A Defense of the Sermon Preached at the Consecration of the Bishop of Bath, Book 3 · Chapter 1

A Defense of the Sermon Preached at the Consecration of the Bishop of Bath · Book 3 · Chapter 1

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

(Serm. sect. 1. pag. 28. In the fourth place therefore we are to intreat of the superioritie of BB. ouer other Ministers: for although the Presbyterians and we agree in this &c. almost to the end of the pag. 29.)

OF the fiue points which I propounded, three hauehave alreadie been handled: the first concerning Lay Elders, against both sorts of Disciplinarians, aswell the elder, as the younger; though betweene their opinions there is this difference, that the elder require such a presbyterie in each Citie or Diocesse; the yonger, in each Parish. In the second and third concerning Dioceses, and Diocesans, I had to deale onelyonly with our new sect of Disciplinarians, who vrge the new-found parish-discipline. In the fourth and fift which remaine, I p. 2propounded to my selfe the confutation of the elder and more learned sort of disciplinarians, not greatly regarding, what our innouatours in these 2. points do hold, or deny; their proper opinions concerning the parish discipline, being in the three former points sufficiently confuted. The which I doe the rather note, for 2. causes. The one, that the reader may vnderstand the refuters euasions, in disauowing such assertions as I ascribe vntounto the disciplinarians, to be to no purpose; seeing they are held by men more learned and iudicious, with whom principally I had to deale. The other that he may discerne the pouerty and weakenesse of their cause; the chiefe, and almost only strength thereof, being the allegation of diuers protestant writers, (whom I called the learneder sort of Disciplinarians) who are parties in the cause.

As touching the fourth point; the refuter, before hee come to my words, maketh an idle flourish: the summe whereof is this; that were it not, that by confuting the superioritie of Bishops, he should overthrow the Supremacy of the Pope, he would scarse hauehave vouchsafed an answeare to my discourse. Here therefore he sheweth two things; first, that by confuting the superioritie of Bishops, he shall withall refute the supremacie of the Pope. 2. that otherwise, an answere to me in this fourth point were needlesse.

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

Such as is, and ought to be the gouernment of the whole Church, such is, and ought to be the gouernment of the parts or seuerall Churches.

But the gouernment of the whole Church is Aristocraticall, and not Monarchicall: therefore the gouernment of the parts or seuerall Churches is, and ought to be Aristocraticall, p. 3and not Monarchicall.

The proposition he taketh for graunted,§ 2. Whether the gouernment of the whol Church, and of the parts, must be of one forme. noting it as an absurditie in me, To fight for that in the particulars, which in the generall I wish ouerthrowne.

But it would be knowne, what he meaneth by the particulars, or parts of the Church, whose gouernment he would hauehave aunswerable to the vniuersal or whole Church. If he mean only parishionall Churches (as he needs must): For, there is no other visible Church indued with power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment in his conceit but a Parish; Parishes (no doubt) may be proud of the comparison: for then, as some of them hauehave written in stately maner, as Rome had her Senate, Lacedaemon her Seigniorie, Athens her Areopage, Ierusalem her Synedrion, Venice (which our Refuter addeth) her councell of State; and lastly, (which exceedeth all) as the vniuersall Church hath her Oecumenicall synode, so the Church of eueryevery Parish, in eueryevery street, and in eueryevery hamlet, must hauehave an Ecclesiasticall senate. But what parts soeuer he vnderstand, whether Parishionall, Nationall, or Diocesan Churches, the proposition is vntrue: for of Prouinciall, or Nationall Churches, the Metropolitans, and Bishops of dioceses, are, and ought to be the gouernors. But howsoeuer, in that respect the forme of gouernment may seeme to be Monarchicall; yet in respect of the maner of gouerning, the Metropolis vsing the aduise of the Nationall, or Prouinciall synodes, the Bishop of his Presbyterie, they may be Aristocraticall. Who knoweth not that the common wealth of Rome somtimes was popular, and likewise that of Athens (for it is an errour of the Refuter to reckon Athens with Venice, as an example of Aristocracie;) yet the seuerall prouinces were ruled by seuerall gouernours, as Propraetors, and Proconsuls. The gouernment of this whole Island (blessed be God, for vniting the two Kingdomes in the person of our Soueraigne) is Monarchicall: yet the gouernment of seuerall parts by Counsels, and Presidents thereof, may seem so far Aristocraticall. The gouernment of the whole Church in Heauen and earth is Monarchicall vnderunder one p. 4head and Monarch, which is Christ our King. And for the gouernment of the whole Church vponupon earth, he hath no Vicar generall, but the holie Ghost, who appointeth gouernors vnderunder him, which may gouerne the seuerall parts of the Church in some respect monarchically, though the whole Church, by the mutuall consociation of her gouernours for the common good, and by the concurrence of them to an Occumenicall synode, is gouerned Aristocratically: for the whole Church beeing but one bodie, there ought to be a Christian consociation of the gouernors thereof for the common good of the whole bodie. If among the Princes of the whole world, there were the like consociation, the vniuersall world should be gouerned in that respect Aristocratically, though the seuerall parts for the most part Monarchically. So much of the proposition.

The assumption he prooueth by the testimonies of our writers against the Papists,§. 3. The gouernment of the whole Church Aristocraticall. with whom himselfe, and his copartners do not agree. For, first, when they say that the regiment of the whole Church is Aristocraticall; they meane in respect of the gouernors of the seuerall Churches, who as being seuered rule their Churches seuerally, there being no one visible Monarch ouer all; so being congregated in an Oecumenicall Synode, do make one Ecclesiasticall Senate. But our new Disciplinarians doe hold, that eueryevery parish is an entire body by it selfe, hauing within it selfe, for the gouernment of it selfe, sufficient authority vnsubordinate and independent: and therfore do not acknowledge any lawful authoritie in Synodes to define, determine, or commaund, but onelyonly to deliberat, and aduise, as H. I. in his booke vrging reformation, and other the Christian and modest challengers of disputation, together with the humble nnAn. 1609.petitioners suing for a toleration, do teach.

Secondly, Our writers hold the gouernment of the Church vniuersall to be Aristocraticall, because as our Sauiour Christ ascending into Heauen, left his twelue Apostles, as it were twelue Patriarches, aunswerable to the Princes of the twelue tribes aaCypr. de Simplic praelatorum: Hoc erant vti que caeteri Apostoli quod suit Petrus, pari consorrio prae…liti & honoris & pot…statis., furnished with p. 5equall authority and power, whose colledge was the supreme Senate of the vniuersall church: so they committed the Churches to Bishops, as their successours, being equall in degree; bbEiusdem sacerdotij. Hier. ad Euagr.who as they gouerne the Churches seuerally, so ioyntly (with other gouernors) are the highest Senate of the vniuersall Church. But it was neuer practised in the Church of God, that any presbyters or pastors of parishes should be called to generall councils, to hauehave right of suffrage and authority to judge and determine those matters which were debated in those councils; but both they and Deacons (I meane some of them) were to attend their Bishop, to assist him with their priuate counsell and aduice: which one argument (by the way) doth notably set forth the superiority of Bishops ouer other ministers.

But as his assumption crosseth the conceits of our new Disciplinarians, so is his conclusion repugnant to their assertion, who ascribing the supreme authority in their seuerall Churches to the whole congregation, stand for a popular state, rather then Aristocraticall. Whereas indeed the gouernment of Churches, as they are prouinciall, are according to the ancient Canons which are in vse with vsus, gouerned by prouinciall synodes, and therefore by a regiment Aristocraticall.

So that of this syllogisme, the proposition is false, the assumption is gainesaid by themselues, and the conclusion, confuting their owne assertion, agreeth with the practise of prouinciall churches with vsus.Though the gouernment of seuerall Churches be monarchicall, yet it followeth not that therefore the gouernment of the Vniuersall Church shold be monarchicall.

§. 4. His other inference is this: If the gouernment of the seurall Churches may be monarchicall, then by the same reason the gouernment of the whole Church may be monarchicall. But the gouernment of the whole Church may not be monarchicall: therefore the gouernment of the seueral Churches may not.

This consequence is vnsound, there being not the like reason of the whole Church and of the parts. And that is the answere, which ou… men doe make to the papists, when they vrge this reason; as there was but one high priest, for the p. 6gouernment of the Church vnderunder the Law, so there should be, but one chiefe Bishop for the gouernment of the whole Church. They answere, there is not the like reason betweene the Church of one nation, and of the whole world. Cal. Inst. li. 4. ca. 6. s. 2. Gentis vnius & totius orbis longè diuersa est ratio, perinde est, ac siquis contendat totum mundum a praefecto vno debere regi, quia ager vnus non plures praefectos habeat. For of the vniuersall Church, Christ onelyonly is the head; which supreame and vniuersal gouernment, if any man shall assume to himselfe, as the Pope of Rome doth; thereby he declareth himselfe to be Antichrist, or emulus Christi, sitting in the Church of God, as God, and lifting vp himselfe aboue all that is called God. But as touching the seuerall Churches, those who be the lieutenants of Christ, may be called the heads or gouernors thereof, as soueraigne princes of all states and persons within their dominions, Metropolitans of prouinciall Churches, Bishops of their dioces, and Pastors of their seuerall flocks.

Secondly, whereas particular men are enabled by God to gouerne seuerall churches; no mortall man is able to weild the gouernment of the whole Church: which is one of the maine arguments, which our writers vse against the monarchicall gouernment of the whole Church: which this refuter seeketh in vaine to infringe. The Romane Emperors, when their Empire was at the largest, and they esteemed themselues Lords of the world, enioying indeed not one third part of the whole, yet finding themselues vnable to weild so great a burden, were faine to assume colleagues vntounto them with whom they parted the Empire, when they might hauehave retained the whole.

Thirdly, the monarchicall gouernment of the whole Church would proue dangerous and pernicious to the same, if that one head or Monarch thereof should fall into errour or idolatry; especially, he being so aboue the whole Church as that he should not be subiect to a generall Councell.

But the heads of seuerall Churches, if they erre or fall, may by the Synodes of other Bishops be brought into order, or deposed. Examples whereof we hauehave in all, p. 7euen the chiefe seats of Bishops, as of Marcellinus at Rome, Paulus Samosatenus at Antioch, Dioscorus at Alexandria, Nestorius and Macedonius at Constantinople. &c. Cyprian writing to Stephanus Bishop of Rome about the deposing of Martianus Bishop of Arles saith,Lib. 3. Epist. 13. Idcirco copiosum corpus est Sacerdot… concordi… mu…na glutino at que vnitatis vinculo copulatum, vt si quis ex collegio nostro haeresim facere, & greg…m Christi l…cerare & vastare tentauerit, subueniant cateri, &c.

Fourthly, to the head of seuerall Churches the members may hauehave easie and speedie recourse, for clearing of doubts, and deciding of controuersies &c. But from all parts of the world men could not without infinite trouble, besides manifold inconueniences, repaire to one place. These reasons may suffice for the confutation of the proposition.

The assumption is false in respect of Christ, who is the Monarch of the Church; otherwise I acknowledge it to be true,Ad pag. 82. but without any disaduantage to my cause: the odious consequence of the proposition (which is so oft vrged) being vnsound.

If therefore he can no better disproue the Supremacy of the Pope, then he doth the superioritie of Bishops, it were better he should be silent, then busie himselfe in matters aboue his reach.

The other part of his idle flourish is a vaine bragge, that were it not for that cause, he should not neede to busie himselfe in answearing, or examining this point. For if neither the Churches were dioceses, nor the Bishops Diocesan, to what end should wee enquire what power or iurisdiction they had? But the Churches were dioceses and the BB. diocesan, as I hauehave manifestly proued before, and as those Disciplinarians do confesse, with whom chiefly I deale in this point: who granting that the Churches were dioceses,Wherein the Disciplinarians do agree, and wherein they discent from vsus. and the Bishops diocesan, doe notwithstanding deny the superiority of Bishops in degree &c.

§. 5. Now that the state of the controuersie betwixt vsus and them may appeare, I shew wherein the Presbyterians agree p. 8with vsus, and wherein they dissent from vsus. But first he findeth fault that I call them Presbyterians, as sometimes I doe also Disciplinarians; though thereby I meane no other, but such as doe stand for the Presbytery, and for that discipline, being loth either to call them aduersaries (whom I acknowledge to be brethren) or to offend them with the title of Puritans, wherewith others doe vpbraid them. And howsoeuer he in bitter scorne doth say, that of my charity I doe in scorne so call them: I doe professe vnfainedly, that out of a charitable mind, I did terme them Presbyterians, not knowing how to speake of them, as dissenting from vsus, more charitably. And whereas I say they agree with vsus in this, that by diuine institution there was in the primitiue Church, and still ought to be, one set ouer the Presbyters, he saith; I had need to be as mighty in eloquence as Pericles, if I would perswade that. But small eloquence may serue, where there is such euidence to proue the truth. Only the Reader must remember, that I speake not of my aduersary, and other new fangled disciplinarians, who are not to hauehave the credit of comming so neere the truth; but of men of greater learning, and better desert in Gods Church: who as they agree with vsus, that the Churches were dioceses, and the Presbyteries with the Presidents thereof prouided for diocesses, (which … hauehave shewed before) so they consent in this, that the Presbyteries had by diuine ordināce a President set ouer them: the which I wil proue straightwaies, after I hauehave noted his cēsure concerning the three points wherein I said they differ from vsus. The first, that they make the Bishop superior in order only, and not in degree. 2. That they assigne a superiority or presidentship vntounto him for a short time, and that by course. 3. That granting vntounto him a priority of order, they deny vntounto him a maiority of rule or power.

To the first he saith, If by degree I meane dignity onelyonly (as neuer any man did) they doe not deny the President to be superior indignity and honour, during the time of his presidentship: which is nothing else but to grant vntounto him a priority of order, which Beza calleth foreign, the prerogati…e or precedence, Ad pag. 33.and to go before in honor. But if I vnderstand p. 9degree, of office and ministery distinct from Presbyters, as theirs is from deacons, then he professeth themselues to dissent from vsus. And so let them: for he cannot be ignorant, that I maintaine the antient distinction of the ecclesiasticall Ministers into three foreign degrees, Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons. As for those Presidents of Presbyteries, which were superior to the other Presbyters, in order and not in degree; such were they whom they were wont to call, sometimes foreign, sometimes archipresbyteri, sometimes foreign, that is to say, Deanes, and not Bishops. And it was a great ouersight in these learned men, vnderunder the name and title of the ancient Bishops, to describe vntounto vsus Deanes.

To the second, he saith; It is manifestly false: for we tie not the presidentshippe to any short or long time, nor giuegive it to all presbyters by course, as if it were a matter of diuine institution: howsoeuer, where all are fit for that seruice, (as no doubt but in Vtopia they all are) we thinke it perhaps (for he doth but ghesse at things which he knoweth not) in discretion (he might hauehave said, indiscretion) confirmed by experience, not amisse to hauehave the businesse so carried.

To the third he saith; That it also is vntrue: for wee giuegive (saith he) the President, during the time of his presidentship, as priority of order, so maiority of rule; though not supreme and sole authority, as none but Papists doe, and they to none but to the Pope.

As touching their agreement with vsus,§. 6. They hold that there must be a President of the Presbytery. lib. 1. cap. 2. § 16. & 17. and the second point wherin they differ from vsus (for of the first I hauehave spoken at large before, shewing the iudgements of Caluin and Beza therin) you shall heare the opinion of a cheife patron of the discipline, in a treatise, which he hath written in defense thereof. Beza therfore teacheth, that it is a diuine ordinance, both that there should be a president of each presbytery, and also that his presidentshippe should be but for a short time, and by course. The former, which is the order it selfe, he saithaaDe grad. Minist. cap. 23., is not onelyonly an ordinance diuine, but also essentiall and immutable. The latter, which is ordinis modus, though it were of diuine institution, yet it is but accidentall, and so mutable. And when hee distinguisheth Bishops into p. 10three sortsbbDe grad. Minist. c. 24. p. 177, he calleth them onelyonly diuine, which hauehave a priority of order onelyonly, and that for a time and by course. As for those which had a perpetuall presidentship, whereunto they were preferred by election, by whom the priority of order (as he imagineth) was changed into a superiority of degree, and were such as hee will not absolutely ccIbid. c. 23. p. 144. 156.condemne: yet such (in his opinion) are but humane: and to these he supposeth the name Bishop first to hauehave beene appropriated. Such diuine Presidents he acknowledgeth these seuen Angels to hauehave been, and before them Timothy at Ephesus. And whereas Ierom saith, at the first the Churches were gouerned … Presbyterorum consili…; by the common counsell of Presbyters: N… confuso, saith he, & perturbat…? What ddPag. 139.140, saith he, confused and disordered: so as when the Presbyters did meete, none should be President among them? That is not likely: therefore euen then the Presbytery had a President. And where it was obiected by D. Sarauia, against that opinion of Ierome, that these seuen Churches had each of them an Angell by diuine ordinance set ouer them, to whom a more eminent authority belonged in the regiment of the Church; to what purpose, saith Beza eePag. 159.160, doe you vrge this against Ierome? For when hee said, the Churches were gouerned at the first by the common counsell of Presbyters, wee may not thinke, that hee so doted, as to dreame that none of the Presbyters was President ouer that assembly.

As for the third and the last, nothing is more euident ffVide supr. l. 1. c. 2 §. 16., then that Caluin and Beza, They deny to the President maiority of rule.as they deny the Bishop to bee superior to other Ministers in degree, so also in rule and dominion. For he was not so superior in honour and dignity (saith Caluin ggCalu. Instit. l. 4. c. 4 s. 2.) as to hauehave dominion ouer his Colleagues. And againe; that he did goe so before others in dignity, that himselfe was subiect to the assembly of his brethren. Beza hhBeza de grad. p. 156 157.acknowledgeth their superiority to hauehave been the dignity or honour of the first place, but no degree of rule ouer their compresbyters. And is not this part of H. I. his second maine assertion, that the ancient Bishops in the first two hundred yeeres differed from other pastors onelyonly in priority of p. 11order, and not in maiority of rule? T. C. iiT. C. l…. 110.likewise speaking of him that was chosen to moderate the meeting of Ministers, saith, If any man will call him a President, or Moderator, or a Gouernour, we will not striue, so that it be with these cautions; that hee be not called simply Gouernour, or Moderator, but Gouernour or Moderator of that action, and for that time, and subiect to the orders that others bee, and to be censured by the company of the Brethren, as well as others, if hee be iudged anyway fault…. And that after that action ended, and meeting dissolued, hee sit him downe in his old place, and set himselfe in equall state with the rest of the Ministers. Thirdly, that this gouernment or presidentship bee not so tied to that Minister, but that at the next meeting it shall bee lawfull to take another. The vntruths therefore which the Refuter hath bestowed vponupon me here, he must be intreated to take to himselfe.

To proue their dissent from vsus in this fourth point,§. 7. Beza dissenting from vsus in this fourth point, but with more moderation then our Disciplinarians vse. I alleaged Beza his distinction of Bishops into three sorts: and because it is an odious distinction, I concea…d his name, and to salue his credit, J shewed, that although hee came farre short of Caluins moderation, yet he is more moderately affected towards our Bishops, then the Disciplinarians among vsus vsually bee: who, as they speake despitefully of them, calling them Antichristian, pettite Popes, &c. so doe they wish and labour for the extirpation of them, whereas Beza speaking reuerently of them, praieth for their continuance.

But both his distinction and his wish, by the Refuter are peruerted, expounding him as though he had accounted for humane, those which had onelyonly a priority of order: whereas indeed he acknowledgeth such a presidentship as you hauehave heard, to be a diuine ordinance; and vnderstandeth his praier, where he wisheth the continuance of the Bishops, as if he had wished that so long as England hath Bishops, they may bee such as may giuegive their liues for the truth, as they did. Where, whiles hee vnderstandeth Beza as wishing our Bishoppes to be Martyrs, he indiscreetly maketh him to wish that our Princes may bee persecutors, which God forbid. p. 12That which he addeth concerning my saying Am… to the like wish for the Churches of France and Scotland, and yet be no maintainer of their presbyteries, is meerely idle; for I did not bring in Beza as a maintainer of Bishops, bvt rather did note him as one of their chiefe opposites, citing his differences from vsus, and mentioning that distinction of Bishops: howbeit I acknowledge his proposition to be with more moderation, then is commonly to be found in the Disciplinarians among vsus.

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

Ad pag. 84.But before he entreth the combate, distrusting himselfe and his cause, he seeketh (as such champions vse to doe) which way (if need be) he may make an escape: and hauing to this purpose looked well about him, he hath found out two starting holes, whereby he hopeth to finde some euasion. The former hath these windings and turnings in it:He would restraine the Primitiue church vntounto the Apostles times. 1. That the primiti…e church is to be confined to the Apostles times, and not extended to the whole 200 yeares. 2. That the question is … be …nderstood of the Angels of the 7. Churches. 3. That I must p…e these Angels to hauehave had sole power of ordination and iurisdiction. The first of these argueth extreame diffidence: for Caluin, and others, in this question, within the limits of the primitiue Church, include the times of Constanti…e, at the least; yea Caluin includeth all the time kkIust. l. 4. c. 4.a…tepapa…m, before the Papacy; in which time he acknowledgeth the forme of Church gouernment, to hauehave had nothing in it almost disso…ant from the word of God. And whereas, saith he llParag. 4.eueryevery prouince had among their Bishops an Archbishop; and whereas also in the Councill of Nice, there were established Patriarchs, who in order and dignity were superior to the Archbishops, that appertained to the preseruation of discipline. And although he misliketh that the gouernment so established, was called Hiera: …hy; notwithstanding, if omitting the name, saith he, we looke into the thing, we shall finde that the ancient p. 13Bishops would not frame a forme of Church gouernment differing from that which God prescribed in his word. And Beza mmConfess c. 5. § 29.confesseth, that those things which were ordained of the antient Fathers, concerning the seats of Bishops, Metropolitanes, and Patriarches, assigning their limits▪ and attributing vntounto them certaine authority, were appointed optimo zelo, out of a very good zeale. And therefore (no doubt) out of such zeale, as was according to knowledge; otherwise it would hauehave been far from being optimus, the best.

Zanchius nnDe relig. c. 25. § 11.intreating of the diuers orders of Ministers in the primitiue Church, as Presbyters, Bishops, Archbishops, &c. faith, they may be defended. Against which, some learned man (I will not say Beza) hauing taken exception, Zanchius maketh this apology. ooObseru. in cap. 25. aphor. 10.11.When I wrote this confessiō of the faith, I did write all things out of a good conscience, and as I beleeued, so I freely spake. Now my faith is grounded chiefly and simply on the word of God: Something also in the next place on the common consent of the whole antient Catholike Church, if that bee not repugnant to the Scriptures. I doe also beleeue, that what things were defined and receiued by the godly Fathers, being gathered together in the name of the Lord, by the common consent of all, without any gainsaying of the holy scriptures, that those things also (though they be not of the same authority with the holy Scriptures) proceeded from the holy Ghost. Hence it is, that those things that be of this kind, I neither will, nor dare with good conscience mislike. But what is more certaine out of histories, Councels, and writings of all the Fathers, then that those orders of Ministers, whereof I spake, were established, and receiued by the common consent of all Christendome? Quis a…tem ego sim, qui quod tota Ecclesia approbaui…, improbem? And who am I that I should disallow that which the whole Church allowed? &c.

Neither doe I see any reason,§. 9. The Church vnderunder Constantine to be imitated of vsus. why the Church in Constantines time should not rather bee propounded as a pate…e for imitation, to Churches that liue vnderunder Christian princes, and flourish through Gods blessing in peace and prosperitie; then the Churches of former times, which were not in all things established and setled according to their desires, p. 14but were hindred by persecutiō. For in time of persecution, their gouernment was not alwaies such as they would, but such as they could attaine vntounto. And vnlesse we would hauehave the Churches to liue alwaies vnderunder persecution, it is madnesse to require them to be imitated in all things. But what was by generall consent receiued, and practised in the time of peace and prosperity, was that which in their iudgements ought to be done, and is of vsus being in the like case, to be imitated. Now that in Constantines time the Bishops had superiority ouer other Ministers in degree, and a singular preheminence of power and authority, it is most euident. Neither was their superiority and authority increased by the accession of the Christian Magistrate, as their wealth was, but rather diminished, seeing while there was not a Christian Magistrate, they were faine to supply that defect, and by their owne authority did many things, which afterward were done or assisted by the Magistrate.The same forme of gouernment, and the like authority of diocesan B.B. throughout all the times of the primitiue Church. But though there can no colour of a good reason be giuen, why the superiority and authority of Bishoppes, as they were diocesan, should hauehave been greater in the fourth century, then in the third; or in the third, then in the second; or in the second, then the first; the first Bishops in all likelihood, hauing had rather a more eminent then lesse authority, yet our new Disciplinarians, for a poore shift and euasion, deny this superiority of Bishops in degree and maiority in power to hauehave been in the first two hundred yeeres, because they conceiue there is not the like euidence for the second, as for the third. Now our Refuter perceiuing there is better euidence then he imagined for the second century, will needs hauehave the times of the primitiue Church restrained to the time of the Apostles. And when they are driuen from that, they were best to flie to the time of Christs conuersation vponupon the earth.

For my part, I make no doubt, but that Anianus, who succeeded S. Marke at Alexandria, being a man ppforeign. Euseb. l. 2. c. 24beloued of God, foreign, eueryevery way admirable, had the same episcopall authority which S. Marke had before him, and that he, and those which succeeded him, euen in the Apostles times, viz. Abilius and Cerd… had no lesse authority as p. 15diocesan Bishops, then those which came two hundred yeeres after them. Indeed, when the Churches multiplying, there was a consociation of dioceses in the prouince, the Bishop of Alexandria became actually a Metropolitan Bishop, which from the first might bee intended: and when there was a consociation of prouinces subiected to him, he became a Patriarch, the antient Fathers in godly policie so thinking it necessary. Now if any man shall thinke, that the Bishop of Alexandria was but a parish Bishop at the first, and vponupon cons…ciation of parishes subiected to him, became a diocesan, he is to vnderstand, that the diocesse, and the mother Church of the diocesse, was before any parish; that parishes arise out of the distribution of the diocesse; that th… Bishop and his Presbytery of the mother Church were appointed not for one parish, but for the whole diocesse; that at Alexandria, in, and from S. Marks time, who constituted the Churches there, there hauehave been more Churches then one subiected to the Bishop of Alexandria.

Vnlearned therefore and vngrounded is that distinction of Bishops into six sorts,§. 10. Of H.I. (pag. 7.) his distinction of BB. into 6. sorts. viz. 1. Parishionall: 2. Diocesan titular Bishop, being the President or Moderator ouer the Pastors of a diocesse: 3. Diocesan ruling Bishop, though not solely: 4. Diocesan L. Bishop: 5. A Patriarchall Bishop: 6. An vniuersall Bishop. Of the first sort, it is said, all were in the first two hundred yeeres. Of the second, there beganne to be some in the end of the second century. The third began about the yeere 260. The fourth shortly after Augustines time. The fifth (for he knew not how to distinguish betwixt Metropolitans, whom hee outskippeth, and Patriarches) sometimes before the Councell of Nice. And how is all this proued? It is strange to see, how strong some mens conceits can be, when their reasons are full weake. The proofes for the parish Bishop, J hauehave before disproued. How is the second proued? Such perhaps first of all was Iulianus the tenth Bishop of Alexandria. Perhaps! But why he rather then S. Marke, or Anianus, or any other of his predecessors? Because in his time first mention is made by qqLib. 5. c. 9.Eusebius, that there were diuers Churches in that Citie, and hee Bishop of them. p. 16This would hauehave gone for a stout reason, no doubt, had not Eusebius rrLib. 2. cap. 15himselfe testified, that Saint Marke constituted the Churches in Alexandria it selfe: which euer from S. Marks time had but one Bishop at once. How is the third demonstrated? It may be this began at Alexandria with Dionysius ssAnno 260., the thirteenth Bishop of that place. Very well; perhaps, it may be; these are very good proofs. But why may it be? It seemeth to be Ieromes meaning, where he saith, that some priority in Bishops continued there from Marke to Heraclas and Dionysius. Heare Ieromes words ttAd Euagrium.: Euen at Alexandria from Marke the Euangelist, vntounto the Bishops Heraclas and Dionysius, the Presbyters alwaies hauing chosen one from among themselues, and placed him in a higher degree, called him Bishop; euen as an army chooseth a Generall. Which words Ierome wrote to magnifie the calling of Presbyters, and to prefe…re them before Deacons; both because they chose their Bishop, as also because they did elect him from among themselues, vntill Heraclas and Dionysius. But it is a world to see what is collected from these words, both by that Author, and also T. C. By that Author, first, That some priority in Bishops continued there from Marke to Heraclas and Dionysius. As if Ierome had giuen any the least signification of the lesse authority of Bishops before Heraclas, then after, and had not signified some difference onelyonly in their election. For Heraclas and Dionysius, who had been Origens schollers, and succeded him one after the other in his office of Catechist, or Teacher in Alexandria, in respect whereof, they were no more Presbyters, then Origen uuVide supr. l. 1. c. 11. §. 4.himselfe had been; notwithstanding for their excellent learning, the Presbyters (who till then had euer chosen one out of their owne number to be Bishop) made choice of these two, one after the other, although at the time of their election, they were not Presbyters. But what followeth? At Heraclas (it is probable) was a period of one sort, viz. of titular diocesan Bishops: and with Dionysius began another, viz. of ruling diocesan BB. Priority of order in one Bishop xxHad the Bishop priority of order only in respect of his parishioners?ouer a parish, seemeth to hauehave continued exclusiuely, from Marke to Iulian…s (for he was ashamed to say, that Saint Marke, who, as the same Ierome testifieth, p. 17was the Bishop of Alexandria, was but a parish Bishop:) ouer a diocesse, from Iulian… to Heraclas …, and the maiority of ruling in the diocesse, to hauehave … with Dionysius. O acumen! But the proofe is admirable, and the conclusion passeth all. The proofe is this: Nothing l…teth vsus, but that thus we may probably thinke. More is the pitie. For true learning and a sound iudgement, would hauehave let you from entertaining, and much more from broching such vnlearned and vngrounded fancies. Yea but, by this meanes, Eusebius and Ieromes relation shall well agree. I answere, though these fancies had neuer beene heard of, there had not beene so much as any shew of disagreement betwixt them.

The conclusion: Howsoeuer it is, this is certaine, that neither the one, nor the other, was knowne before these times. As if he had said; Perhaps Iulianus was the first titular Bishop. It may be the ruling diocesan Bishoppes beganne at Alexandria with Dionysius. At Heraclas, it is probable, was a period of one sort, &c. Nothing letteth vsus but that thus wee may probably thinke. But how soeuer vncertaine our premisses be, wee are resolued vponupon a certaine conclusion, it is certaine, &c. Is it not strange that so certaine a conclusion should be inferred vponupon so vncertaine premises? especialle seeing it is most certaine that before Dionysius his time, there were not onelyonly diocesan, but also Metropolitan BB.

But will you also heare what T. C. gathereth out of these words of Ierome? § 11. T. C. his collection out of Ierom… words.Godly … m…slik…d this order of giuing the name Bishoppe to one in a Church, and by all likelihood broke it: which Ieromes words yyAd Euagr.do apparently import. This custome was in the Church of Alexandria, from Saint Marke, vntill Heraclas and Dionysius: for vnlesse there were some change then, why should hee not rather hauehave said, From Saint Marke to his time? First, to his assertion, I say it is vntrue, that godly men misliked the giuing of the name Bishoppe to one in Church, neither was there any reason why they should mislike it. For first, as the name of Angels, being p. 18common to all Ministers, is by the holy Ghost appropriated to Bishops, in such sort, as though eueryevery Minister be an Angell, yet onelyonly one is the Angell of the Church: so by the same reason, Episcopi being in the scriptures a title common to al Ministers, is so appropriated to one in eueryevery Church, that whereas all Ministers are Bishops in a generall sense, one onelyonly is the Bishop of that Church: neither was it arrogancy, but modesty rather in Bishops, who assumed this name. For whereas in the Scriptures they are called sometimes the Angels of the Churches, sometimes the Apostles of the Churches, sometimes foreign, Rulers, sometime foreign, sometimes episcopi, they contented themselues with the title of least honour, and left the name foreign, importing the honour of the Ministery in generall, to other Ministers. Neither is there any more reason (as D Raynolds aaConf. p. 462.also saith) why the appropriating of the name Bishop to the Angels of the Churches, should be misliked, then of giuing the name Minister to Presbyters, which is common to Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons. Besides, it is most certaine, that in the writings of Ignatius, and others, who liued in, or neere the Apostles times, the name episcopus was appropriated to the Angel of ech Church. Ierome plainly testifieth, that from S. Mark… time, who was the first Bishop, whom three other succeeded in the Apostles times; one, who was set in a superior degree, was called Bishop. But that the custome of giuing this name to one, in the Church, (which from S. Marks time had continued) should begin to be misliked in the time of Heraclus and Dionysius, is against reason; vnlesse it may be thought, that the estimation of Bishops then decreased; which ill agreeth with H I. conceit. What antient Writer mentioning Dionysius, doth not cal him Bishop of Alexandria? Eusebius so termeth him. Athanasius, Chron. …n. 251. & hist. l. 6.35. &c. Athanas. de sentent. Dionysij Episcopi Alexandrini.who was one of his successors, doth not only cal him Bishop oftētimes, but also acknowledgeth him to hauehave bin a Metropolitan B. or rather Patriarch. For when as the Bishops of Pentapolis began to fauor the heresie of Sab…llicus, Dionysius to whose charge those Churches did appertaine, p. 19sought to reform them, You hauehave heard T. C. assertion.

His reason is this, some change there was therefore in the name Bishop. How weake a reason this is I shal not need to note, seeing I hauehave shewed wherein the change was, there being lesse likelihood of alceration in this kind, then in any other. For could any man at that time mislike, that the Bishop of Alexandria should be called a Bishop, seeing at that time he was without the mislike of any a Metropolitan Bishop, yea a Patriarch?

But to returne to H. I. who saith his Diocesan L. Bishop ruling alone, § 12. H. I. diocesan BB. when they began,who was not established in Ambrose, Ierome, and Augustines time, tooke place soone after. And how is this proued? He saith, hee doubts not of it: though he be not able to shew, neither where, nor when, nor by whom, nor how the Bishops authority was increased after Augustines times. What if in Augustines time the authority and preheminence of Bishops was abated and restrained, namely in the fourth Councell of Carthage, more then euer before? For whereas the antient Canons referre the power both of ordination and iurisdiction to the Bishop, without mentioning the assistance of the Presbytery: And whereas Bishoppes before, such as were peaceable and well disposed, did voluntarily vse the aduice and assistance of their clergy: by that Councell the assistance of the clergy, both in ordination and iurisdiction in the Churches of Africk, became necessary. Neither doe I know any reason, why the authority of diocesan Bishops after Augustines time should bee thought to hauehave increased. For as by the lawfull authority of Christian Kings & Princes, to whom they were subordinate, in regard of the cōmon good of the kingdom, whereof they were mēbers: so much more by y^• vsurped supremacy of the B. of Rome, after the yeer 607. y^• authority of bishops was lessened & impaired.

We are to come to his fift step,Of Patriarchs, and when they began. which is of patriarchal BB. but he hath cleane marred the staires that the refuter and his consorts vse to talke of, whereby the Bishoppes of Rome, from being as they say a parish Bishop, did arise to the papacy; partly by denying such BB. as he esteemeth ours to be, p. 20to hauehave been till after Augustines time; and partly, by outskipping the Metropolitanes. For it cannot be denied, but that there were diocesan Bishoppes, such as ours be, before there were Metropolitanes, or Primates actually; and there were Metropolitanes before there were Patriarches. Now it would be knowne,Conc. Nic. can. 6. when Patriarches begun. In the Councel of Nice (held about the yeere three hundred twentie foure) it is acknowledged to hauehave been an antient custome, which there was ratified, that the Bishop of Alexandria should hauehave authority of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis: and the like custome for the Bishop of Rome in the West, and of Antioch in the East is mentioned; and the antient priuiledges to each Church, espcially to each Metropolis reserued. To say nothing of Rome, whereof the Papists say too much: it is plaine by that testimony of the Nicene Councell, of Epiphanius before alleaged, of Athanasius euen now cited, that the Bishops of Alexandria had of old, long before their time, patriarchall authority. For that of Antioch, the testimony of Ignatius added to the authority of the Nicene Councell,Ignat. Epist. ad Rom. is sufficient, calling himselfe the Bishop of Syria; whereby we cannot conceiue him to hauehave been lesse then an Archbishop. Now if I should aske H.I. or this Refuter, when Metropolitanes first began; they would not be able truly to assigne their originall after the Apostles times. And therefore cunningly were they omitted by H. I. though I cannot accuse him of any great skill in making a doubt, whether Caesarea in the Councell of Nice, be reckoned as one of the foure seats of the Patriarches. For expresse mention is made of Aeli…, which was the new name giuen by Adrian to Ierusalem;Conc. Nic. c. 7. to which, according to antient custom, the next place of honor after Antioch was granted; the proper dignity notwithstanding to the Metropolis (which indeed was Caesarea) being reserued. But if Metropolitanes had not their beginning after the Apostles times, as no man is able to shew they had, then can it not be doubted, but that diocesan Bishops, much more were in the Apostles times: for eueryevery Metropolitā was originally B. of his peculiar diocesse, p. 21being not actually a Metropolitan, vntill diuers Churches in the same prouince, being constituted, there was a consociation among themselues, and subordination of them to him, as their primate.

There was therefore no such difference betweene the first two ages of the Churches, and those which followed, as that either H. I. or the Refuter should restraine the times of the primitiue Church, either to the end of the second century, or of the first, with hope to escape that way. Wherefore what proofes I bring from the third or fourth, yea or fifth century, for the superiority of Bishops, they are to be esteemed such as doe directly and sufficiently proue the question, vnlesse they shall be able to shew, not onelyonly that no such thing was in vse, but also that it was not intended in the Apostles time, and the age following: for what was receiued and practised by generall consent in all Christendome, so soone as God gaue peace vntounto his Church, was vndoubtedly desired and intended from the beginning.

The second corner of his first starting hole,§ 13. The Refuter would restraine the question to the seuen Angels onelyonly. wherewith the second also meeteth, is, that the question is of the seuen Angels . And what, of no other? Is it not lawfull to ascend from the hypothesis, to the thesis? especially when it is confessed by the Refuter, that the primitiue Churches were all of the like constitution? And therefore what may be said either of the seuen Angels, in respect of the substance of their calling, may be concluded of other Bishops: and what may be said of the office of other Bishoppes in the primitiue Church, may be verified of these Angels.

The third, that I must proue these Angels to hauehave had sole power of ordination and iurisdiction: which also is repeated in his second euasion. But where doe I say in all the sermon, that the Bishops had the sole power of ordination and iurisdiction? Where doe I deny either that the BB. did, or might vse the assistance of their Presbyters, for either of both, or that in the defect of Bishops, both the one and the other might be performed by Presbyters? In a word, where doe I deny all power either of ordination or iurisdiction to Presbyters? p. 22But let the Reader vnderstand, that there are two maine calumniations, whereby this Resuter and his consorts doe vse to disgrace my Sermon with their followers. The one, that I hold the tenure of our episcopal function so to be iure diuino, as though no other manner of gouernment were any way, or any where lawfull. The other, that J ascribe so the sole power of of ordination and iurisdiction to BB. as though the Presbyters had no iurisdiction, or as though those Churches had no lawful Ministers, which hauehave not such BB. to ordaine them.

His other, foreign, or starting hole, is that which hee hath already foure times runne into;His second starting hole. and making vse of it now the fifth time, in the beginning of the next section, desireth the Reader, that it may not be tedious to him, that now the fifth time he doth finde fault with me, for not concluding what hee (according to his forced analysis) would hauehave concluded: though all men see, I doe directly prooue, what before was propounded, for the proof of my first assertion, viz. that the Angels, or BB. of the primitiue Church were diocesan Bishops; and (for the substance of their calling) such as ours be. Hauing therefore prooued that their Churches were dioceses, and themselues diocesan; it remained that J should proue that they were, as well as ours, superior to other Ministers in degree, &c: which if I did not endeuor to proue directly, he might hauehave had some quarrell against me.