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

Section 8/8

Junius as he doth profess, but exceedingly dulled by coming through his fingers. For whereas Junius refer • th the word of whom to Mary the sister of our Lord's mother, of whom John maketh mention straight ways after the passion of our Lord John 19.25. our learned refuter referreth it to James, & that twice for failing. But though he might be mistaken in the English of Jerome's cuius, yet me thinks so learned a man should have known that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in Sophronius, should have been referred to her and not to him. But let that pass. To justify his correction of this place of Jerome, he saith this manner of reading is avowed by Sophronius, &c. which is neither so, nor so. For between the Greek and the Latin there is only this difference (in that edition which I have, being as I suppose the best) that whereas in the Latin, there is a Colon at the word filius, which followeth meminit ; in the Greek, there is but a Comma; but at the word statim in Latin, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Greek, no distinction at all. The Latin words are these, vt mihi autem videtur, Mariae sororis matris Domini cuius Johannes in libro suo memunt, filius: p • st passionem Domini statim ab Apostolis Hierosolymorum Episcopus ordinatus. The Greek, these, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . For the correction itself, I would be loath to contest with Junius, neither is that subtlety which he hath found out prejudicial to my assertion, as you shall hear; notwithstanding I must needs say, he was greatly transported with prejudice, when he would refer the adverb statim to the verb meminit, rather then to the participle ordinatus. For though both the Comma and Colon that come between them were taken away, yet the word filius coming also between, clean spoileth his conceit. For can any man of indifferency think, that Jerome being an elegant writer, if he had meant that the adverb statim should have waited on the verb meminit, would have disposed it thus, cuius Johannes meminit filius post passionem Domini statim ab Apostolis Hierosolymorum Episcopus ordinatus? But now weigh the refuters judgment. Suppose, that this place were read as Junius would have it, and that James were not so presently made Bishop of Jerusalem after Christ's passion, as Jerome's words seem to import, but that after the Apostles he took the government of the Church of Jerusalem, as Jerome citeth out of Hegesippus ; what is all this, but the same that myself set down in the Sermon both in this place also pag. 68. in these words, the Apostles first jointly ruled the Church at Jerusalem, but being to go into all the world, and no longer to be accounted members of that particular Church, ordained James to be Bishop. And that charge which before they had in common, they now committed to him in particular. And this is that, which Jerome citeth out of Hegesippus, who saith, James the brother of our Lord surnamed Iustus received or undertook the Church of Jerusalem after the Apostles. And if the refuter will needs expound after the Apostles, to signify after their departing from Jerusalem, I must entreat him to take with him the words both of Eusebius, who sometimes saith, the throne of that Bishopric was committed to him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of the Apostles ; therefore before their dispersion; & sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , with the Apostles : therefore whiles they were present; and also of Jerome, who plainly saith, that he was ordained Bishop of Jerusalem by the Apostles: but chiefly that he will remember, that the words straight ways after the passion of our Lord, are to be joined with the other words, ordained by the Apostles : then will he acknowledge himself satisfied for this point.

§ 4. Secondly I answered in respect of other Churches; that which Jerome saith, neither proveth that the office of Bishops and Presbyters were confounded, neither doth it hinder, but that the distinct office of Bishops is of Apostolical institution. Both the parts of this answer I explained and confirmed. The former thus: it is true, that for a time the Presbyters by common counsel governed the Churches, but as under the Apostles, who kept in their own hands the Episcopal authority; they, I mean the Presbyters, having neither the right of ordination, nor the power of outward or public jurisdiction. This therefore doth not prove, that the offices of BB. & Presbyters wer confounded. The name of B. was confounded with Presbyter, but the office and authority of the B. was as yet in the Apostles; the Presbyters being such then under the Apostles, as they were afterwards under the Bishops. The latter thus: but when the Apostles were to discontinue, from those Churches which they had planted, then were BB. substituted. Whereunto the factious behavior of the Presbyters (whereof Jerome speaketh) might be some inducement. For parity indeed breedeth faction and confusion; for the avoiding whereof when the Apostles should be absent, BB. were instituted: but when, and where, and by whom, and to what end, let Jerome himself testify. The sum is, that although for a time the Churches were governed by the common counsel of Presbyters; yet this doth not hinder, but that the Episcopal function is of divine institution. For after a while the Apostles ordained BB. as Jerome himself doth most plainly and fully testify, showing the places where, and the persons whom, and the time when, and the end wherefore, they ordaynd them.

Now let us see, what the Refuter can reply against this answer. Forsooth as if he knew, or regarded no laws of disputation, he thrusts himself into the answerers place, and maketh me the opponent, casting my answer into a Syllogism, and bids me prove every part and parcel of it, or else all that I say is to little purpose; himself in the mean while, who should follow the argument which I answered, and take away my answer, goeth about to prove nothing, but himself to be a shifting Sophister. I think it was never heard in disputation, that the opponent having received the answer, and reciting the sum thereof, saying, sic respondes, would cast it into a Syllogism and then bid the answerer prove the parts thereof. But such a disputer am I matched with. And how I pray you doth he reduce my answer into a Syllogism? that which I brought to clear the former part of my answer, is made the argument to prove both the parts in a filthy long Syllogism; and that which I added to prove the latter part, he mentioneth as straggling speeches brought in to no purpose. This is his analysing, which whether it be done of unskillfulness, or willfulness, I refer it to his own conscience I cannot judge thereof, because I know not the man.

But if my answer must needs be reduced into Syllogisms, I would entreat, that the parts thereof may severally be concluded, as they were by me severally explicated; and then, that the first Syllogism may be this;

If whiles the Churches were governed by the common counsel of Presbyters, the Presbyters did govern the same as under the Apostles, the Episcopal office and authority being not in them but in the Apostles, the Presbyters being such then under the Apostles as they were afterwards under the Bishops: then their governing of the Church by common counsel doth not prove, that the office of a B. and a Presbyter was confounded. But the antecedent is true in all the parts thereof: Therefore the consequent.

The consequence I did illustrate by this distinction, the name of Bishop was confounded with Presbyter, but the office was not, for that was not in the Presbyters, but in the Apostles. The consequence when it was worse for the addition of the second part, the Refuter granted; yet he thought good to gather out of it this worthy observation, that

if there was a time before there were Bishops. When the Presbyters governed the Churches as under the Apostles; then all that while there were no Diocesan Bishops (the Refuter speaketh sentences) and so no distinction between a Bishop and a Presbyter in office.

This, and so, could not well be gathered out of the proposition, being repugnant unto it; for if there were no distinction between the office of a Bishop and a Presbyter, then were the offices confounded. Suppose the common-wealth of Jewry, being a Province under the Emperor of Rome, had been governed by the Synedrion or common counsel of the Seniors for a time, until the Emperor had placed a sovereign King over them, as he did Herod ; it might be said, that for a time that commonwealth was governed by the common counsel of their Elders, but as under the Emperor, who kept the regal authority in his own hands. Hereof it might not be infered, that the office of the Senators and of a King were confounded. For the sovereignty was in the Emperor, and the Senators might have been the same under their King, which they had been under the Emperor, &c.

As touching the assumption, he saith,

it should have been proved ;

and I say, if he were able, he should have disproved it. For my part, I was in this place the answerer; and the parts of the assumption be such, as either had been before cleared, or seemed to need no proof. For first, that the Presbyters ruled the Churches as under the Apostles, it is manifest. That the Episcopal authority consisting specially in the power of Ordination, and public Jurisdiction, was not in them but in the Apostles; partly was proved before, to wit, that Presbyters never had it; and partly needed no proof, viz. that the Apostles had it. And surely little need had Paul to have sent Timothy to Ephesus, and Titus to Crete, to exercise the power of Ordination and public Jurisdiction in those Churches; if the Presbyters had the same before they came. But still I desire some evidence, whereby the derivation of this power of Ordination and Jurisdiction, from the Apostles to the Presbyters, or people, may be warranted. Thirdly, that the Presbyters were the same under the Apostles then, which they were afterwards under the Bishops, I take for a certain truth. For if they were the same under Timothy and Titus, that they were under the Apostles; then questionless they were the same under the Bishops, who have no other function, nor exercise any other authority, then that which Timothy and Titus had and exercised in Ephesus and Crete. And these I hope are reasons sufficient to approve the former part of my answer, until the refuter who is the opponent, be able to disprove it. The second part of my answer may be concluded thus.

If after a while, namely when the Apostles were to discontinue from the Churches which they had planted, the Apostles themselves ordained BB. then the Presbyters ruling of the Churches by common counsel for a time, doth not hinder, but that the Episcopal function is of Apostolical institution:

But the former is true: Therefore the latter.

The consequence needeth no proof: the assumption I prove by Jerome's own testimony. For if Jerome do testify, that the Apostles ordained BB. and withal do note the time when, the place where, and the end wherefore, then doth he give plentiful testimony to this truth: But Jerome doth testify, that the Apostles ordained BB. and withal noteth the time when, the place where, and the end wherefor. The time and place he noteth: first generally, the time when Bishops were ordained was in the Apostles time: the place where, in all the world: Which two if you join together, it will appear that by Jerome's testimony the function of BB. is of Apostolical institution. For it is utterly incredible, that BB. should be ordained in all parts of the Christian world in the Apostles times, and yet not be of the Apostles ordaining.

That Jerome held BB. to be ordained in the Apostles time, I prove out of the place alleged; when factions began to spring in the Church, saith Jerome, some saying I am of Paul, I am of Apollo, I am of Cephas; which was in the Apostles times, 1 Cor. 1. and it were fond to imagine, that factions did not begin till after their time.

This argument the Refuter would discredit, because Sanders useth the like, and his own answer he would credit with the name and countenance of certain learned men; which is one of his ordinary shifts to blear the eyes of the simple, who many times respect more who speaketh, then what is said. But my argument standeth thus:

When the factions began, whereof Jerome speaketh, BB. were ordained, as he saith:

In the Apostles times the factions began, whereof Jerome speaketh:

Therefore in the Apostles times Bishops were ordained, as he saith.

The effect of the answer which he bringeth is, that

Jerome speaking of Schisms which did arise after the Apostles times, alludeth to that speech of the Apostle; not that he thought Bishops were ordained in those times, but that he might show, that schism was the cause of changing the order of Church-government.

Which answer might have some show of probability, if Jerome himself did not both in other places, which I cite, most plainly testify, that Bishops were ordained in the Apostles times; and also in the place alleged expressly speak of those factions which did arise in Corinth, and other places in the Apostles times. The factions whereof he speaketh, did arise from hence, that vnusquis{que} eos quos baptizauerat suos putabat esse non Christi, saith Jerome, everyone esteemed those whom he had baptized to be his own and not Christ's. Now it is apparent, that this is the very thing which Paul reproveth in the Corinthians, that everyone said they were his who had baptized them, and therefore thanketh God that he had baptized none of them, but Crispus and Gaius, and the household of Stephanas. For by this means, as Calvin also observeth, the factious and ambitious teachers (whom he meant under the name of Paul and Apollos ) sought to draw Disciples after them. Yea but Jerome in his Epistle to Evagrius, showeth that in the Apostles times Bishop and Presbyter was all one; and that afterwards Bishops were first ordained as a remedy against schism. To this I have answered before, showing that Jerome there proveth that the names at the first were confounded, and the same men were called Presbyters and Bishops until one out of the Presbyters in every Church was chosen, and set above the rest, and called a Bishop. Which Jerome there confesseth to have been done ever since St. Markes time, and therefore in the time of the Apostles. For the first Bishops were not chosen out of the Presbytery of the Churches, whereof they were made BB. but were Apostolical men, I mean either Apostles, or some of their companions and assistants: all which while, the Bishops were called Apostles, as I shown out of Theodoret : the names Presbyter & Episcopus being as yet confounded. And whereas he saith, that I answered even now, the course of government was not changed at the first when facti •• s began, he doth but threapen kindness on me: for I said no such thing. If therefore Jerome teacheth that Bishops were ordained when factions began: and also that in the Apostles time factions did begin; then in Jerome's judgment Bishops were ordained in the Apostles times; but Jerome teacheth both the one and the other, as is manifest by that which hath been said.

As touching the Place; Jerome saith, in toto orbe decretum est, it was decreed in the whole world, that one being chosen from among the Presbyters should be set over the rest, to whom the whole care of every Church should appertain. From whence I reason thus.

A general decree in the whole Christian world could not be made in the Apostles times without the authority and consent of the Apostles:

This general decree was made in the Apostles times:

Therefore not without their authority and consent.

The assumption I prove thus: This general decree in the whole world was made either in the Apostles times, or near their times. But not near their times, for there could no such general decree be made without a general Council. And there was no general council before the council of Nice, before which council there were not only Diocesan and Metropolitan Bishops but also Patriarchs.

The Refuter answereth, that

Jerome's words deceive me. For though Jerome saith it was decreed, yet he doth not mean that it was decreed, but that it came from custom, and that paulatim, by little and little.

The Refuters answer therefore maketh Jerome to contradict himself; whose speeches notwithstanding are thus reconciled. For that which he there calleth custom, in another place he termeth an Apostolical tradition, and the Apostolical tradition is that universal decree which he speaketh of. And where Jerome saith, by little and little that the roots of discension might be plucked up, the whole care was committed to one: that is to be understood thus; that although it were agreed upon at once, and decreed to be put in practice in the whole world; yet it was not practiced at once in the whole world, but first in one Church, as at Jerusalem, after in Antioch, then in Rome, after in Alexandria, in all which Churches not only the first Bishops were ordained in the Apostles times, but their successors also, and that by the testimony of Jerome himself as followeth in the next proof.

For having thus shown in general both the time and place out of Jerome, when and where Bishops were ordained, that is to say, in the Apostles times, in the whole world, and consequently that they were ordained by the Apostles: in the next place I declare more particularly out of Jerome, that by the Apostles Bishops were first ordained; noting also the persons whom, and the places where, and the time when, they ordained Bishops. Doth not Jerome plainly testify that James was by the Apostles ordained Bishop of Jerusalem, before their departure thence: that when he had governed that Church 30. years, Simon his brother, or kinsman, succeeded him in the Bishopric, who living until he was 120. years old was crucified under Traiane ?

Doth not he witness that Ignatius was the third Bishop of Antioch in the Apostles times? that Mark was the first Bishop of Alexandria, and that he dying at Alexandria in the eight of Nero (that is four or five years before the death of Peter and Paul ) Anianus succ • eded him?

Doth he not say, that Cl • men's was the fourth Bishop of Rome after Peter. For, saith he, Linus was the second, Anacletus the third, all in the Apostles times?

Doth he not expressly testify that Polycarpus was S. John's Disciple, and by him ordained Bishop of Smyrna? and is it not testified in the same Catalogue that Timothy was of blessed Paul ordained B. of the Ephesians, and that Titus was B. of Crete?

Hereunto the Refuter maketh an answer like himself, that he hath often told me, that James, Mark and Timothy

neither were, nor might be Bishops.

And I have often told him of his poor shifts, whereof this is one. For the question being here, not whether these men simply were Bishops or not, but whether Jerome saith so, or no; I having alleged plain testimonies of Jerome averring that they were Bishops: he, in steed of maintaining his assertion, which was that Jerome testifieth Bishops not to have been ordained until after the Apostles times, giveth Jerome the lie, but answereth not to the point. For if Jerome testify, that these men were Bishops in the Apostles times, how is not he ashamed to say, that in Jerome's opinion there were no Bishops in the Apostles times?

And where he saith that Polycarp (and the like no doubt would say of Linus, and Clemens, and Ignatius &c.)

was the ordinary Pastor of that one congregation at Smyrna, and no Diocesan Bishop :

which evasion I have heretofore avoided, I desire this answer may be compared with the next, which he maketh concerning the end.

The end, saith Jerome, was to avoid Schism, and acknowledgeth that for the same end they are to be retained; professing, that the safety of the Church dependeth upon the dignity of the Bishop, to whom if a peerless power and eminent above all be not yielded, there would be as many Schisms in the Churches as Priests.

The Refuter answereth, that

some say, the remedy was almost worse then the disease.

But first, what is this to the purpose? that the Refuter had rather there should be a Schism in every Parish, then a Bishop of the Diocese? it was Jerome's judgment, that I opposed to their allegation out of Jerome. And if Jerome testify, that in the Apostles times Bishops were ordained to avoid Schism, and that this was a necessary remedy, insomuch that he doubteth not to say that the safety of the Church dependeth upon it; it was as much as in this place either I intended, or could by the adversary be required. Secondly, where Jerome saith, that Bishops were ordained for avoiding of Schism, he meaneth such Schism as the Presbyters (whom he calleth Sacerdotes, Priests) would make, if there were not one in every Church set over them, to whom the care of that whole Church should belong. Now apply the Refuters answer concerning Polycarpus, which is his ordinary answer, that the first BB. were but ordinary Pastors of one congregation, such as we call Rectors or Pastors of several parishes. Were such ordained to avoid schism among priests? or were not such the priests, whose schism was to be avoided by setting one B. in every diocese over them? or could the refuter think, that the ordaining of such ordinary pastors was a remedy worse then the disease? is it not therefore clear, that the Bishops, whom Jerome acknowledgeth to have been in the Apostles times, were not ordinary Pastors of several congregations or parishes, equal to other Presbyters; but one in every diocese set in a superior degree above the rest to preserve them in unity and to keep them from schism?

Thirdly, where to the judgment of Jerome he opposeth the testimony of others, who say

the remedy was almost worse then the disease, because this superiority of BB. did breed the Papacy :

this showeth, that great and sound D • uines sometimes let fall, especially when they write 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , unsound speeches grounded on weak proofs. For how is it prou •• that the superiority of Bishops did breed the supremacy of the Pope.

Because as at the first one Presbyter was before the rest, and made a Bishop, so afterwards one B. was preferred above the rest, so this custom bred the Pope and his Monarchy. By which reason, all superiority should be condemned as the original of the Popes supremacy.

For might not a man as well say, that as one Presbyter in every parish is superior to the rest according to their conceit; so one Pastor which is the Bishop in every diocese is superior to the other Pastors, &c.

But indeed the superiority of Bishops is so far from breeding the Papacy as the cause or original, that it was not so much as any direct occasion thereof. Yea so far was it from breeding the ecumenical B. of the whole world, that it did not breed the Patriarckeship in the main parts of the world, nor yet the superiority of the Metropolitans in the several provinces. For the superiority of Metropolitans did arise as Beza supposeth from the very light of nature directing, and force of necessity urging men to that course: but as I rather think from the institution of the Apostles, after whose times the first original of them cannot be shown. For although actually they were not Primates, till in the several dioceses of the province Bishops were ordained; yet the event plainly showeth it was from the beginning intended that the Bishop of the mother city should be the chief in the province. And you have heard before how in the Apostles times Ignatius the B. of Antioch was the Metropolitan B. of Syria, and in the age following Philippe the Metropolitan B of Crete, and Irenaeus the B. of Lions was the Metropolitan of the churches in France. And although not long after the Patriarchs were acknowledged and in the council of Nice established in a godly policy, as Calvin, Beza and Zanchius confess, yet neither did the superiority of Bishops breed them; nor they, the Papacy. The true original of the superiority of Bishops Metropolitans, and Patriarchs in their circuites was the pattern of civil government in the Roman Empire, divided into certain precin • ts, which the Church did follow. Whereas therefore to each city the country adjoining was subject, the Apostles first placed Bishops in the cities, committing to their charge not only the city but country subject to it, which we call a Diocese, wherein from the beginning, there was never more lawfully then one B. and whereas in every province, wherein were many Cities, there was one Metropolis or mother city, where the ruler of that province was seated; in like manner, so soon as Bishops were placed in the several cities, they acknowledged the B. of their mother city their primate, and chief B. of the Province. And as the whole Empire was divided among certain governors, who were called praefecti praetorio, whereof one was placed in Rome having the government of Italy, Afric and part of Illyricum. A second in Alexandria having the rule of Egypt, Libya, Pentapolis &c. A third at Antioch, ruling Syria and other countries of the East. A fourth in France governing France, Germany, Spain and Britain; so the diverse provinces subject to the praefecti praetorio, at least the three former, were subjected to the Bishops of the same sees, who afterwards were called Patriarchs; whose Patriarchal authority was ratified in the Council of Nice; to wit, that according to the ancient custom the B. of Rome should have the care sub vrbicarum prouinciarum as Ruffinus reporteth that Canon, that is as I suppose, of the provinces belonging to that pretorian prefecture, that the B. of Alexandria should have the government of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis, and the B. of Antioch the regiment of Syria and other countries in the East. After Constantinople, was built, and made the seat of the Empire, diverse countries were subject to the prefecture, and consequently to the Bishopric thereof.

Neither as I said did the superiority of Patriarchs (though perhaps larger, then was absolutely needful, because the Ecclesiastical causes of every province might be sufficiently determined in the provincial Synods) notwithstanding I say, it did not breed the Popes supremacy. Which did arise from another occasion: which was this. The Bishop of Constantinople, considering that the Churches of Alexandria and Antioch had that prerogative which they had, because they were seats of praefecti praetorio ; and Rome, because it had been the seat not only of the praefectus, but of the Emperor himself, (though at that time in respect of civil government it were subject to the Exarch of Rauenna, for which cause the Archbishop of Rauenna contended with the B. of Rome for the superiority) and with all remembering, that Constantinople was the seat of the Empire; contended therefore, that as the Emperor, who had his seat at Constantinople, was the Monarch of the world, so himself might be acknowledged the universal B. or ecumenical Patriarch. The which ambition, though it were condemned by Gregory the B. of Rome as Antichristian (for there is no universal B. or head of the whole Church but Christ) yet his successor Boniface the third, did imitate, and exceed. Alledging, that Rome whereof he was Bishop was the ancient seat of the Empire, and that the Emperor though he remained at Constantinople, yet he was the Roman Emperor. At length with much a do, and contention, obtained of the Emperor Phocas, not only that he should be called an Ecumenical Patriarch, (for that title the B. of Constantinople having once usurped, enjoyed it, as well as he, and doth retain it to this day) but that his See should be head of all Churches. And this was the true original of the Popes supremacy.

Serm sect. 12. pag. 89. Secondly they urge Jerome's inference in that place; Presbyters at the first ruled the Church by common counsel, therefore the BB. and they ought to rule the Church in common still.

The refuter denieth this inference to be Jerome's, or that any hath urged such an inference from him.

When indeed the inference plainly is Jerome's, and is that which among all their objections, is to best purpose objected by the Disciplinarians. Jerome had said before, that in the writings of the Apostles Episcopus and Presbyter is all one; and that before factions did arise by the instinct of the Devil, some saying I am of Paul, &c. the Churches were governed by the common counsel of Presbyters, &c. Of those speeches when he had made a brief recital, haecpropterea, &c. he maketh an inference to this effect, that for as much as Episcopus and Presbyter were all one at the first, therefore both Presbyters should know themselves to be subject to the B. and BB superior to the Presbyters by the custom of the Church, &c. And for as much as at the first the churches were governed by the common council of the Presbyters, as under the Apostles, that therefore the B. being set over the Presbyters should not altogether exclude them, but should in communi Ecclesiā regere rule the church in common; imitating Moses, who, when he had in his power to rule the people of Israel alone, chose seventy, with whom he might judge the people.

Which objection, being better then any the refuter hath made in this book, I will not let it pass without some answer. For it appeareth that neither the Apostles or Apostolical men being Bishops, were simply bound to use the council of the Presbyters, but that the use of them was voluntary, after the example of Moses, as Jerome saith; and the ancient Bishops of the Primitive Church who were of the best disposition, (as Cyprian by name) did follow their example, resolving to do nothing of moment, without their counsel and advise: seeking therein the good and peace of the Church. And this custom was used by all godly Bishops, until as I said, the Presbyters advise and assistance, to themselves seeming troublesome, and to the B. by reason of the frequent Synods and Synodal constitutions needless, grew out of use; whereupon Canons were made that their counsel and assistance should be required an had in greater matters, which is not misliked but wished to be more used. And so much may suffice to have answered an objection; which the refuter doth not acknowledge.

I proceed therefore to the third, which is as it were the shoot-anchor of the Disciplinarians; which failing their Discipline will suffer shipwreck. Presbyters and Bishops were all one; therefore Bishops are to know that they be greater then the Presbyters, rather by the custom of the Church, then by the truth of Divine disposition.

To this objection I returned two answers: the first, that where Jerome saith Episcopus and Presbyter is all one, it may be undertook of the names, which he proveth by many testimonies to be confounded in the writings of the Apostles. And in this sense it is true, that whereas now Episcopus is more then Presbyter, it is to be ascribed to the custom of the Church, as before I have noted out of Theodoret. And in the same sense Augustine is to be understood, when he saith, according to the names of honor in which the use of the Church hath prevailed Episcopatus, Bishopship is a name of greater honor then Presbyterium.

The refuter coming to examine this answer, saith, I

denied the Antecedent

, when as indeed I granting the Antecedent, in that sense which I give in the answer, denied the consequence. That although the distinction of the names was not by divine disposition, but by the custom of the Church: yet that hindereth not, but the function may be of Apostolical institution. Seeing they which at the first were ordained by the Apostles to the Episcopal function, though they were not called Bishops till they were chosen out of the Presbyters, yet were called sometimes the Apostles, sometimes the Angels of the churches. So that when the names were confounded, the offices were not. But the refuter censureth this distinction

as an idle conceit and shift having no color of excuse for it.

As though it needed excuse, when I brought just defense of it, which he is not able to answer. For how shall Jerome's mind be known in that assertion, that Episcopus and Presbyter was all one, but by the proofs which he bringeth for it? but all his proofs are that the names were confounded in the writings of the Apostles; and that the same men were called Presbiteri & Episcopy, and that was all that Jerome could truly infer out of those places. For if he would have concluded out of them that the offices were confounded, his consequences would be very weak.

The second defense of my answer was this, that Jerome is to be understood either of the names or of the offices: But not of the offices, therefore of the names. If you shall understand Jerome, as affirming that the offices were confounded, and denying that the office and superiority of Bishops was of Divine disposition, in that sense that Apostolical ordinances may be said to be of Divine Institution, you shall make Jerome, not only to strive against the stream of all Antiquity; but also to be contrary to himself; but this latter is absurd; so is the former.

To the former reason the refuter answereth not, but bringeth a reason or two, such as they be to overthrow my distinctions, seeking as we say clauum clauo pellere.

Can any man be so sotttish, saith he, as to imagine that the question betwixt Jerome and those Deacons was about names, not offices? or would Jerome reason so simply as to prove the dignity of the Presbyters above Deacons, because the name of Presbyter and Episcopus was all one? it were absurd to spend more time in answering so unreasonable a distinction.

You see how brag our refuter is, when he seemeth to have gotten never so little advantage. To his former question I answer, that although the question was concerning the office of Presbyters and Deacons whether were superior; yet Jerome might, and indeed did prove the Presbyters to be superior, because as the Apostles did call themselves Presbyters, so Presbyters were called Bishops. Yea but saith he in the second question, Jerome would not reason so simply. Whereto I answer, that not only learned men, but the holy Ghost also in the Scriptures doth reason to that purpose, proving their dignity to be greater who have obtained a greater name. For as the Philosophers say, names are the resemblances and imitations of the things.

Secondly he objecteth the authority of diverse new, and I confess, worthy Divines, who think that Jerome maketh a Bishop and a Presbyter all one, not in name only, but in office also. Which is a kind of arguing frequent with this refuter, but seldom or never used by any writer of worth. Against his authorities therefore that Jerome was of that judgment, I fear not to oppose the reasons which I produced, and namely the second. But saith he

we need not stand in fear of that glittering flourish, whereby we are charged to make Jerome strive against the stream of all Antiquity, and to be contrary to himself, if either he confound the functions or deny it to be an Apostolical ordinance, that Bishops should be set over the Presbyters. What one testimony of Antiquity within the first two hundred years, either hath been, or can be alleged to that purpose? of as little force are the allegations which M. D. saith, he hath cited out of Jerome's writings.

In both which answers the refuter showeth himself to be very impudent. For first, that the office or degree of Bishop and Presbyter are distinct; have I not brought forth most plain and plentiful proofs, out of Ignatius, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, and other ancient writers? that Bishops were ordained by the Apostles, have I not alleged most pregnant testimonies out of Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hegesippus and Clemens, cited by Eusebius? and can it seem doubtful to any, that shall read what is alleged by me and the refuter in this controversy which way the stream of Antiquity runneth? And as for Jerome, what more plain testimonies can be desired, then those which I brought to prove, that in his judgment Bishops were ordained by the Apostles. And that Jerome never thought, that the office of Bishop and Presbyter was confounded, it may further appear by these reasons. For where Paul writeth to the Bishops and Deacons at Philippi, here, saith Jerome , by Bishops we understand Presbyters. For in one City there could not be more Bishops then one. Which plainly showeth, he thought that although Presbyters had the name, yet they had not the office of Bishops, and that although there might be many in one City which had the name, yet there could be but one, that had the office of a Bishop. Again on 1 Tim. 3. he saith, it is demanded, why the Apostle made no mention there of Presbyters, but comprehended them in the name of Bishops? because, saith he, the degree of Presbyters is the second, and almost the same with that of Bishops.

My second answer was, if Jerome must be understood, as speaking of the office, that then we are to distinguish of those words, Divine disposition, as including only those things which be either directly and immediately of Divine institution, or are Diuini iuris, of Divine right, as being perpetual and immutable; but not as excluding Apostolical ordinances. For Jerome, besides that he hath plentifully testified, that Bishops were ordained by the Apostles, he doth also expressly call this function Episcopal an Apostolical tradition. But this testimony the refuter thinketh to elude, because

in the writings of the Fathers, the precepts and observations of their forefathers though indeed not ordained by the Apostles are called Apostolical traditions.

Which answer may have place in such traditions, as have no testimony or proof, that the Apostles ordained them; but for this matter in question, we have had plentiful and pregnant proofs, and evident testimonies, not only of other authors, but of Jerome himself, plainly avouching, that Bishops were ordained by the Apostles, and particularly relating the persons whom, the places where, the time when, the Apostles ordained them.

If neither of these answers, will satisfy the refuter, then must he be forced to confess, that Jerome was inconstant in this question, holding one while that Bishops were of Apostolical Institution, and another while that they were not. And if Jerome were unconstant which is the worst that can be objected against this cause, and wherewith I would be loath to charge him, then let it be considered, whether those testimonies which he hath in more places delivered dogmatically and historically, for the superiority of Bishops, himself being a Presbyter; are not to ouerweigh those fewer, which he uttered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in the heat of disputation, as a party in the cause, maintaining the dignity of Presbyters, himself being a Presbyter, against either the indignities offered them by the Bishops or the insolency of Deacons who sought to ouerpeere them.

Thus have I proved that the Episcopal function is of Apostolical, and consequently of Divine institution.

The VI. CHAPTER. Prouing directly, that the Episcopal function is of Divine institution.

Serm. Sect. 13. pag. 92. I will in the last place directly, yet briefly prove, that the Episcopal function is of divine institution, &c. to protection of their persons pag. 94.

T He refuter hath more then once charged me, that I maintain the Episcopal function to be held iure diuino, implying thereby, that it is generally and perpetually necessary. Wherefore least he should be taken in the manner, as a willful deprauer of my assertion, he leaveth out all that which I have delivered to explain my meaning, and beginneth this section at the middle of a sentence, where the explication endeth. Such shifts may deceive the simple for a while, sed mendacia diu non fallunt, but lies will not beguile long, as Cyprian saith. If he had meant to deal truly, he should have begun this section at the division pag. 91. in the end; where by a distinction of that which might be Jerome's meaning, I take occasion to pass to the direct proofs, that the Episcopal function is of Divine institution. But because I did foresee, that this my assertion would be understood, as if I held the function of Diocesan Bishops so to be diuini iuris, as that it is generally, perpetually and immutably necessary for the being of a Church and that no other form of government may in no case be any ways admitted; therefore both in the text, and in the margent I explained the assertion which I hold, showing plainly in what sense I maintain the calling of Diocesan Bishops to be of divine institution. All which though the refuter passed over in silence, yet I think it needful to repeat, that both my sincerity, and his fraudulent dealing may appear.

My words in the Sermon were these: If his (that is Jerome's ) meaning should be, that the superiority of Bishops over Presbyters, though it be an Apostolical tradition (as himself calleth it) yet notwithstanding is not directly of Divine institution: although there be small difference betwixt these two (as I understand Divine institution) because what the Apostles did in the execution of their Apostolical function they did by direction of the holy Ghost: so that they might truly say both of their ordinances, it seemed good to the holy Ghost and us, and of the parties by them ordained, attend the flock over which the holy Ghost hath made you overseers; notwithstanding, for more evidence I will in the last place directly, yet briefly prove, that the Episcopal function is of Divine institution, or that Bishops were ordained of God.

In the margent also (fearing least my meaning would not plainly enough appear) to prevent the cavils of those which be adversaries to the cause which I maintain, I noted these words. Though in respect of the first institution, there is small difference between an Apostolical and Divine ordinance, because what was ordained by the Apostles proceeded from GOD (in which sense and no other, I do hold the Episcopal function to be a Divine ordinance, I mean in respect of the first institution) yet in respect of perpetuity, difference by some is made between those things which be Diuini, and those which be Apostolici iuris : the former, in their understanding being generally, perpetually and immutably necessary; the latter, not so. So that the meaning of my defense plainly is, that the Episcopal government hath this commendation above other forms of Ecclesiastical regiment, that in respect of the first institution, it is a Divine ordinance; but that it should be such a Divine ordinance, as should be generally, perpetually, immutably, necessarily observed, so as no other form of government, may in no case be admitted, I did not take upon me to maintain. With what conscience therefore the refuter hath laid the maintenance of that assertion to my charge, and omitted the explanation of my defense in this place, the Reader may easily judge; especially if he remember that where he thought any advantage could be taken out of this explanation of my defense, there he taketh notice of it, as namely page 90. of his book; where he supposing, that I avouch a necessity of retaining the government of Diocesan Bishops, he useth these words.

Who would have thought to have heard such a speech from him that acknowledgeth another government good and lawful. pag. 95. and maketh the calling of Bishops no further of divine institution, then as being ordained by the Apostles it proceeded from God, without implying thereby any necessary perpetuity thereof?

Pag. 92. Thus sincerely their cause of sincerity, as themselves call it, is maintained.

Now that Bishops were ordained of God, I prove by this argument, as the refuter hath framed it:

If God ordained Timothy, Archippus, and the Angels of the seven Churches Bishops, then were Bishops ordained by God.

But God ordained them Bishops:

Therefore Bishops were ordained by God.

As touching Timothy : I argued thus. By whom was he ordained Bishop? By Paul, I confess, as the instrument; but yet by the holy Ghost as the author and directer of his ordination. For he was made B. by prophecy. 1 Tim. 4. How is that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . What is by Prophecy? (saith Chrysostom ) by the holy Ghost. Paul stirring him up, putteth him in mind, who elected and ordained him; as if he had said, God hath chosen thee, he hath committed his Church unto thee. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , thou wert made Bishop not by human suffrage, but by Prophecy; that is, by Divine revelation, saith Theodoret ; that is, spiritu sancto iubente, by the commandment of the holy Ghost, saith Theophilact ; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , saith Oecumenius , 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for by the appointment of the holy Ghost Bishops were made, and not at random. Whereunto you may add the testimony of Calvin . Per Prophetiam] quomodo? quia scilicet spiritus sanctus oraculo Timotheum destinauerat vt in ordinem pastorum cooptaretur. Neque enim delectus tantuacute;m fuerat hominum iudicio vt fieri solet, sed praecesserat spiritus nuncupatio.

To this argument the refuter answereth nothing, but that, which I have plainly and fully confuted before; that Timothy was not a Bishop, though Calvin as you see, confesseth, that Timothy by the oracle of the holy Ghost was chosen into the order of Pastors. For if he were a Pastor, it is not to be doubted, but he was a Bishop.

That Archippus was ordained Bishop of God, I prove thus. Because Col. 4.17. Paul using the same exhortation to him which he gave to Timothy the Bishop of Ephesus, namely, that he should fulfill his ministry, he addeth, which thou hast received in the Lord ; and therefore by God's ordinance, and as it were at his hands.

The refuter having framed the argument thus,

He that received his Episcopal ministry in the Lord, was ordained a B. by the Lord.

Archippus received his Episcopal ministry in the Lord:

Therefore he was ordained Bishop by the Lord:

He denieth the proposition; because neither is all Episcopal ministry proper to a Diocesan Bishop, else the Apostle would not have made a B and Presbyter all one; neither is that office only in the Lord. Of which reasons, the latter is merely impertinent, and frivolous. For whoever said, or thought, that the office of a Bishop only is in the Lord? neither is the former to any purpose, seeing he knoweth, that by Episcopal ministry I understand the function of a Diocesan Bishop, and therefore should not have denied the proposition, but have distinguished of the assumption, saying, that he did not receive the Episcopal ministry, meaning the function of a Diocesan Bishop. For proof whereof, it sufficeth to me, that Archippus was as Ambrose noteth, Bishop of Collosae, which was a City: seeing I have manifestly proved before, that the Bishops of Cities were Diocesan Bishops.

As touching the Angels I argue thus;

Those who are called by the holy Ghost the Angels of the Church; and were signified by the seven stars which were in Christ's right hand, had Divine both institution and approbation:

The Diocesan Bishops of the seven Churches are called by the holy Ghost the Angels of the seven churches, and were signified by the seven stars which were in Christ's right hand.

Therefore the Diocesan Bishops of the seven Churches had divine both institution and approbation.

The proposition I proved, because they who are called Angels are authorized and sent of God, and stars whose both preeminence of dignity is noted in this life (for the stars are the crown of the Church) and also prerogative of glory which they shall have in the world to come. And finally, they who are signified by the seven stars in the right hand of Christ, are such as Christ doth both approve and protect.

The assumption I went not about to prove now, because it was proved at large in the former part of the Sermon. And yet all that the refuter answereth to the purpose, is,

that they were not Diocesan Bishops.

For that which he addeth besides, is but the uttering of his spleen, and emptying his gall against Bishops, to whom he cannot abide (such is his malice) that the titles of Angels and stars, which notwithstanding the holy Ghost giveth to the Bishops of the seven Churches, and which himself acknowledgeth to be titles common to all ministers, should be applied to Bishops. It is true, that these titles of Angels and stars are common to all ministers, yet 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (to signify their preeminence) they be attributed to Bishops. For as I have said before; when in a Church, where are many Ministers, who are all termed Angels, the Bishop only is called the Angel of the Church, this title doth note his singular preeminence. And the same is signified when as there being a great number of ministers in Asia who all were stars, the seven Bishops only of those Churches are signified by the seven stars which Christ held in his right hand. Now if these seven Bishops were Diocesan Bishops as I have manifestly proved them, and all the Bishops of the ancient Churches to have been; then must the refuter be content to endure, both that Diocesan Bishops were called the Angels of the Churches, and the stars which Christ held in his right hand; and consequently also, that the function of Diocesan Bishops is of Divine institution. And thus passing by his railing, as not worth the mentioning, I proceed to the conclusion of my Sermon.

The VII. CHAPTER. Defending the conclusion of the Sermon, and showing that the chief Protestant writers did not disallow the Episcopal government.

The third part of the Serm. Sect. 1. page 94. Thus having proved this doctrine arising out of the Text, that the Episcopal function is of Apostolical and divine institution: it remaineth, that we should from thence gather some uses to our selves both for the informing of our judgment, and reforming of our lives, &c. to now let us, pag. 97.

T He use which serveth for rectifying the judgment is contained in this section, and it is first propounded, and afterwards maintained against two objections. The use is this, that as the Episcopal function hath been manifestly proved to be lawful and good; as being the ordinance of God, so we would all be persuaded to acknowledge it. But the refuter is like the deaf Adder, that stoppeth her ear; he will not be persuaded, though he be convicted. For though he braggeth, that this answer of his doth manifest that I have not brought any one good proof in the whole Sermon ; yet this defense of mine will make it evident, that he hath not been able to disprove any one of my proofs, which he hath gone about to answer (for the most part) with sound learning, but to elude with shifts and cavillations.

But some will say, this is not all that you would persuade us unto, that the function of Bishops is lawful and good; but when you say it is of divine institution, you seem to mean, that it is diuini iuris, and consequently that not only it is lawful, but that it only is lawful, and that all Churches are so perpetually and necessarily tied unto it, as that no other form of government is warrantable in the Church of God.

My resolution of this doubt I signified before Serm. pag. 92. that I did not hold it so to be diuini iuris, as that necessarily it were to be observed always and in all places, and so himself confesseth pag. 90. of his book. And therefore when he said

my resolution was obscure and doubtful

( for doubling I leave to him) he was disposed to cavil. I refer indeed the consideration of this inference to our Disciplinarians, who having conceipted the Presbyterian platform to be described in the scriptures; do therefore urge the same, as perpetual and unchangeable, signifying, that if they will be constant in their judgment, they must by the same reason acknowledge the Episcopal government, which hath warrant in the word, to be perpetual and unchangeable. Which conceit of theirs hath perhaps been the cause, why they have given out to make my Sermon odious among their followers, that I maintain the Episcopal function to be diuini iuris, as being commanded of God, and perpetually imposed upon all Churches. Nevertheless, I plainly declared my resolution to be this, that although we be well assured, that the form of government by Bishops is the best, as having not only the warrant of scripture for the first institution, but also the perpetual practice of the Church from the Apostles times to our age, for the continuance of it; notwithstanding we doubt not, where this may not be had, others may be admitted; neither do we deny, but that silver is good, though gold be better, which objection and answer, I inserted of purpose into the Sermon, to preserve the credit of those reformed Churches, where the Presbyterian discipline is established, and that they might not be exposed, or left naked to the obloquies of the Papists.

To which my charitable endeavor the refuter opposeth himself, as being always ad oppositum, without regard either of my charitable intent, or of the credit of the reformed Churches, laboring tooth and nail to persuade his reader,

that I contradict myself, and that in the conclusion of my Sermon I did overthrow what before I had built.

But as always hitherto, so now also, he hath shown his malice to be greater then his strength. For though he chargeth me, as having often and peremptorily avouched the perpetual necessity of the government of the Church by Diocesan Bishops: yet neither often, nor once, neither peremptorily, nor at all, neither the perpetual necessity, nor any absolute necessity at all, is urged in any one of the allegations, which he so hotly, as it were with fire and towe, objecteth. The first which is objected out of pag. 33. hath been explained before. For when I said, that as the government by Bishops was first ordained for the preservation of the Church in unity, and for the avoiding of schism; so it is for the same cause to be retained : I did not mean any absolute necessity of retaining it, but that as at the first it was ordained, as being thought fit, expedient and needful to avoid schism; so it is fit, expedient and needful for the same cause to be retained. Neither do I see how he can infer this perpetual necessity which he talketh of out of pag. 72. where I said, the Epistles to Timothy and Titus are the very patterns and Presidents of the Episcopal function, whereby the Apostle informeth them, and in them all Bishops how to exercise their function touching ordination and jurisdiction. For although Paul giveth his directions primarily to Timothy and Titus, and to all such as should have the like function that is to say, Bishops: yet if this form of government be changed, those which shall exercise the like authority, must follow those directions, as being given, though primarily and directly to Bishops, yet secondarily, and by consequence, to those who though they were not Bishops, should have the like authority And to the like purpose is that alleged out of pag. 74. and that we should not think as some do that these things were spoken to them as to extraordinary persons (whose authority should die with them) but to them and their successors to the end of the world, he straitly chargeth Timothy, that the commandments and directions which he gave him, should be kept inviolable unto the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ; and therefore by such, as should have the like authority unto the end. And presently after, for the authority which was committed to them is perpetually necessary, without which the Church neither can be governed (as without jurisdiction) neither yet continued (as without ordination) and therefore not peculiar to extraordinary persons, but by an ordinary derivation to be continued in those, who are the successors of Timothy and Titus. Here I appeal to the refuters conscience whether he be not persuaded of the truth of both these sentences. Can he deny, the authority which was committed to Timothy and Titus, to be perpetually necessary, which is the sum of the second sentence? or if it be perpetually necessary, that some were to have it to the end of the world, which was affirmed in the former sentence? If he had learned the distinction betwixt potestas, & modus potestatis, whereof I spake before; the power or authority it self being the perpetual ordinance of God, the manner or form of government wherein that power is exercised being mutable; he would not so hotly have urged these allegations.

Yea but that pag. 79. is above all show of exception saith he where he saith, the function and authority which Timothy and Titus had was not to end with their persons but to be continued in their successors as being ordinary and perpetually necessary not only for the well being, but also for the very being of the visible Churches.

How this spe • ch is to be understood, I distinctly shown before, not thinking (I protest) of this objection made by the Refuter. For when I said, their function and authority was ordinary and perpetually necessary, I meant, that their function was ordinary as being Pastoral and Episcopal, and that the authority which they had was perpetually necessary, as was said in the former allegations.

If he shall perhaps urge those words which mention the successors of Timothy and Titus to the end of the world: I answer, it is more then likely, that they shall have successors in the same function in some Churches to the end, that is to say, Bishops; though in some others, that form of government being altered, the authority may be in those who do not succeed them in the said function at least in the same form and manner of governing.

This being all which he hath gained by these allegations, he might have forborne his triumphing insultations, which bewray his want of judgment. For where he objecteth against me this contradiction, as though I held, both

that the government by Bishops is necessary for the very being of visible Churches, and also that there may be visible Churches without it ;

either he doth ignorantly mistake, or willfully deprave my sayings. For though I said, the authority which Timothy and Titus exercised, was perpetually necessary, both to the being of Churches as the power of ordination, and to the well being as the authority of jurisdiction; yet I never said, that this form of government was necessary to the being of visible Churches. And where he goeth about to prove, that

the Episcopal government is not perpetually necessary, because there be many visible Churches at this day without it ;

what doth he else, but fight with his own shadow, seeing that in favor only of those Churches this passage was by me inserted? howbeit, he impudently over-reacheth, when he saith

almost all visible Churches are without Bishops.

For not to mention all other Churches which be in the Christian world, which have always had, and still have Bishops: and to speak only of the reformed Churches in Europe: is it not evident, that the far greater part of them is governed by Bishops, and which is all one with Bishops; by Superintendents? The refuter, when he desired to the uttermost pag. 52. to enlarge the number of those Churches which have the Presbyterian Discipline, he reckoned the reformed Churches of France, the Low-countries, Saxony, Heluetia, Bohemia, Zurich, Berne, Geneva, Savoy, Palatine, Poland, Hungary, Gernsey, Jersey, Scotland: from which number notwithstanding some Churches are to be substracted, as all in Scotland, and some if not all, in Saxony, neither do I suppose that their Presbyterian discipline is established in Zurich, and all the Churches of Heluetia, neither is any one whole kingdom ruled by that discipline. So that I am persuaded there are scarce so many particular Churches or congregations, governed by the Presbyterian discipline in all the world, as are governed by Bishops in the Kings dominions, in great Britain and in Ireland. But besides these. I find alleged by one of great wisdom and judgment many more which are not governed by the Presbyterian discipline, as the Churches of Denmark, Sueuia, all the reformed Churches of Germany (saving in some parts of the Low-countries, and of late about Heidelburg, procured in the minority of the Prince) all the Churches in the Duchy of Saxony, the Duchy of Brunswicke and Luneburge, the Duchy of Megalopurge, the Duchy of Wirtemberge, all the Churches within the countries of the Marquess of Brandeburge and the Marquess of Bade, all the Churches within the government of the Earldom of Henneberge, the Earldom of Swartzenberge, the Earldom of Lenning, the Earldom of Hannaw, the Earldom of Oetinghe, the Earldom of Mansfield, the Earldom of Stalbergh, the Earldom of Glich, the Earldom of Rheinesterne, and the Earldom of Leonstine, and all the Churches in the Barony of Limpurge, the Barony of Schenburge, and the Barony of Wildenfield. Whereunto may be added all the Churches, in four or five and thirty, (at the least) free cities with their territories, the most of them as large and ample as Geneva; in none whereof the Presbyterian discipline is erected. Which enumeration is a good evidence also to justify my answer to the next objection: which is this.

Some will say the Protestants which were the blessed instruments of God for the reformation of religion in this last age, are thought to have preferred the other discipline by Presbyteries, before this by Bishops: and therefore in thus magnifying the Bishops; you seem to join with the Papists against them. Whereunto I answered, that those godly and learned men allowed the Episcopal function, and simply desired the continuance thereof, if with it they might have enjoyed the Gospel. For proof whereof I referred the reader to the Survey of the pretended discipline cap. 8. pag. 110.111. &c.

In refuting of which answer, the refuter dealeth very absurdly with me, and the reverend author of the Survey. For when I referred the reader to a Chapter of that book, containing many notable testimonies, to prove that which I said: the refuter dealeth as a man resolved to deny my conclusion, what proofs so ever I should bring against him. And though I refer him to testimonies for number and weight sufficient, either to satisfy, or to convince him, if he would but have turned to the place; yet he saith,

he cannot possibly see, how I should have any such opinion of those godly and learned men, whose writings ( as he saith ) do so often and so vehemently profess the contrary. And that he may not seem to speak without ground, he desireth me to leave the Surueyour, and hear what he can say.

As if the Surueyour were not worthy to be heard when the learned refuter is to speak. When as indeed our Refuter, for ought I see by him, is not for wisdom, learning and judgment worthy to be named with that reverend Author on the same day. But though he would seem not to vouchsafe an answer to the Survey, yet the truth is, he durst not acquaint the Reader with those testimonies: which howsoever before I did mention for brevity sake, I may not now wholly conceal from the Reader.

And although I might by way of requital, desire him to lay aside h • s miss-alleged allegations, as unworthy to be examined, and to give ear to those testimonies cited by the Surueyour; yet I will vouchsafe an answer to his authorities, after I have recited some few testimonies of the chief Protestant writers, as I find them cited by the Surueyour, referring the Reader, for the rest, to the Survey it self.

And first I will begin with the Augustine confession (whereunto the chief learned men who first were called Protestants did subscribe, Calvin soon after being one of the number) and with the Apology thereof.

We have oft protested (say they ) that we do greatly approve the Ecclesiastical policy & degrees in the Church, and as much as lieth in us, do desire to conserve them. We do not mislike the authority of Bishops so that they would not compel us to do against God's commandment.

We do here protest , and we would have it so recorded, that we would willingly preserve the Ecclesiastical and Canonical policy: if the Bishops would cease to tyrannize over our Churches. This our mind or desire shall excuse us with all posterity, both before God and all Nations, that it may not be imputed unto us, that the authority of Bishops is overthrown by us.

I would to God it lay to me, saith Melancthon , to restore the government of Bishops, &c.

By what right or law may we dissolve the Ecclesiastical policy, if the Bishops will grant us that which in reason they ought to grant? and though it were lawful, yet surely it were not expedient. Luther was ever of this opinion ; whom many for no other cause I see do love, but for that they think they have cast off their Bishops by means of him, and have obtained a liberty, which will not be profitable for our posterity.

Would to God, saith George Prince Anhall, that those which carry the names & titles of Bishops would show themselves to be Bishops indeed. I wish they would teach nothing that is disagreeable to the Gospel, but rule their Churches thereby; Oh how willingly and with what joy of heart would we receive them for our Bishops; reverence them, obey them, and yield unto them their Jurisdiction and Ordination? Which we always, and M. Luther both in words and in his writings very often professed.

If they would bring unto us such an Hierarchy saith Calvin, wherein the Bishops shall so rule, as that they refuse not to submit themselves to Christ, that they so depend upon him as their only head, &c. Then surely if there be any that shall not submit themselves to that Hierarchy reverently, and with the greatest obedience that may be, I confess there is no Anathema whereof they are not worthy.

In the articles agreed upon by Melancthon, Bucer, Calvin, and other learned men, it is said, for the avoiding of Schisms there was a profitable ordination that a B. should be chosen out of many Priests, who should rule the Church by teaching the Gospel, and by retaining the discipline, and who should govern the Priests themselves. Afterwards also there were degrees made of Archbishops & above them of Patriarchs, &c. These Ordinations, if those that govern do their duty) as preach, oversee the doctrine and manners of their Churches, correct errors and vice, practice Ecclesiastical censures, &c. are profitable to preserve the unity of the Church.

And in their additions to the said articles: As concerning ordination, we especially approve the ancient custom of the Church▪ &c. This difficult and necessary charge for the Church, it is to be wished (reformation being made) that the Bishops would take upon them. And we hear that our learned men have expressly so yielded ordination to those Bishops, if first there may be a reformation.

In a Treatise made by Bucer with the advise of the said learned men, and offered to the Emperor, it is thus written: we must endeavor, that that form and distribution of Ecclesiastical government, which the Canons do prescribe to Bishops and Metropolitans be restored, and kept.

The same Bucer, speaking of Bishops and Metropolitans, and of their authority over the Churches and Ministers within their Dioceses, and Provinces, he saith, this was agreeable to the law of Christ, &c.

And in another place. Now by the perpetual observation of all Churches, even from the Apostles times, we do see, it seemed good to the holy Ghost, that among Priests to whom the procuration of Churches was chiefly committed, there should be one, that should have the care & charge of diverse Churches, and the whole Ministry committed to him: and by reason of that charge he was above the rest, and therefore the name of Bishop was attributed peculiarly unto these chief rulers of Churches.

And again, In the Apostles times one of the Priests or Pastors was chosen and ordained to be the Captain and Prelate over the rest; who went before the rest, and had the care of souls, and the administration of the Episcopal office especially and in the highest degree. And this he proveth by the example of James, Act. 1. and after concludeth in this sort. The like ordination hath been perpetually observed in other Churches likewise, as we may learn out of the Ecclesiastical Histories, and the most ancient Fathers, as Tertullian, Cyprian, Irenaeus, Eusebius and others.

It were a most profitable order for the welfare of the Church, saith Jacob Heerbrandus a very learned man if every particular Province had her Bishops and the Bishops their Archbishops.

These few testimonies among many do sufficiently discover, with what mind the Refuter desired me to lay them and all the rest a • ide, and to give ear to his allegations, as more worthy to be heard.

Let us therefore hear them▪ and let the Reader judge with what conscience he either rejected the former, or alleged these. And first, though he saith

he will pass by an Epistle of one Oram written under the name of Lucifer to the Pope and his Prelates, yet because he entreateth the Reader to turn to it in the book of Martyrs, as fitting belike our Bishops, he is worthy not to pass unpunished, when he comes to light

For that letter being a mere invective against the horrible enormities of the Popish Prelates, speaking nothing at all of their office, but that they were the successors of the Apostles, in referring the Reader unto it, what was his intent, but that he should apply the things spoken of their grievous enormities to our Bishops? then which, he could not offer a greater villainy to them. I desire the Reader that hath any moderation in him to read that Epistle, and by his intended application thereof to our Bishops, to judge of our refuters spirit, though he professeth in the last page, how greatly he reverenceth the Bishops persons.

In the next place, to let you think he hath great store (even whiles he quoteth either not Protestants or such as were not of our age, of whom alone the question is) he saith,

he will pass by also that which is written by defensor pacis part. 2. c. 15.

and well might he pass by him; for though he hold, that the Priestly Character is the same in Priests and Bishops, yea in the Pope himself, and that they have the same essential authority which is the power of order, and likewise in imitation of Jerome holdeth, that Episcopus and Presbyter at the first were one, &c. Notwithstanding, he no more disalloweth the superiority of Bishops; then either some other Papists, who have contended, that for as much as order, in that it is a Sacrament, hath reference to the Sacrament of the Altar which the Priest doth offer, and make his maker, as well as the Pope himself, that therefore Bishops and Presbyters be of one order; or then Jerome, who though he saith Episcopus and Presbyter were at the first all one▪ yet professeth, that the safety of the Church dependeth upon the dignity of the Bishop, &c.

Having passed by these two, he professeth to

begin with Wycliffe

, whom he would fain have the Reader believe, to have been a Marprelate, or an oppugner of the superiority of Bishops. But howsoever, either Papists through malice, or Protestants for want of information, have in some points so conceived of him (of both which sorts the refuter quoteth some) yet those who have perused his writings protest, that not only for doctrine, but also for discipline, he was wholly conformable to the present Church of England, approving the government of Archbishops, Bishops, and Archdeacons, &c. And whereas the Rhemists object against Wycliffe, that he had renewed the heresy of Arius ; D. Fulke answereth thus. It appeareth by many places of Wycliffe his works, and namely in his Homily on Phil. 1. that he acknowledged the distinction of Bishops and Priests for order and government, although for doctrine and administration of the Sacraments, they are all one. Indeed in the book of Martyrs, where be eighteen articles objected against Wycliffe (though neither the twelfth article which the Refuter mentioneth, nor that which Pighius objecteth against him is contained in that number) the which articles he explaneth. Among which the fifteenth is this, that every Priest rightly and duly ordered according to the law of grace, hath power according to his vocation, whereby he may minister the Sacraments, and consequently absolve any man confessing his fault, being contrite and penitent for the same. Which article, when he came to expound, he gave this reason; because that the order of Priesthood in his own nature and substance receiveth no such degrees either of more or less. And yet notwithstanding the power of inferior Priests in these days be upon due consideration restrained, and sometimes again in time of extreme necessity, released. And thus according to the Doctors, a Prelate hath a double power, to wit, the power of order, and the power of Jurisdiction or regiment. And according to the second power, the Prelates are in an higher majesty and regiment.

Thus have I recited word for word what is set down in the book of Martyrs; the words whereof the Refuter depraveth, making Wycliffe to say,

the order of Priesthood receiveth no degrees of more or less, howsoever the Doctors say, that the Prelate hath a double power, &c.

Whereby he would make the Reader believe, that he differed from those Doctors, with whom he doth agree: affirming (as many others have done, who notwithstanding allowed of the superiority of Bishops) that in the power of order all Priests are equal, though Bishops have also the power of Jurisdiction, wherein they are superior to other Priests. To the same purpose is alleged his assertion of two orders Priests and Deacons, which the Papists themselves hold, dividing Priests • nto Maiores which be Bishops, and Minores which be Presbyters.

Why he quoteth Bales centuries I know not, unless it were to show his more exquisite reading then other men's, having belike read there something concerning this cause, which no man else is able to read or to find.

But I had almost forgotten his first allegation, which the Refuter pretending such plenty, might well have omitted as impertinent. For though he envied against the excessive lordliness and tirannicall domination of the Popish Bishops: Yet doth it not prove, that he was an enemy to the superiority of Bishops, or the substance of their calling.

And whereas with Wycliffe he joineth the Waldenses, whose opinion he doth not cite but by the report of Pighius ; it is evident by the book of Martyrs in their story, that they acknowledged these three degrees, Bishops, Priests and Deacons, Artic. 7. And therefore is untruly laid to their charge by Aeneas Sylvius, that they held no difference of degrees among Priests, unless perhaps by Priests, be meant Bishops.

The next is John Hus, saith the Refuter, who was charged by the Pope and his officers to err. First, in that he held not, nor allowed, that by the Church was meant the Pope, Cardinals, Archbishops and Clergy underneath them, but affirmed that signification to be drawn out of the School-men. Secondly, that he avouched all Priests to be of like power, and therefore the reservation of the Bishops casualties order of Bishops, and consecration of Clerks was invented only for covetousness. Thirdly, that he held, that every man hath authority to inuest men into the cure of souls.

Whereto I answer, first, that these articles were indeed exhibited against him to the Pope by Michael de Causis, but I do not read, that either he acknowledged them to be true, or that he was condemned for them. Secondly, in the book of Martyrs, and also in his Story prefixed before his works, it is said, that of the articles which were objected against him, there were but a few which he acknowledged to be true. This therefore is the refuters argument, John Hus was accused by his malicious adversaries, who made no conscience of accusing him falsely, that he held all these articles; therefore all these were his opinions. But if it be sufficient to accuse, as the Emperor said, who can be innocent? the godlyest Martyrs never wanted accusers; whom if the refuter should therefore pronounce guilty of those matters whereof they were accused, he should show himself a wise man. But so he dealeth with John Hus : he was accused of these opinions, therefore he held them. Wherefore he must either prove, that Hus did acknowledge them to be true, or else what doth he but subscribe to the accusations of his malicious accusers against him. But suppose the first of these three were his, what will the refuter infer thereof? he did not hold nor allow that by the Church was meant the Pope, Cardinals, Archbishops and Clergy underneath them; therefore he did not allow the calling of Orthodoxall Bishops. Michael de Causis his accuser, for this article quoteth his book de Ecclesia, where I find this assertion (by the allegation whereof, you may guess how he was used in the rest) that the Pope of Rome with his Cardinals is not the whole body of the universal Church but a part, and that the Pope is not the head thereof, but Christ.

The which assertion he opposeth against the sayings of some Doctors, who held, first, that the Roman Church is the Church universal: that of the Church of Rome the Pope is the head, and the college of Cardinals the body. Which assertion, if you shall compare with his adversaries allegation, and apply to the refuters purpose, you shall perceive the malice of the one, and folly of the other.

For the second article, his accuser doth not quote any of his books, but saith thus, aliqualiter patet iste articulus ex praedictis, this article after a sort may be gathered out of the precedent articles, wherein there is no such matter contained.

The third he proveth by Husses fact, because in the kingdom of Boheme many by him and his favorers and abettors have been thrust into Parish Churches, which they a good while ruled without the institution of the See Apostolic, and also of the ordinary of the City of Prague. Whether Hus did this or no, it is questionable; but if there had been Orthodoxall Bishops, by whose authority faithful Ministers might have been instituted; without question, he would never have attempted any such enterprise. But he held the Popish Clergy to be Antichristian, and therefore did as he did. Otherwise for the function it self of Bishops, he saith plainly more then once, that the rest of the Apostles had equal honor and power with Peter, and that when they deceased the Bishops did succeed in their place. And that all Bishops of Christ's Church following Christ in manners, are the true Vicars of the Apostles. And out of Jerome, that all Bishops are the Apostles successors. And approveth that saying of Bede , as no man doubteth but the twelve Apostles did premonstrate the form of Bishops: So the seventy two did bear the figure of the Presbyters and second order of Priests.

And thus much of John Hus ; to whom the refuter joineth Jerome of Prague, who justifieth the doctrine of Wycliffe and Hus against the pomp and state of the Clergy.

Which if he had done, he had spoken never a word in disallowance of the Episcopal function. But that word state is foisted in by the refuter, who alledgeth almost nothing truly. His words were these , whatsoever things M. John Hus and Wycliffe had holden or written specially against the abuse and pomp of the Clergy, he would affirm even unto the death. And again, that all such articles as John Wycliffe and John Hus had written and put forth against the enormities, pomp and disorder of the Prelates, he would firmly hold and defend. And persisting still in the praise of John Hus, he added moreover, that he never maintained any doctrine against the state of the Church, but only spake against the abuses of the Clergy, against the pride, pomp and excess of the Prelates. For it was a grief to that good man, saith he, to see the Patrimonies of Churches misspent and cast away upon harlots, great feastings and keeping of horses and dogs, upon gorgeous apparel, and such other things unbeseeming Christian religion. And again, I take God to my witness, that I do believe and hold all the articles of the faith, as the holy Catholic Church doth hold and believe the same, but for this cause shall I now be condemned, for that I will not consent with you unto the condemnation of those most holy and blessed men aforesaid, whom you have most wickedly condemned for certain articles, detesting and abhorring your wicked and abhominable life. Whereby it is apparent, that both he, and they did not speak against the function or calling of Bishops, but against the personal abuses and enormities of the Popish Bishops, which none but a viperous brood would apply to the persons of our Bishops, and much less against their sacred function.

After them ariseth Martin Luther

saith the refuter, whose sayings he quoteth in his book against Popish Bishops, of private Mass, and against the Papacie, &c. But for the first of these, Luther himself hath given us this caveat. Let no man think that what is spoken against these tyrants, is spoken against the Ecclesiastical state and true Bishops or good Pastors. Let no man think that what is said or done against these sluggish beasts and slow bellies, is said or done against the heads of the Christian Church. And howsoever in the heat of his zeal against these Antichristian Bishops he uttered some things which seem prejudicial to the calling: yet you have heard it testified before by sufficient witnesses, that in his judgment he allowed the government of Bishops. Whereunto add the testimony of Camerarius , that Melancthon non modo ad stipulatore sed etiam author ipso Luthero, not only by the consent, but advise of Luther persuaded, that if Bishops would grant free use of the true doctrine, the ordinary power and administration over their several Dioceses should be restored unto them.

The like may be said of Zwingli. For he that professeth as Zwingli doth in the book before cited, that James was B. of Jerusalem, Philippe of Cesarea, Timothy of Ephesus▪ cannot lightly speak against the Episcopal function it self. If he speak against the Popish Clergy for arrogating the name Church to themselves; what is that to the purpose? or if he affirm, that every several congregation according to the phrase of the Scriptures, is a Church who denieth it? or if he inveigh against the sole and supreme power of Bishops, whom doth this touch, but the Pope?

Oecolampadius might be of opinion that the Church was governed by only governing-Elders, and persuade the Senate of Basel who had no Bishop, that such may be chosen to assist their Pastor; and yet notwithstanding not disallowe the government of Bishops. Calvin, Zanchius and other learned men have said and done as much, who notwithstanding approved the Episcopal function.

And as Melancthon was of Jerome's judgment, that Bishop and Presbyter at the first was all one, so with Jerome he doth allow the superiority of Bishops: and where the Episcopal government was overthrown▪ he sought to restore it, as you have heard before, and did restore it as may appear by these testimonies. You will not believe saith he writing to Luther, how greatly they of Noricum and some others do hate me propter restitutam Episcopis iurisdictionem, for restoring the jurisdiction to Bishops. Again , some are wonderfully angry with me, because I seem to restore the dominion of Bishops. Camerarius also reporteth▪ how inhumanely some accused Philip for maintaining of Bishops, &c.

Where he allegeth Master Tyndale, affirming that in the Apostles times an Elder and a Bishop were all one, &c: he doth but play with names, which no man denieth to have been confounded, & so he saith all that were called Elders or Priests if they so well were called BB. also, though they have divided the names now. Yea but in his book of the obedience of a Christian man, he saith that a B. is the overseer but of a parish, and is to preach the word of God unto a parish, and for the same to challenge an honest living of the parish.

This allegation the refuter hath notably wrenched. For Tindals words be these: by the authority of the Gospel they that preach the word of God in every parish, and perform other necessary ministries, have right to challenge an honest living. For Tyndale speaketh of such a B. as was but a Presbyter; and saith, that he which preached the word in every Parish, should have an honest living, the refuter citeth him as saying, that a B. is but an overseer of a Parish, &c.

In the next place he citeth Viret, as pleading for a popular state in every church; wherein, if the allegation be true, he is singular, having neither the judgment of any other sound Divine, nor practice of any reformed Church that I know of, No not of Geneva it self, to second him. For though the common wealth of Geneva be reduced to a popular state, yet the government of the church by their consistory, is Aristocratical.

And though he passeth by (as well he might) Calvin and Beza, Bucer, Peter Martyr, Bullinger, Brenz, Musculus, whom he thought good to mention only as favorers of the pretended discipline; yet neither any of these, nor any other moderate and judicious Divine doth condemn (as our Presbyterians do) either the ancient government by Bishops in the primitive Church, or the retaining thereof in reformed churches now, as hath been shown before.

But he is pleased to conclude with some of our own writers and Martyrs. And first with Francis Lambard, who is alleged as saying, that a B. and preacher, a church and a parish is all one, that every parish should have right to choose their Pastor, and (which is a very unadvised speech if it be truly alleged) to depose him if he prove unworthy, but not as disallowing the government of the church by orthodoxal BB. either now, or in the Primitive church, which was the point to be proved. And the like is to be said of John Lambart, &c.

As for Bradford whom he citeth as holding that the Scripture knoweth no difference betwixt a B. and a minister, meaning that the names were confounded and that nothing is to be gotten by the succession of Popish BB. as minister not, but Lord it: yet nothing can be alleged out of him to prove that he disalloweth the government of orthodoxal Bishops.

But it is strange, that he should allege B. Hooper, and B. Bale, as disallowing in their judgment, the superiority of BB. which they allowed in their practice. But all that is said out of B. Hooper, is either that BB. were not till Siluesters or Constantine's time, such as they are now: (which is true in respect of their outward estate, which by the peace and prosperity of the Church was much increased, but is not to be understood in respect of the substance of their calling) or that excommunication should not be used by the B. alone; which is little, or nothing to the present purpose, as if he must needs disallow the Episcopal function, who would not have the Bishop to excommunicate alone.

B. Bale understandeth by the names of blasphemy written on the heads of the beast. Apoc. 13. the titles of Popish offices, which he saith are usurped, and not appointed by the holy Ghost; among which when he reckoneth Metropolitans, Diocesans, Parsons, Vicars, and Doctors, he cannot be understood as speaking of these offices in the true church, but as they are members of Antichrist. For what is the office of a Parson, but of a Pastor, &c. And that this was his meaning, appeareth by the other allegation , wherein besides the titles and offices of the Popish hierarchy (among whom he reckoneth BB. Doctors & Priests) he addeth temporal governors also, as Emperors, Kings, Princes, Dukes, Earls, Lord's, Justices, Deputies, Judges, Lawyers, Mayors, Baylifes, Constables, &c. leaving their own duty offices (as to minister rightly) to serve their abomination.

After these, for want of better proofs, he allegeth the testimony of the English men which were at Geneva in Queen Mary's time, and were the first authors of this contention for the pretended discipline among us; to whose testimony in their own cause, that they present to us the form of a Church limited within the compass of God's word, what should I answer, but that they have often said, but never will be able to prove, that their discipline is prescribed in God's word?

Lastly, he allegeth M. Fox, whose testimony though in vain I sought in three several editions; yet his judgment is apparent, by that which may easily be found. He therefore saith, according to the refuters allegation, that in the Primitive Church there was not then any one mother Church (such as the church of Rome now pretendeth her self to be) above other Churches, but the whole universal Church was the mother Church, under which universal Church in general were comprehended all other particular Churches in special (he meaneth the Churches of several countries, and Provinces) as sister Churches together, not one greater then another but all in like aequalitie. What will he hence conclude, that therefore there were no BB. nor Archbishops? Not so. But that therefore as the Diocesan churches were equal, so were the BB. and as the Metropolitan churches were equal, so the Archbb. Hear M ^r . Fox himself where he debateth this question.

If they say there must needs be distinction of degrees in the church, and in this distinction of degrees superiority must necessarily be granted for the outward discipline of the church for directing matters, for quieting of schisms, for setting orders, for cōmencing of Conuocations & Councils as need shall require, &c. Against this superiority we stand not; and therefore we yield to our superior powers, Kings and Princes our due obedience, and to our lawful governors under God of both regiments, Ecclesiastical and Temporal. Also in the Ecclesiastical state we take not away the distinction of ordinary degrees, such as by the scripture be appointed, or by the Primitive Church allowed. As Patriarchs or Archbb. BB. Ministers and Deacons, for of these four we especially read, as chief. In which four degrees, as we grant diversity of office, so we admit in the same also diversity of dignity: neither denying that which is due to each degree, neither yet maintaining the ambition of any singular person. For as we give to the Minister place above the Deacon, to the B above the Minister, to the Archbishop above the B. so we see no cause of inequality, why one Minister, should be above another minister: one Bishop in his degree above another B. to deal in his Diocese, or one Archbb. above another Archbishop. And this is to keep an order duly and truly in the church, &c. Here then is the question between us and the Papists, whether the Metropolitan church of Rome with the Archbb. of the same ought to be preferred before other Metropolitan churches and Archbb through universal Christendom or not?

And thus I have examined his testimonies, which if you shall compare with those whereunto in the Sermon I referred the reader▪ you will acknowledge, that he had little cause, either to accuse my speech of untruth, or to justle out the Surueyours testimonies with his own, as though they had not been worthy to have been heard in comparison of his. Whereas indeed if there had been no more testimonies alleged, then of the authors of the Augustine con • ession and the subscribers thereunto (whom I especially meant being the men who first were called Protestants) my assertion had been sufficiently confirmed, though the refuter could have alleged the judgments of more particular men, then he hath done to the contrary.

But I added in the Sermon, that howsoever the first reformers of religion (whom they cal Protestants) did not disallowe the Episcopal government, but simply desired the continuance thereof, (as I have now proved by their own testimonies) notwithstanding, when together with the Gospel, &c. ad pag. 97. li. a fine 4. In which words, I do partly excuse the ancient Protestants, who first yielded to the deposing of Bishops, and partly accuse the innouatours among our selves.

The former I excuse, because they desiring chiefly, and above all, the instauration of religion & propagation of the gospel, which could not be obtained while the Popish BB. retained their authority, were forced with the loss of the Episcopal government to redeem the free profession of the gospel.

The refuter as if he were desirous to leave them without excuse, saith, that is a bad excuse, because it was easier to choose one fit man among them to be their B. then to find diverse Pastors and Elders meet for the Presbyteries.

I deny not, but that among them there were some fit to have been BB. yet the speech of the refuter is untrue. It being an easier matter as the Fathers of the Affricane council professed, to find many fit men to be Presbyters (especially if the laity also afford fit men for that purpose) then to find one fit to be a B. But the refuter doth not consider, first who should have ordained them, secondly, how they should have been maintained, thirdly, and chiefly, whether the assistance of the civil Magistrates could have been had for deposing the BB. unless they had yielded both to the dissolution of the Bishoprics, and to the alteration of the form of government, &c.

Now that the Protestants which subscribed to the Augustine confession did simply desire the continuance of the Episcopal government; I prove, because so soon as they could, they procured the restitution thereof though under other names, because the names of BB. & Archbb. by reason of the corruptions of the Popish prelates, were odious. And because the refuter shall no longer doubt, whether those Superintendents, and general superintendents placed in Protestant churches, be for the substance of their calling, the same with BB. & Archbb. he shall hear the judgment of Zanchius in this behalf Who after he had signified his approbation of the ancient form of government by BB. and Archbb. and had confirmed the same by the testimony of M. Bucer, he addeth for further confirmation the practice of reformed churches, some wheerof both in deed & name have retained BB. & Archbb. and besides saith he, in the churches of Protestants there are re ipsa in very deed BB. and Archbb. whom having changed the good Greek names into bad latin words, they call Superintendents and general Superintendents.

Hear the history of the Augustine confession. Ministers may bereduced into 3. orders Deacons, Pastors & superintendents. Deacons we cal young Ministers who are joined to Pastors &c. We call them Pastors, to whom though alone some church is safely committed, not doubting but that they may rule the same without a colleague. Superintendents we cal these Pastors, who are set over other Pastors & Deacons. With us saith Heerbrand there are Deacons, Pastors, special superintendents, and over them general superintendents.

But why in other churches the learned men have not restored BB. I gave this reason: for that they could not, either because the Popish BB. were still countenanced by the civil Magistrate, as in France: or because the form of civil government being after the expulsion of the B. changed into a popular state, could no more endure the government of a B. then Rome after the expulsion of Tarquinius, the regiment of a King. The refuter saith

they could

, thereby insinuating that they would not. But doth he think that the Popish BB. in France countenanced by the state, would endure Antibishops to be set up against them in their Diocese? And for Geneva, is it not a plain case, that, that state was so far from admitting again the government of BB. that Calvin being out of hope to get a Presbytery established of Ministers alone, was fain to accept of a Presbyterie wherein twelve Citizens are joined to six Ministers? neither is that to be omitted which Zanchius in the place before cited, doth add in the next words. But even in those Churches also where neither the good Greek names, nor the bad Latin names are used, notwithstanding there use to be some chief men, in whose hands all the authority almost is. Where therefore these be upheld and Bishops repelled it may seem to be but a controversy concerning the names, but when we agree of the things, why should we strive about the names? At Geneva, while Calvin lived, he was the perpetual president of their Ecclesiastical Senate, differing rather in name, then authority from a B. And Beza likewise for the space of ten years had the like authority, till Danaus coming thither that course was altered. Since which time▪ Beza finding some inconveniences, which he knew not how to redress, hath sometimes signified his desire to some (whom I know) wishing with all his heart, that with the reformation of religion the Episcopal government in that church had been retained. And I have been very credibly informed, that the most learned and judicious Divines both in France, and Geneva, could well be contented, that the ancient government by BB. were renewed among them. which need not seem strange to us, seeing in the Church of Scotland, where the Geneva Discipline had for a long time been practiced, notwithstanding, when the matter was referred to voices, of that great number which were assembled to that purpose, there were not above five which stood for the Presbyterian discipline, as I have been informed by some that were there.

But there are two things more in the refuters answer to be touched; the one that against sense he chargeth me twice in this place

as holding the government by BB. to be so necessary as that there cannot be a visible Church without it. I say, against sense,

because in the former part of this section I acknowledged that where this government could not be had, others might be admitted: and in this place, I do not only excuse those Divines which wanting the Episcopal government brought in the Presbyteries, but also commend their fact as wisely performed.

The other is, that out of a desire of contradicting me, he

denieth the state of Geneva to be popular. But let Bodin who could discern between the diverse forms of policy, be judge between us.

The self same year saith he, that Andreas Doria did establish the Aristocracy at Geneva, did they of Geneva having expelled their B. change the Monarchy into a popular state. And after liberty was restored to the commonweale, although they ordained a Senate or Council of two hundred men, yet the people reserved to themselves the right & authority of making laws, of creating the chief Magistrates, of making war and concluding peace, which are the principal perogatives of Soueraigntie, called iura Maiestatis.

In the latter part of this Section I did accuse the innouatours among us, affirming that as in those places where orthodoxal Bishops could not be had, Presbyteries were wisely brought in: so are they very inconsiderately obtruded on those churches, where Bishops most soundly professing the Gospel of Christ are established; especially, considering that the government by Bishops is not only simply good, and lawful, but also in comparison to be preferred before the Presbyterian Discipline, as having better warrant. Here the refuter, who was so ready to take away the excuses which I brought for other churches, hath nothing to pretend as an excuse for himself and his consorts.

Serm. Sect. 2. pag. 97. Let us now consider what practical uses &c. to the end.

The practical uses concern, either those who live under the authority of the BB. or the reverend Fathers themselves. The former, that for as much as the government of Bishops is the ordinaance of God, we would reverence their persons, and obey their authority.

The latter, that they would from this Text receive, both comfort and encouragement in good things; and also admonition, that as they are called stars and Angels, so they would endeavor to be answerable to their names.

The latter use the refuter toucheth not, neither doth he gainsay the former, but professeth that what they are here exhorted unto, they are and have been careful to perform, appealing to all men whether they have not always reverenced the persons and obeyed the authority of Bishops. Whereunto, though I could say something; yet I will say no more but this; that as I wish it were true in respect of the time past, so I pray to God it may be verified of them for the time to come. Amen.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

FINIS.

Errata, In the first Book.

Page 11. line 15. read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . P. 18. l. 8. pure, P. 39. l. 15. entire Church, P. 48. l. a sin. 3 Council or decree, p. 61. l. 20. dele or should, p. 66. l. 9. rather. pag. 67. l. a f. 5. M, D. meaning, p. 70. l, 1. call them, p. 87. l. 3. many new, p. 88. l. 6. as a l. 18. grandeuis, p. 89. l. 20. but whether, 91. l. a f. 10. as well he, p. 97, Marg l: 3. pro 26. pag. 104. l. 24. and note P. 135. l. a f: 9. jointly, p. 152. l. vlt. dele all the Lent, 153. marg. l. 3. Insubres, 156. l. 24. proposition, 157.20. matrix, 159. l. 8. Palestines, l. penult. sublimisas Ep scopalis, p. 161. l. 19. not unwilling, 163. l. 4. ìus Sacerd. substernit, 164. l. 9 Lay-elders ▪ 165. l. a f. 6. Plane tree, 166. l. 13. seely Sophister, l. 18. maketh against me, 169. l. a f. 8. that T.C. th. 170. l. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 171 l. 19. commended, l. 26. Numidicus, l. vlt. at the 176. marg. l. a f. 5. graecorom 177. l. 3. have suits, 178. l. a f. 4. coetum 179. l. 9. hath been, 180. l. 20. desidi • . l. 25. exposition, l. vlt. the better 181. l. a f. 11. all these p. 189. l. 4. Decani i. Arch. p 196, marg. l. 4. sc. & praes. p. 198. l. 25. all one, 203. l. 12. let them examine 204. l. a f. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 208. l. 16. sanedrin. l. 18. Gabinius, 209. l. 5. if yeo, l. 11▪ argue et, 212. l. 18. Apostaticall, 218. l. 10. referred, 222. l. 12. signifying, 231. l. penult. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 232. l. 22. Syria, 236. l. a f. 11. à Canone marg. l. 3. Duaren. 238. l. 18. or of.

In the second Book.

Page 2. l. a f. 6. City &c. p. 12. marg. l. 26. Tilius, l. a f. 8. Gangra. p. 14. l. vlt Cerdo. p. 18. l. 1. Melitena, l. Penult they l. vlt. their. p. 36. l. a f. 5. Matrix p. 40. l. 1. Coela p. 43. l. a f. 3. as the hyp. p. 46. l. 5. of Christians, p. 47. l. 18. possible that dele but, p. 56. l. a f. 4. and always, p. 61. l. 16. Nicetas, p. 64. l. 2. & 20. Presbyteries, p. 76. l. 16. see Luk. l. 21. if nay, p. 80. l. 5. raw, p. 98. l. 13. greater, 104. l. 17. & 19. or 56. p. 122. l. 6. & 7. acknowledge, 125. l. a f. 6. I mean 128. l. 3. pernicious l. 21. Ministerial, 134. l. 23. Sasima, p. 135. l. a f. 3. villani, 139. marg. 31.32.33. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

In the third Book.

Page 12. l. 7. opposition, p. 15. l. 5. was intended, p. 18. l. penult. Sabellius, p. 22. l. 4. of the p. 31. l. 4. and Councils, p. 33. l. 24. degrees not so seldom as 9. p. 34. l. 25. ascent. p. 44. l. a f. 8. Tilius, p. 59. l. a f. 7. did forbear. p. 60. marg. l. 1. Cornel ep. p. 61. l. 21. are called, p. 65. l. 11. dele him, l. 12. are so, p. 127. l. vlt. to other, p. 146. l. 21. to his.

The fourth Book.

Page 6. l. 6. assume and p. 20. l. 16. business, p. 21. l. 27. did not, p. 23.14. as these, p. 26. l. vlt. depositions p. 30. l. 7. of fact p. 69. l. a f. 9. reference, p. 84. l. 2. Apostle, p. 91 l. 8. Antoninus p. 98. l. a f, 4. I do not assume, p. 99. l. 8. his denial 113. l. 3. saving 117 l. 9. Presbiteries, p. 133. l. penult. understood, p. 134. l. a f. 9. would. p. 144. l. a f. 3. hath no • 151. l. a f. 14. in me 156. l. 15, inueyed.