling of such diocesan Bishops as ours be, is lawful.

But I contented not myself with collecting the doctrine out of the text, but as the manner of all preachers is, when they have collected a doctrine, which is controuersall; I thought it needful to prove, and to confirm the same with other arguments.

But other arguments, saith he, needed not, if the three middle points were sufficiently cleared:

what will he assume? but the three former points were sufficiently cleared? therefore as the first point was bootless, so this last is needless. If he like not of this assumption, he cannot make this conclusion, which notwithstanding he maketh: if he will assume, that they were not sufficiently cleared, as he hath borne the reader in hand all this while, then he must needs conclude against himself, that therefore these other arguments were needful.

The truth is, though the former points were so sufficiently cleared, as that the refuter had nothing, whereby to avoid the evident truth thereof conuicting his conscience, but beggarly shifts and sophistical evasions; notwithstanding, for so much as some of them, with whom I had to deal, are so lead with a spirit of contradiction, as if they were in the contradiction of Chore, (the Lord open their eyes and turn their hearts) I therefore thought it needful, for the more full conviction of the gainsayers, to confirm by other arguments the doctrine which I collected out of the text. But where I had been to blame for not setting down this collection plainly (were it not a point of Art sometimes to conceal Art) the reader is to coy the refuters head, for making so plain a collection for his own conviction, & as they say, for gathering a rod for his own tail. The collection being reduced into a sillogism standeth thus.

The calling of such as are here meant by the Angels is lawful and good;

Diocesan BB. such as our be, are here meant by the Angels.

Therefore the calling of Diocesan BB. such as ours are, is lawful and good.

The proposition is such as no man of understanding or conscience will make question of, saith the refuter, we ask no more, but to have this assumption confirmed, that the Angels were such, and then you shall not need other arguments to prove this conclusion.

But the assumption say I, is that which in the Sermon, and in this defense thereof hitherto hath been proved: how sufficiently I refer to the reader, and I appeal to the refuter.

This therefore may stand for the first argument.

I proceed to that which was expressed in the Sermon, omitting what else he hath in this section as being either refuted before, or unworthy to be mentioned now.

Serm. Sect. 2. pag. 55. All the question now a days is of the lawfulness &c. to pag 56. l. 1.

All the question, saith he, of the lawfulness had been ended before this time, if the Angels of the Churches had been proved to be such BB.

But say I the Angels of the Churches were the BB. of the primitive Church, who in the former part of the Sermon were proved to be such, and those proofs in this defense have hitherto been confirmed in such sort as I hope the refuter will acknowledge himself to be satisfied: if not, yet it is but folly to multiply words concerning the proofs of the former assertion: for they must stand, until the refuter or some other of more strength shall take upon him to assail them: And I doubt not, but they will stand after they have been assailed.

My argument therefore standeth thus:

What function hath divine institution and approbation is lawful and good.

The function of BB. such as were described in the former part of the Sermon, hath divine institution, as being Angels sent of God, and approbation, as being Stars which Christ holdeth in his right hand.

Therefore the function of such BB. is lawful and good.

To the assumption he hath nothing to answer, besides the bare deny all thereof, but that which already he hath repeated three or four times since he entered into this fifth point:

that diocesan BB. are not meant by the Angels and Stars, and chargeth me, as though I thought it enough to affirm it, & would have my readers to take it upon my bare word

: when the thing which I have proved hitherto hath been only this, that the Angels or BB. of the primitive Church were such as in the former assertion wer described. But the assumption I prove in the residue of the sermon, first by consequence, & then directly. By consequence, in the next section.

Serm. Sect. 3. pag. 56. for what function or government is of Apostolical institution, that is to be acknowledged a divine ordinance (in respect of the first institution, as having God the author thereof.)

The Episcopal function, or government by BB. is of Apostolical institution.

Therefore it is a divine ordinance, &c. to pag. 61. l. 2.

The proposition is acknowledged not only by Beza, who saith, if it proceeded from the Apostles, I would be bold to ascribe it wholly, as all other Apostolical ordinances, to the institution of God, but also by the refuter himself: as needing no proof.

The assumption I proved by three arguments: wherein I proceeded as it were by degrees: two whereof, saith the refuter, are needless ; as if still he held it superfluous to bring more arguments then one. I confess, that any one of these cords are strong enough to bind a stronger man, then this refuter; yet I thought it not needless to use three, knowing that, as Solomon saith, a three-fold cord is not easily broken.

The first of the three I thus propounded:

That government which was generally and perpetually used in all Christian Churches in the first three hundred years after Christ, and his Apostles, and was not ordained by general Councils, was undoubtedly of Apostolical institution.

This proposition I proved, first by two testimonies of Augustine, whereunto might be added the like testimonies out of Tertullian, Constatid ab Apostolis traditum, quod apud Ecclesias Apostolorum fuerit sacrosanctum. T. C. saith, the example of the Apostles and general practice of the Church under their government, even without a commandment draweth a necessity.

Secondly, By reason, showing, that both it is incredible, that all the godly Fathers and Christian Churches would abolish that government which was ordained by Christ and his Apostles: and also impossible, that a government not received from the Apostles, nor ordained by Councils, should at once be set up in all parts of the Christian world. But the refuter saith,

I did not need to prove the proposition: for though such a change might be possible, yet it is so vnlikly that it is against both Christianity & civility to suspect, that there was any such : for which grant, (though he could do no other) I think myself as much beholding to him, as if he had granted the cause. But thereupon (saith he) we may boldly infer, that if in the Apostles times the government was in the hands of the presbitery, it continued in the Church along time after their decease:

from which proposition I may boldly and truly assume & conclude; that after the Apostles times the government was not in the hands of such presbiteries, as the disciplinarians speak of; therefore neither in the Apostles times.

The assumption consisteth of two parts, the former that the government of the Churches by such BB. was generally and perpetually used in all Christian Churches in the first three hundred years after Christ and his Apostles; the latter, and was not ordained by general Councils.

The former part I prove by four arguments. The first whereof is this:

If the Angels or governors of the primitive Church in the first 300. years after Christ and his Apostles were diocesan BB. then the government of the Church by such BB. was generally and perpetually used in that time.

But the antecedent is true, Therefore the consequent.

He maketh a doubt of the proposition: because he hath not learned, that speeches in disputation indefinitely propounded are generally to be understood for avoiding of clenches: and therefore when I say the Angels or governors, I mean all the Angels or governors; when I say in the three hundred years, I mean throughout that term: even from the death of Saint John, to the end of the four hundred year after the incarnation of Christ.

The assumption hath been proved at large in the former part of the Sermon and in this defense thereof: first by this disjunction, either the Churches after the Apostles time were governed by diocesan BB. as we say, or by presbiteries, consisting for the most part of Lay-elders, as the disciplinarians hold.

But never by such presbiteries. Therefore ever by BB.

Secondly, I have proved that ever since the Apostles times, the Churches have been dioceses and the BB. diocesans, superior to other ministers in degree, having singularity of preeminence during life, and majoritie of power in respect both of ordination and jurisdiction: his answer is, that

he hath answered those points of my Sermon, where he hath shown that I proved no such matter:

whereunto I reply, that all his answers were but shifts and evasions, and stand fully confuted. But perhaps the refuter will say; if I had understood your proposition as uttered in general terms, as now it is expounded by you; then I would have taken the same exception against the proof of the assumption, which I did against your proposition: for although in some part of that time some BB. were perhaps, such as you described; yet it followeth not▪ that generally and perpetually in the first three hundred years after Christ and his Apostles they were such. That they were generally such in the last of the three hundred years, which is the fourth century after Christ, it thing most fully testified, and most manifestly proved in the proof of the former points, and hath been confessed by the refuter: neither can be denied of any man, who hath any sound learning, joined with a good conscience. Let us then consider, when such BB. had their beginning. Perhaps some will say, they began with Constantine, for then was the greatest alteration in the state of the Church. I answer, the alteration was in respect of outward peace and prosperity, wherewith God blessed his Church, not in the discipline or doctrine of the Church: in respect of the wealth, and better maintenance of the BB. not in the substance of their calling. It is evident that BB. were diocesan before they were actually Metropolitans; and Metropolitans, before they were Patriarchs: for of the combination of dioceses, did follow Metropolitans; and upon the consociation of provinces, were Patriarchs ordained, and yet long before the Council of Nice the Patriarchs were in use, and the customs of subjecting diverse provinces to them, are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , ancient customs. In the same canon it was also decreed, that the privileges or perogatives of Churches, meaning especially the privileges of being mother Churches, should be reserved to them: which privilege, as I have shown before, belonged to them ever since the Apostles times. When the B. of Antioch attempted to ordain the Metropolitan of Cyprus, the BB. of Cyprus complain to the Council of Ephesus, alleging that ever since the Apostles, the Metropolitan B. of Constantia was ordained by the Synod of the provincial BB. whereupon the Council not only censured the attempt of the B. of Antioch as an innovation contrary to the rules of the Apostles; but also determineth, first, that no B. should have to do with any country or province which had not, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , ever from the beginning belonged to his See: and secondly that every province within it self should retain inviolable such rights as they had, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , ever from the beginning according to the custom received of old. If therefore Metropolitans and Patriarchs were in use long before Constantine's time, who can doubt but diocesan BB. were much more? Long since saith Cyprian, in all provinces and in all cities BB. are ordained, in age ancient, sound in faith, tried in affliction, &c. in Provinces, Metropolitans, such as himself was; in Cities, diocesans.

Without doubt, if diocesan BB. had their beginning after the Apostles times, then was it shortly after their decease. But that cannot be, first because, as I shall prove in the next reason, they were in the Apostles times: secondly, because, as I said in the Sermon, it is incredible that all the Churches would, and impossible that they could agree in abolishing a government received from the Apostles, and setting up at once in all places of the world, one other uniform government by BB. without the gain saying of any one of the godly Fathers, or worthy Martyrs of Christ. Besides, the succession of BB. from the Apostles times, as I shall show, doth plainly prove their original to have been in the Apostles times. Whereunto may be added the testimony of Eusebius concerning the age succeeding the Apostles times: for having shown that about the twelfth year of Trajan, (which was about seven years after the death of Saint John ) Primus succeeded Cerdo in the Bishopric of Alexandria, and Alexander Euaristus in the Bishopric of Rome; he testifieth, that in those times both the doctrine of Christ and his Church did flourish daily more and more. Likewise in the time of Adrian he testifieth both that the Churches shined in all places of the world like most glorious lights, and the faith of Christ in all nations flourished. And in the same book, after he had noted the succession of the BB. of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, showing how Soter succeeded Anicetus at Rome, Agrippinus Celadion at Alexandria, Theophilus Heros who had succeeded Cornelius, and he Heron at Antioch, and having mentioned some other famous BB. as Dionysius of Corinth, and Pinytus of Candy, Philippe, Apollinaris, Melita, Musanus, Modestus, and Irenaeus, he saith, that Hegesippus flourished at the same time, whose testimony of the estate of the Church in his time he hath recorded, to this effect, that journeying toward Rome, in many places he had conference with the BB. all which he found to be teachers of one and the same doctrine: and having spoken of the Epistle of Clemens to the Corinthians, he giveth this testimony to the Church of Corinth in particular, that it had continued in the right faith until that time, when he coming to Corinth, saw Primus the B. with whom he conversed there a good while, rejoicing together in the true faith. But when I came to Rome, saith he, I continued with Anicetus, whose Deacon Eleutherius was: but Soter succeeded Anicetus, and after him Eleutherius was B. Now, saith he, in every succession and in every city all things stood as the law preacheth, and as the Prophets, and as our Lord. And afterwards speaking of the heresies which did spring in his time; after that James, saith he, surnamed the Just, had suffered Martyrdom, Simon the son of Cleophas is made B. whom all men preferred for this cause, because he was the Lord's cousin: wherefore they called the Church a Virgin; for as yet she had not been corrupted with vain doctrines: but Thebulis because he was not made B. began to corrupt it, being the broacher of one of the seven heresies which were in the people. So much of the first argument.

The second is taken from the testimony of Jerome, in two places: the former in Titus 1. where he saith thus:

before that by the instinct of the devil, factions began in the Church, and it was said among the people, I am of Paul, I 〈◊〉 of Apollos, I am of Cephus, the Churches were governed by the common counsel of the presbyters: but when everyone accounted those for his whom he had baptized, it was decreed in the whole world, that one being chosen from the presbiters, should be set over the rest in every Church, unto whom the care of that whole Church or diocese should appertain, and that the seeds of schisms might be taken away. For full answer to this testimony, he referreth us to another place; and when he cometh thither, I doubt he will not say much to the purpose.

In the meanetime, he answereth first, to the testimony itself, and then to my inference out of it: to the testimony he answereth, that Jerome maketh the beginning of this constitution of BB. not in the Apostles times, nor in the times immediately succeeding the Apostles. Not the former because otherwhere he saith that BB. were superior to presbiters rather by the custom of the Church, then any ordinance of God.

Whereto I answer, that custom himself calleth an Apostolical tradition : and else where most plainly and fully testifieth in many places (some whereof are noted in the Sermon) both that BB. were in the Apostles times, and also were ordained by the Apostles themselves.

Not the latter, because it is, as I had told him, against the modest charity of a Christian to imagine, that all the Church would conspire at once to thrust out the government established by the Apostles, and instead thereof to bring in another of their own.

But say I, it is most manifest, that BB. were placed in all Churches in the next age to the Apostles: and therefore he must either grant, that the Apostolical Churches received this government from the Apostles, or else confess (according to his usual modesty in setting light by the testimony of all antiquity,) that all Churches conspired to alter the government which the Apostles had established. But of his modesty I would know, when he thinketh this government by BB. began; and whether he must not be forced of necessity, either to lay that foul imputation upon all the ancient Churches, on all the godly Fathers and blessed Martyrs; or to yield that they had received this form of government from the Apostles.

My inference also he denieth. When as not withstanding the allegation giveth full testimony to the generality, saying, it was decreed in the whole world: and of the perpetuity there can be no question, if the beginning were not latter then I intended. But it is plain, that by Jerome's meaning it began in the Apostles times: at the first indeed he saith, before BB. were ordained, the same men were called Presbiteri & Episcopy : and until factions began, the Churches were governed ( viz. in the absence of the Apostles) by the common counsel of the Presbyters: which may be true of the most Churches, excepting that of Jerusalem, by Jerome's own confession. But when factions began, as those did in the Apostles times, whereof he speaketh; the Apostles ordained, and in the whole Christian world it was observed, that for avoiding of schism one should be chosen from among the presbiters, who should be set over the rest, and to whom the whole care of the Church, that is, the diocese should appertain.

As for the reasons whereby he proveth the consequence feeble, they are exceeding weak.

First, because Jerome speaketh not of the times immediately succeeding the Apostles. It is very true: for he speaketh of that which was done in the Apostles times, as hath been said: secondly, saith he, because he saith it was decreed in the whole world, which could not well be without a general Council, unless it soaked in by little and little, till at the last it over-flowed all places.

The decree which he speaketh of, could be no other but of the Apostles: for as hath been said, what was generally observed in the Churches in the first three hundred years, before there was a general Council to decree it, proceeded undoubtedly from the Apostles. Now it is more then evident, that long before the first general council, there were not only Diocesan BB. but Metropolitans also, yea Patriarchs: that which he talketh of soking in by little and little, agreeth not with the general decree, whereof Jerome speaketh, whereby what is instituted is ordained at once. Neither can he assign any time after the Apostles, when BB. had either less charges, or less authority, then in the end of the first three or four hundred years. Their Dioceses oft times as hath been shown, were lessened in process of time, but seldom or never enlarged. Neither is it to be doubted, but that their authority among Christians was greater before there were Christian Magistrates, then afterwards. For before, they called and held their Councils by their own authority, they heard and judged all causes among Christians, they punished all kinds of faults by Ecclesiastical censures.

The other testimony of Jerome, is out of his commentary on Psal. 45. which I have mentioned before. That the Church in steed of her Fathers, which were the Apostles, had sons which were the BB. who should be appointed governors in all parts of the world.

He saith first, this testimony is an allegory upon the 45. Psalm, and not a history of the times.

Which is a frivolous evasion. For it is an exposition of the Prophecy by the history or event, and so not only he, but Augustine also expoundeth the place.

Secondly, he alledgeth, that Jerome doth not say, that the Church had BB. as soon as the Apostles were gone: which also is frivolous.

For he signifieth that the BB. did succeed the Apostles in the government of the Church, which else where he plainly professeth, saying, that BB. are the successors of the Apostles. If any other had come between them and the Apostles, those other should have been the Apostles successors, and they the predecessors to the BB. Besides, others of the Fathers in plain terms testify, that the Apostles committed the Church everywhere to the BB. and left them their successors: which in the successions also of BB. in the Apostolical Churches is plainly declared. Simeon the son of Cleophas succeeding James, Evodius, Linus, Timothy, Tittu, &c. substituted by the Apostles, Peter and Paul, and succeeding them in the government of those Churches wherein they were placed.

Thirdly, he saith, Jerome applied the Psalm to the practice of the times wherein he lived, not expounding the meaning of the Prophecy, which if he had done he must have acknowledged that such BB. were by the ordinance of God.

Who could be so shameless as to say, that Jerome expoundeth not the meaning of the Prophecy when he commenteth thus: Pro patribus tuis nati sunt tibi filij. Fuerunt O Ecclesia Apostoli patres tui, quia ipsi te genuerunt: nunc autem quia illi recesserunt à mundo, habes pro his Episcopos filios, quia à te creati sunt: sunt enim & hi patres tui, quia ab ipsis regeris. He therefore expoundeth the meaning of the Prophecy, applying it to the state of the Church immediately after the decease of the Apostles, and not only to Jerome's times. Why but then Jerome must be thought to have held the function of BB. to be a divine ordinance: that followeth not; for he might hold them to be prophesied of, as he also confesseth, Es. 60. and yet esteem them but an apostolical ordinance, being neither immediately ordained of God, nor yet provided as generally & perpetually to be necessarily observed, as those things which are said to be simply diuini iuris.

My third argument consisteth of two branches; the former, affirmative, that the Councils, Histories, and Fathers with one consent give testimony to the government by BB: the other, negative, that not any one pregnant testimony of any sound writer, or example of any one orthodoxal or apostolicke Church ( viz. in the first three hundred years after Christ and his Apostles) can be produced to the contrary.

To the former he answereth, that the Councils, Histories and Fathers, either bear witness of their own times, which is nothing to the purpose, seeing the ancientest Council was in the fourth age of the Church, or else judge of the BB. in former times, by that which they saw then in practice, taking all that had the same name of BB. to have been partakers of the same authority.

If the Fathers did bear witness only of their own times, it were sufficient for the proof of my assertion, seeing there were diverse in all the term specified of three hundred years after the Apostles, which give testimony unto it: as in the first age after the Apostles (to omit them of the two latter) Ignatius, Hegesippus, Irenaeus, Clemens, Tertullian, do give plain testimony unto it; and two of them, as hath been shown, to wit, Ignatius and Irenaeus, were not only Diocesan, but also Metropolitan BB. But the Fathers, histories and councils, do not only speak of their own times; but also relate what was done in the Apostles times, and immediately upon their decease. Do they not testify with one consent, as I partly show in the two arguments following, that there were BB. in the Apostles times, appointed and ordained by the Apostles themselves? do they not say, that the Apostles committed the Churches to them, and left them to be their successors in the government of the Church? is not this one of the chief things which Eusebius propoundeth to himself in his history, to set down the succession of BB? chiefly, of those who next succeeded the Apostles in the Apostolical Churches? But let the Reader judge of the Refuter, and his cause, by that which followeth.

The Fathers discerned not, or knew no difference between the calling or authority of the BB. which were in their own time, and those which had been before them, but thought and wrote of them as being alike, the chiefest of them in every age from the Apostles, being BB. themselves. The refuter and his fellows coming thirteen or fourteen, yea almost fiueteene hundred years after some of them, will needs have a difference; and rather then it shall not stand, all the Fathers must be condemned as Idiots, for not seeing that which these learned men do see. I greatly marvel with what face, or rather with what conscience the refuter could avouch these things.

The Nagatiue part of my reason, he saith,

is directly false in both the parts of it, as well for testimonies as examples

. But I desire the reader to have an eye to the refuters dealing, so shall he easily discern to what poor shifts he is driven: first consider, what was the assumption of my first Syllogism, which by these four arguments I do prove; to wit, that in the first three hundred years after Christ and his Apostles the government by BB. was generally and perpetually used. This I prove in this third reason, by the testimonies of Antiquity, both affirmatively, that all antiquity, viz. Councils, Fathers, Histories, with one consent give testimony to it: and also negatively, that no testimony or example of antiquity, no ancient Council, Father or History, no example of any ancient orthodoxal or Apostolical Church, can be produced to the contrary. This any reasonable man would take to be my meaning.

Now consider his instances, wherein he spendeth above six leaves; and if any one of them be both true and direct to the purpose, then say that I have no judgment.

First for testimonies: We have pregnant testimonies, saith he, of the ancients, and of many sound writers in these latter ages, who affirm, that BB. and ministers were all one in the Apostles times, and that one minister exercised not authority over his fellow ministers, as BB. since have done and still do.

First, consider the persons of the witnesses, which he is about to produce, and then the things which they are to depose▪ for whereas I never meant to extend the negative part of my reason, further then the affirmative: and therefore as I said that the Councils, Histories, and Fathers, do all give testimony to the Episcopal government, so I meant that no pregnant testimony either of Councils, Histories or Fathers, (which I comprised under the general name of sound writer) could be produced to the contrary: he, for instance alledgeth a company of new writers in this present age, as if they were competent witnesses to depose in a matter of fact, or to testify what was done or not done in the Church fourteen or fifteen hundred years ago: or as if when I challenge them to show any one testimony of antiquity to the contrary, it were a sufficient instance, to oppose against me a sort of new writers, who for the most part also are parties in the cause. But yet what shall these witnesses testify? forsooth two things: First, that in the Apostles times BB. and ministers were all one: whereunto in the first place I answer, that this deposition is not to the purpose. In this argument I speak of what was in the first three hundred years after Christ and his Apostles; but he will make his witnesses to depose what was in the Apostles times: perhaps he will say, the conscience must build it self upon the practice of the Apostles times: (but say I) in this reason I prove, that the Episcopal government was in use in the Apostles times, because it was generally and perpetually used in the next three hundred years after the Apostles times; which consequence himself hath granted • gainst the assumption therefore he should bring his witnesses, if they had anything to say; and not to be so absurd, as by them to deny my conclusion again, the Ancients that say BB. and Presbyters were all one in the Apostles times, speak of that part of their time, when as in the most places there were no BB. or at least not chosen from among the Presbyters: for before there were such BB. the same persons indeed were called Episcopy & Presbyteri : but when BB. were chosen out of the Presbyters, which they also confess was done in the Apostles time (as namely at Alexandria ) they profess, that then those which were so chosen and placed in a higher degree above the Presbyters, began to be called BB.

The other thing, which he will have his witnesses testify is, that

in the Apostles times one Minister did not exercise authority above another as BB. since have done

: to which assertion, I am sure no sound writer will depose▪ for I pray you, were not the Apostles ministers? were not Timothy and Titus ministers? were they not also superior to other ministers? did they not exercise authority over them? If Timothy therefore and Titus were superior to other ministers and exercised authority over them; why may not BB. who succeed not only them (whether they were BB. or not) but also the Apostles in the government of the Church, be superior also to other ministers, and exercise authority over them?

But come we to his witnesses, whereof he would seem to have great store: howbeit, he will content himself with a few, and he will pass by Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian, as having done their service already:

• et the reader understand, that this is a most vain flourish: for he is not able to produce any one testimony out of any one of the Councils, Histories or Fathers, that speaketh against the government of the BB. in the first three hundred years, in respect either facti or iuris, that is, as either denying that the Church was so governed then, or that it ought to have been so governed. And as for Ignatius, Justin Martyr, & Tertullian ▪ the greatest advantage he could have by them, was to use their names: for there is not a word in them sounding against the government of BB. but pregnant testimonies for them: especially in Ignatius and Tertullian, whom I have often quoted in this cause.

It is true, that the refuter did allege these Authors as witnesses to prove that fond and unlearned conceit, that the ancient Churches were no other but Parishes, to prove that which is more fond, that there is and ought to be no other visible Churches endued with power of Ecclesiastical government, but Parishes. But the vanity of his conceit, and the weakness of his allegations, have I hope been sufficiently laid open before in the defense of the second point. Passing therefore by them, the refuter will begin with Cyprian, who affirmeth

that the menaging of the Church business, even in his days belonged to the Counsel of himself and the rest of the Presbyters, omnium nostrûm concilium spectat, and therefore durst not take it to himself alone, praei • dicare ego & soli mihi re • omnem vendicare non audeo.

Here let the reader consider with me, first, the person of the witness which is produced, and then the thing which is witnessed: was not Cyprian himself, not only a Diocesan, but also a Metropolitan B.? did not he in judgment allow the function of such BB.? directly he saith that BB. are the successors of the Apostles, and that they answer to the high Priest in the law : that the Lord Jesus, when he appointed Apostles, ordained BB. The Deacons must remember, saith he, that the Lord himself chose Apostles, that is, BB. but Deacons were chosen by the Apostles themselves after the Ascension of the Lord, as ministers of their Episcopal function, and of the Church. Doth not he teach that in one Church, meaning a whole Diocese, there may be but one B.? & that to set up a second is to make a schism, and to rend in pieces the body of Christ? doth he not often plead for the superiority of BB. over the Presbyters, showing how they ought to reverence and obey them, and that the contrary is the source of all schism? Neither do heresies, saith he, arise or schisms from any other beginning then this, that the Priest of God (meaning the B.) is not obeyed, neither one Priest for the time in the Church, and one Judge for the time instead of Christ is acknowledged: whom if the whole brotherhood according to God's commandment would obey, &c. How oft doth he speak of the vigor of the Episcopal power, and of the authority of his chair, whereby he acknowledgeth, even those of the Clergy might be either excommunicated or deposed. Is it not likely therefore think you, that Cyprian would testify against the function or authority of BB.?

But let us examine the allegation it self. There were some in the Church of Carthage, that had fallen by denying their faith in time of persecution; and returning to the Church again, would in all hast be reconciled and received to the communion: whereof some by their importunity prevailed with some of the Presbyters, whom as I noted in the Sermon, Cyprian , being absent, reproved by letter, that they not regarding their Bishop set over them, nor the honor due to him, nor reserving to him the honor of his Episcopal office, and his chair, had without his appointment (though absent) reconciled them and received them to the communion: others procured the Martyrs and Confessors to write to Cyprian in their behalf; that when peace should be restored to the Church, peace might upon the examination of their cause be given to them. Cyprian therefore writeth to the Martyrs commending them, that whereas the Presbyters should have taught them what appertained to the discipline of the Church; they were to learn of these Martyrs, to refer their petitions and desires to the B. and then willeth them to set down in writing particularly, whom they desired to be received: he writeth also to the people, signifying, that he had received letters from the Martyrs in the behalf of those which had fallen, promising when God should grant peace unto them that he might return to them, the behavior and repentance of them which had fallen should be examined in their presence: and having signified his great dislike of the Presbyters act, who not reserving unto him the honor of his Priesthood and chair, had without his allowance communicated with them which had fallen. In the end, he desireth that they which had fallen would patiently hear his counsel & expect his return, that when through God's mercy we shall come unto you many of my fellow BB. being assembled together, may according to the discipline of the Lord, in the presence of the confessors, examine the letters and desires of the blessed Martyrs: he writeth in like manner to the Clergy, that is, to the Presbyters and Deacons; willing them, for as much as still his return was delayed, that in the case of necessity they should not expect his presence, but for such, as should be in danger of death, to lay their hands upon them, and reconcile them; especially, such as had been commended by the Martyrs; as for the rest, he would have them stay, till he being restored to the Church, and they all being assembled together, might determine what was to be done. But being importuned again by letters from the Confessors, who had desired him, and by him the rest of the BB. to grant peace, as themselves did to them which had fallen; he writeth again to the Presbyters and Deacons that letter, which by the refuter is cited; saying, concerning those (which had fallen, and by the Confessors have desired to be reconciled) until it be certainly known, what course they have taken since their fault committed, seeing it is a matter which belongeth to the Council and judgment of us all, I dare not prejudicate, and challenge to myself a thing which is common ; and therefore appointeth that course to be taken, which I mentioned out of the last Epistle: and to the same purpose writeth to diverse BB. and by name to Calidonius , showing him what order he had taken in this matter, and willing him to signify the same to other BB. that the like course might be taken by them.

If these letters, all concerning the same businesses, be conferred together, you may observe, first, that Cyprian was a Metropolitan B. having authority to assemble and to direct his comprouinciall BB. as may appear also by the Synods held, and Synodical Epistles written by him. Secondly that he speaketh not of Church business in general, but of this particular; which was of so great importance, that he saith , it was the cause not of one Church or of one Province, but of the whole world. Thirdly, that he would not deal alone in this business, but he would call a Synod of his fellow BB. besides his Clergy; and in the presence of the people have the cause of them which had fallen examined. Fourthly, that although he would not deal alone in this business, being a cause of so great moment, but would have it referred to the examination & censure of his fellow BB. besides the concurrence of the people, and his own Clergy in this judgment; notwithstanding the chief stroke in this business was in him; as appeareth, both by their petitions, and his directions. And therefore the whole carriage of this business doth prove the Episcopal authority of the B. and Cyprians superiority, not only over his own Presbyters, but also over his fellow Bishops, so far is it from impleading the same▪ and further I say, that Cyprian, because his coming to the Bishopric was much resisted by Felicissimus and his complices, and the time wherein he lived troublesome and dangerous: therefore though he might (as Jerome speaketh of all Bishops) rule alone as Moses, yet as Moses, he voluntarily used the assistance of others, having as himself saith, from the beginning of his Bishopric determined to do nothing by his own private sentence, without the counsel of the Clergy, and consent of the people: whereby it appeareth, that his using of the Clergies counsel, and consent of the people, was not of necessity, but voluntary: and therefore when he saw cause, and did find himself not to need either the counsel of the Clergy, or consent of the people, he would sometimes do matters of importance, (as namely the ordination of Clerks) alone: as himself signifieth in an Epistle to the Presbyters, Deacons, and the whole people. In ordaining of Clerks I do use before hand to consult with you, and by common counsel to weigh the manners and deserts of all: but human testimonies are not to be expected, when we have divine suffrages ; and therefore signifieth that he had without them ordained Aurelius and others to be Clerks. But suppose, that of necessity Cyprian was to use the advise, or expect the presence and conscience of his Clergy, in dispaching matters of importance; would this be an instance against the Episcopal government in those times? did the fourth Council of Cathage , set forth these two Canons, the one, that a B. without the Council of his Clergy should not ordain Clerks : requiring also that the assent or connivance and testimony of the people should be had? the other, that a B. should hear no man's cause but in the presence of his Clerks, and that the sentence of the B. should be void which was not confirmed by the presence of his Clergy, and yet no man doubteth, but that when that Council was held (which was about four hundred years after Christ) the sway of Ecclesiastical authority, both for ordination, and jurisdiction was in the Bishop. But I have vouchafed too long an answer to so weak an allegation.

In the next place he mentioneth Ambrose his testimony, which was, as he saith, debated at large in the first point.

It was debated indeed, but nothing to this present purpose. Ambrose saith, that the B. was wont to use the advise of his Presbyters; though in his time it was grown out of use: and the matter debated between us, was, whether those Seniors, were Ministers, as I proved, or Lay-elders as the refuter pretended; but whether they were the one or the other, the authority and government of the B. was no more impaired by using their counsel, then the authority of a Prince by using the advise of his Counselors: until such time and in such cases as by the Canons and Canonical law their consent was required as necessary.

These two allegations, if they had been reduced into sillogismes, would have made very loose inferences: and so would the testimonies of Jerome,

who everywhere almost, saith the refuter, speaketh for us.

This is vauntingly spoken, and yet the truth is, that as no wheres indeed he speaketh for them; so none of the Fathers is more plentiful of pregnant testimonies, then he is, for BB. as partly hath been shown already, and more shall be declared hereafter. Of the testimonies which the refuter citeth,

three are all to one purpose; that at the first in the Apostles times, BB. and Elders were all one

: that is, the same men, who were called Presbyters, were also called BB. (but by the way, where were the Lay-presbiters then? were they also called BB.?) and that till factions did arise, the Churches were governed by the common counsel of Presbyters. To these allegations I have already made answer, which I do briefly repeat; that in the Apostles times before BB. were ordained, the Churches were governed by the common counsel of the Presbyters, as under the Apostles: and until the BB. were elected from among the Presbyters in the several Churches, the names of Presbyters & Episcopus, were confounded, but when BB. were chosen out of the Presbyters, as they were not at the first (for the first BB. were Apostles, as James ; and Apostolical men, as Mark, Timothy, and Titus, Linus, Evodiu • , &c. and were not called Episcopy, but Apostoli ) then, for distinction sake, he which was chosen from among the Presbyters and placed in a higher degree, began to be called Episcopus, even in the Apostles times: the name of Apostle being left to them who principally were so called. But what will the refuter conclude from hence? There was a time whiles the Apostles lived, when the same men were called Presbyters and BB. that is, the names were confounded.

Therefore in the three hundred years after the Apostles the Churches were not governed by Diocesan BB.

But as the allegations were impertinent, so the other adverse. Lucifer, is not only impertinent, but also misalledged.

The Bishops preferment, saith Jerome according to the refuters allegation, was not by necessity of law, but granted to him to honor him withal.

In that Dialogue, there is a controversy between the true Christian, and the Luciferian: the true Christian would have those which were baptized by Arians, to be baptized again, before they should be received again unto the communion: because by their baptism, who believed the Father alone to be God, the Son a creature, and the holy Ghost the servant of both, the holy Ghost was not communicated: the Luciferian held, they might be received without baptism, by imposition of hands, whereby the holy Ghost should be given them, which before they had not received: and to that purpose alledgeth the practice of the Apostles, who by imposition of hands gave the holy Ghost to those whom Philippe the Deacon had baptized; and the custom generally received of the Church, that BB. by imposition of hands do communicate the holy Ghost to them that are baptized. The true Christian replieth, that BB. use to impose hands only on those who were baptized into the true faith, and that by the baptism given by a Presbiter of Deacon, the holy Ghost also is conferred. But, saith he, if here you demand why he that is baptized in the Church receiveth not the holy Ghost but by the hands of the B. whom we hold to be given in true baptism; understand, that this observation is derived from that authority that the holy Ghost after the ascension of the Lord descended upon the Apostles: and the same thing we find done in many places, ad honorem potius Sacerdotij, quàm ad legis necessitatem; more for the honor of the Episcopal function, then for the necessity of a law. For otherwise, if only at the prayer of the B. the holy Ghost doth descend, then lamentable is their case, who in Villages and Towns, and in other remote places, being baptized of Presbyters and Deacons, do depart out of this life, before the B. visit them: the safety of the Church dependeth on the dignity of the B. &c. as hath been oft alleged.

That which Jerome speaketh of this one prerogative of BB. the refuter extendeth to his whole preferment, or preeminence; and saith,

he hath it not by any necessity of law, but is granted to him to honor him.

The preeminence of the B. in general, Jerome supposed to be of such necessity as that the safety of the Church dependeth upon it; but for this particular of giving the holy Ghost, he saith, there was no such necessity: because in the Baptism by a Presbiter, or Deacon before the B. imposeth his hands, the holy Ghost is bestowed.

But as I said, this testimony is also impertinent, not concluding that for which it is brought. For it is a strange inference: their preeminence was given not of necessity, but to honor them; therefore the Church was not governed by them in the three hundred years after Christ, & his Apostles. Neither is it impertinent only to his purpose, but also it concludeth for me: for if BB. had their preeminence in the primitive Church, as here it is presupposed: then their government is proved to have been in use: but whether it were by an honor voluntarily given them, or by necessity of law, that in this present point is not material.

After Jerome, he citeth Augustine in an Epistle to Jerome, granting that the office of a B. was greater then another Minister, through a custom of the Church, that had gotten the upper hand, and not otherwise.

If by the custom of the Church the office of a B. was become greater before Jerome and Augustine's time, then BB. had this preeminence in the three hundred years after the Apostles; so far is this testimony from disprouing the government of BB. in those times. But neither is it truly alleged: for he speaketh not so much of the office, as the names; and that

not otherwise

is added by the Refuter: and the granting he talketh of, was not a yielding upon necessity, but a modest cession from his right. Augustine towards the end of the Epistle earnestly desireth Jerome, that he would boldly correct him, wherein he should think it needful: Quanquam enim secundum honorum vocabula, quae iam Ecclesiae vsus obtinuit, Episcopatus Presbyterio major sit, tamen in multis rebus Augustinus Hieronymo minor est; licet etiam â minore quolibet non sit fugienda vel dedignanda correctio. For though according to the names of honor, Bishopship is greater then Priesthood, that is, is a name of greater honor, or is honored with greater titles, notwithstanding in many things Augustine is inferior to Jerome: howbeit correction is not to be shunned or disdained from everyone that is inferior.

In that Episcopatus is a name of greater honor then Priesthood, it is to be ascribed to the use and custom of the Church; for at the first they were confounded. Again, might not someone of our BB. in King Edwards time, have used the same words, writing to Calvin, as well as Augustine used them towards Jerome? would therefore the Refuter infer, that in the times fore-going, there had not been Diocesan BB. or that they ought not to be superior to other Ministers? Surely, howsoever Augustine in modesty, or any other being a B. was loath to prefer himself before Jerome, or any other man of renown, being but a Presbiter, by reason of his great learning and renowned piety; yet were it a saucy part for him that is but a Presbiter, to think himself equal with a Bishop. Jerome was far from it: and therefore in his Epistles to Augustine, giveth him titles of great honor, using this inscription: Domino vere, sancto, & beatissimo Papae Augustino, &c. And this farewell, the Lord preserve you, Domine vere sancte & suscipiende Papa : and the like I have said before of Calvin .

From Augustine, he maketh a large step to Erasmus , who saith, Of old there was no difference between a Presbyter, a Priest, (but that the Refuter left out, for fear of excluding his lay-elder) and a B. And then he leapeth back again to Theodoret, Beda, Sedulius, Oecumenius, Primasius, Theophilact, &c. who affirm the same. And do not I myself profess the same in this Sermon? do I not also prove it in the Sermon of the dignity of the ministry, that in the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles these two words Presbyter & Episcopus, were confounded, and the same men were called Presbyteri & Episcopy? what will he conclude thereof? that therefore in the three hundred years after the Apostles the Church was not governed by BB? or that the office of a B. and a Presbyter, were at any time confounded? nay, can he prove so much as the names after the Apostles time were usually confounded? Ignatius, who lived in the Apostles times, everywhere distinguisheth them; and so do the after Writers, as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Eusebius, &c. saving that to BB. they give sometimes the more general name of Presbyters, or Priests : which is not to be meruailed at, seeing the Apostles, Peter and John, do call themselves Presbyters.

Yea, but some Protestant Writers, whom afterwards he will cite, have understood Jerome and the rest as the Refuter doth: and not they only, but Michael Medina a Popish Writer, is of opinion, that they held the same error with Arius.

This is a strange kind of arguing, which our Refuter useth, to bring new Writers to depose what the old have testified. Are not their testimonies extant in print? may we not read them with our own eyes, and weigh them in our own judgments? that we leaving the records themselves, should seek to the d • positions of new writers to know what the old have testified? but of the error of them, who suppose Jerome, and some other of the Fathers, to have been of the same judgment with Arius I have spoken before, neither doubt I now to affirm that they joined in opinion with Arius, no more then I do: for they writing on Phil. 1. 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1. 1 Pet. 5. do say, that in these places the names Presbyter & Episcopus, were confounded, which places myself have alleged to the same purpose.

After he had alleged what he was able out of the old Writers, and yet never a word to the purpose; he proceedeth

to the new Writers, who as he saith were called out of the thickest mists of Popery, to the light of the Gospel: heaping up a sort of testimonies without order, and without judgment, and mingling also some testimonies out of the canon law, and some Popish Writers among them.

And because to follow him, were to run the wild-goose race, I will reduce their testimonies to certain heads, and then give him an answer to them all. Some therefore are brought to testify, that

in the Apostles times BB. and Presbyters were all one, (the which is true, for the same men were called Presbyters and BB:) as Heming. and Zauch. in Phil. 1.1. Isidor. and Dist. 21. c. Cleros. ex Isidor. Duaren. de ministr. & benef. l. 1. c. 7. Gloss. ord. Hugo Card. Cassander, the councils of Constance and Basel, Chemnitz, Lubbertus, D. Fulke. D. Willet. D. Morton. Some, that there was no difference between B. and Presbyter till after the Apostles times: but afterwards BB. were set over Presbyters: as Danaus. Some, that at the first there were no such BB. as were afterwards: and when they were brought in they were not Monarchs of the Church, &c. as Chamier. Some, that iure diuino Episcopy & Presbyteri be all one : as Junius and Phil. Morney, and D. Whitak. which is true concerning the use of the words in the Scriptures. Some that Episcopatus is not a distinct order from Presbyteratus iure diuino,

as D, Holland : whose not writings, but speeches, he citeth upon report.

Some, that B. and Presbyter by the word of God is the same, not in name only, but also in office: as Sad •• l. Some, that in the Apostles times the Churches were governed communi presbyterorum consilio, but after the Apostles they chose one to be B. as Musculus.

Some that Christ made ministers equal, & that there was at the first no contention, (which how true it is appeareth by Christ's appointing twelve Apostles and seventy Disciples, and by the contention among the Apostles themselves for superiority, whiles Christ was with them,) as Bullinger. Some, that as the Apostles were equal, so their successors : which is true; for the BB. are equal among themselves, though superior to other ministers, as the Apostles were to the seventy Disciples,) as D. Whitaker's. Some, that Arius was not an heretic for saying that according to the use of the scriptures Episcopus & Presbiter, is all one, which is true, neither had he been an heretic if he had said no more, and that Ambrose, Chrysostom, Jerome, and Augustine, were of the same judgment, as B. Jewel.

Some, that in the Apostles times there were only two degrees of ministers, Presbyters and Deacons, as D. Humfrey.

Some, that Bishops were not in the Apostles times, as Sadeel.

Some, that BB. he superior to Prebiters by man's decree, and not by scripture: by custom of man, not by the authority of God: by man's law, and not by Apostolical institution, as Heming, in Phil. 1.1. Bulling. Junius, B. Pilkington, the Canon law falsified de iure positiuo, as Cusanus : not by God's law, as D. Reynolds : no otherwise but by custom, as Sadeel.

Some, that Episcopus and Pastor of one flock was at the first all one. as D. Reynolds.

Some, that there was always one principal, which by common use was called a B. being chief, though not alone, both in government and ordination, as D. Fulke.

Some, that BB. be in a higher degree of superiority, but not Princes; that not they only are Pastors, that they have the right of consecration, though not only, as D. Willet.

Some, that the sole and supreme authority in a B. is tyranny, as Bullinger.

Some, that the government of the Church by the first institution was not Monarchical, but Aristocratical, as Chamier.

Some, that elections were not in corners, nor by one, as Gualther.

Some, that Presbyters may ordain, as being all one with BB. in office, as Sadeel.

Some, that Priests had voices and seats in Councils (as indeed they have with us) as the council of Constance and Basel.

Some, that such Archbb. as are above Metropolitans, were not ordained by Christ, and his Apostles, as D. Bilson; who also is alleged as having been of the Refuters mind, because he citeth Jerome in Tit. 1.1. & ad Euagr.

Some, that there were two sorts of Elders, as Junius.

Some, understanding Jerome's words of the time when factions began, not of the Apostles times, but afterward, as Junius.

These are all his witnesses, besides some, with whose names only, without their testimonies, he thought best to make a simple flourish. Now if any one of these allegations were reduced into the form of a Syllogism, concluding the contradictory to my assertion, viz. that some ancient Councils, Histories, or Fathers do testify that in the three hundred years after Christ and his Apostles, the government by BB. was not generally and perpetually used, it would appear to everyone how ridiculously our refuter argueth. As for example:

Danaus, Musculus, Junius, &c. do testify, that in the three hundred years after Christ and his Apostles the government by BB. was not generally received.

Therefore some ancient Councils, Histories, or Fathers, do testify so much.

Yea, but you speak of sound Writers in general, will he say, and so I conclude: Therefore some sound Writers do testify so much. But it is plain say I, that I mean the ancient.

But to his argument such as it is, I answer: first, that if these Writers had testified that which is contained in the antecedent, yet had not they been competent witnesses in a matter of fact fourteen or fifteen hundred years before their time, the greatest part of them being also parties in the cause. But indeed not all, no nor any one of his witnesses doth testify that in the three hundred years after the Apostles the government of Bishops was not generally received; but all his allegations accommodated to that conclusion, are most ridiculous. As for example: in in the Apostles times Bishops and Presbyters were the same. Therefore in the three hundred years after the Apostles, the government by Bishops was not received. Bishops were ordained not by God's law, &c. Therefore they were not in the first three hundred years: and so of the rest.

But somebody will say, though these testimonies be impertinent to the present purpose, and I must needs confess, that your Refuter did grossly abuse his unlearned Readers in making such a flourish with them: notwithstanding, some of the allegations contain assertions contrary to some points in your Sermon. Of whom, in steed of answer, if I should ask this question, whom he conceiveth to be adversaries to us in this cause? he would answer, those that stand for the pretended discipline. And who be those? Calvin, Beza, Danaus, lunius, Sadeel, and the most of those whom the Refuter hath alleged. If they be adversaries in this cause, is it to be wondered that they have delivered contrary assertions? and if they be parties in the cause, are their testimonies to be admitted? Verily, he might better have alleged M. Cartwright, and M. Trauers, then some of those whom he did cite, being more parties in the cause then they, as not only having written in defense of their discipline, but living where it is practiced; but that he knew the simple Reader, who cannot be ignorant that T. C. and W. T. are parties, was ignorant that these outlandish Writers were adversaries unto us in the cause, to whose assertions, seeing it is folly to oppose the authorities of learned men, who are on our side, whom the Refuter would reject as parties; I oppose the testimonies of antiquity, and the reasons contained in this book; desiring the Reader in the fear of God to give credit without partiality to that side on which there is better evidence of truth.

And thus having turned over, and as I suppose overturned more then five leaves, which he blotted with these testimonies; I come to his examples, of which he having not any one between the Apostles times and ours; therefore giveth instance in the Churches of our time, and in the time of the Apostles. But mark I pray you, what was my assertion, which he would seem to contradict. Was it not this, that no example of any Orthodoxall or Apostolical Church can be produced, to prove that in the three hundred years after Christ and his Apostles the government by Bishops was not generally received? No: saith he, what say you then, to the Churches of Heluetia, France, low Countries, &c. in our time? and to the Church of Corinth, Cenchrea, Ephesus and Antioch in the Apostles times? Marry this I say; that the Refuter is a very trifler, who pretending to give instance of some Church within three hundred years after the Apostles times contrary to my assertion, thinks to satisfy his Reader either with examples of some Churches in our age, or of those in the Apostles times, whereof this present question is not.

I confess that the Churches in the Apostles times at the first had not Bishops excepting that of Jerusalem. Notwithstanding, before the death of Saint John, the Churches had not only Bishops but diverse of them a succession of Bishops, and such were two of those which he nameth, to wit, Antioch and Ephesus : for at Antioch there were Bishops successively in the Apostles times. Evodius and Ignatius. And at Ephesus, before the Angel, (to whom that Epistle is directed Apoc. 2.1) Timothy. About the year one hundred seventy and four Dionysius was B. of Corinth, and before him was Primus, who was of the same time with Anicetus, Anno one hundred fifty six: before whom there was a succession from the Apostles time, as Hegesippus recordeth. As for Cenchrea, that never had a peculiar Bishop of her own, but was subject as other Towns and Parishes of Acha • a to the Bishop of Corinth. As touching the Churches after the Apostles times, the Refuter hath nothing to object, but what before he hath alleged out of Justin Martyr, and Tertullian, in whom there is not a word against Bishops.