A Defense of the Sermon Preached at the Consecration of the Bishop of Bath, Book 3 · Chapter 4

A Defense of the Sermon Preached at the Consecration of the Bishop of Bath · Book 3 · Chapter 4

p. 62CHAP. IIII. That Bishops were superior in power,The BB. superioritie in power proued by the testimonie of Ierome. Aduers. Lucifer. and first in the power of ordination.

(Serm. sect. 5. pag. 36. Let vsus see if Bishops were not also superiour in power. Hearken to Ierome. The safety of the Church dependeth on the dignitie of the chiefe Priest or Bishop: to whom if there be not yeelded exors & ab omnibus eminens potestas, a peerelesse power, and eminent aboue all, there will be so many Schismes in the Churches, as there be Priests.)

THis testimony is handled by him as Sir Christopher Blunts head was vsed, after his apprehension; first healed, and then cut off: For first, he explanes the testimonie, and then reiects it. He restraineth Ieromes speech to the Church in his owne time, viz. in the end of the fourth age, saying, That no man p. 63can without open violence stretch it further. Which is as vnlearned a shift, as euer was heard of. As though Ierome had spoken onelyonly of that which was in his time, and not of that which in his judgement ought to be. Was it Ieromes judgement, that the superioritie of Bishops was needfull for the auoiding of Schismes in his time onelyonly? doth he not plainly teach, that the superioritie of Bishops began in the Apostles times, and that at the first they were ordained for auoiding of Shismes? For the former, doth he not say, that Iames was Bishop of Ierusalem, Timothe of Ephesus, and Titus of Creet? Doth he not say, that euer since Saint Marks time, there hauehave been Bishops placed in a superiour degree aboue the Presbytes? Doth he not call the superioritie of BB. a tradition Apostolicall? and doth he not say, that it began in the whole world, when diuisions began in the Church, saying, I am of Paul, &c. which was in the Apostles time? &c.

As touching the latter, he saith, indeed that at the first the Churches (vnderunder the Apostles, before BB. were ordained) were gouerned by the common Counsell of Presbyters. But whereas afterwards one was elected, who should be set ouer the rest,Ad Euagr. In Schismatis remedium factum est, It was prouided as a remedie against Schisme, lest eueryevery man drawing after him, should rend in peeces the Church of Christ. And least we should think, that afterwards to be referred to the times after the Apostles; he addeth in the next words, Nam & Alexandriae, For euen at Alexandria, euer since Mark the Euangelist (who died 5. or 6. yeares before Peter, and Paul, and almost 40. yeares before Saint Iohn,) the Presbyters hauehave alwaies chosen one, and placed him in a higher degree, and called him Bishop. In Tit. 1.Titus 1The like he hath in Titum 1. that when diuisions began in the Church, it was decreed in the whole world, that one should be set ouer the rest, to whom omnis Ecclesiae cura pertineret, & Schismatum semina tollerentur, the care of the whole Church, or all the care of the Church should appertaine, and that the seeds of Schismes might be taken away, or as he speakth afterwards, vt dissensionum p. 64plantaria euellerentur ad vnum omnem solicitudinem esse dela… ▪ that the first plants or sets of dissensions might be plucked out, the whole care was committed to one. It is most plaine therefore, that in Ieromes judgement, the superioritie of BB. was needfull for the auoiding of Schisme, not onelyonly in his own time, but euen in the Apostles times, when Bishops were first ordained. And as he teacheth, that BB. were instituted for auoiding of Schisme,Aduers. Lucifer. so his judgement in the place alleaged was, that for the same cause they are necessarily to be reteined: Yea, he saith, Salus Ecclesia, The safetie of the Church dependeth on this dignitie of Bishops, and that vnlesse a peerelesse and supereminent power be giuen vntounto them, there would be as many Schismes in the Churches, as there be Priests.

§. 2. The refuters answer to the testimonie of Ier…e.But the refuter wants no reasons (J warrant you) to restraine Ieromes words to Ieromes time: For, To stretch it to the Apostles times (saith he) were to make Ierome a wilde headed … indeed. Thus Ierome, if he agree not with the conceipts of some giddie heads, shall be judged wild-headed. And why so I pray you? For three reasons. First, because Ierome in diuers places disputeth, and concludeth that BB. and Presbyters are equall by the word of God. Whereunto I answeare, that this is all which Ierome in this cause saith, that Bishops, and Presbyters are the … in the Scriptures. His meaning is, that before Bishops were ordained, the names Episcopus & Presbyter were confounded, and the same men were called Presbyters, and Bishops; which I do not denie. But no wheres he saith, that Bishops and Presbyters were equall: for before BB. were ordained, he could not say that Presbyters and Bishops were equall: he saith they were the same. After Bishops were ordained, which he acknowledgeth to hauehave been done in the Apostles times, and that by the Apostles, for which cause he calleth their institution, a tradition Apostolicall; he plainly confesseth, that one, who was chosen from among the Presbyters, and was called the Bishop of the Church, to hauehave been placed in a higher degree. But hereof we shall hauehave occasion hereafter p. 65to intreat more fully.

His second reason: Ierome maketh Heraclas and Dionysius in Alexandria the first authors of aduancing one minister aboue another in power. The words are, Nam & Alexandriae á Marco Euangelista vsus que ad Heraclam & Dionysium Episcopos, Presbyteri semper vnum ex se electum in …ccelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant, quo modo si exercitus imperatorem faciat. For euen at Alexandria euer since Mark the Euangelist, vntill the Bishops Heraclas and Dionysius, the Presbyters hauehave alwaies called one, being chosen out of themselues, and placed him in a higher degree, Bishop; euen as an armie chooseth their chiefetaine. Which words as so far from giuing the least inckling of the Refuters conceit, that Heraclas and Dionysius should be the first authors of aduancing Bishops, that they plainely declare the Bishops euer from Saint Marks time to Heraclas and Dionysius, to hauehave been placed in a higher degree aboue the Presbyters, as the generall aboue the souldiours.Lib. 2.529. And truely of the two, T. C. conceit, who collecteth the cleane contrarie to our refuter, hath the better glosse: for, he imagineth, that vntill Heralas, and Dionysius, they who were chosen from among the Presbyters, were called Bishops, but then godly men misliking the appropriating of the name to one in a Church, ceased to call him so. And he might hauehave added with no lesse colour out of the words, that the Bishops till then had been placed in a higher degree aboue other ministers, but then good men misliking their aduancement aboue their fellow ministers, brought them a peg lower. To these conjectures the words would seeme to them that vnderstand not the right meaning thereof, (which heretofore I hauehave declared) to giuegive some colour of likelyhood, were it not that the practize of the Church did openly proclaime the contrarie. Wherefore, of all collectors, my Refuter shal beare away the bell: For, he that can collect out of these words, Euer vntill Heraclas and Dionysius, the Bishop was placed in a higher degree, that Heraclas and Dionysius were the first that aduanced the Bishops, needs not doubt to collect, p. 66quidlibet, ex quolibet, what himselfe will, out of any thing whatsoeuer.

Ad Euagr.His third reason that Ierome in the same Epistle doth teach the contrarie, is most false: For Ierome plainly confesseth the Bishop to be superiour in the power of ordination, and in the end concludeth, that what Aaron and his sonnes, and the Leuites were in the temple, the same let Bishops Presbyters, and Deacons, challenge to themselues in the Church.

§ 3.The Refuter hauing thus salued this testimonie of Ierome, in the end rejects it: For if this be true, that vnlesse the Bishop hauehave a peerelesse power, there will be as many Schismes in the Church, as there be Priests; then by the like reason Bellarmine may argue, if there be not a peerelesse power giuen to the Pope, there will be as many Schismes in the Churches, as there ar Bishops.

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

Thus Ierome, on whose only authoritie among the ancient, the Disciplinarians in this cause relie, when he speaketh any thing for the BB. his credit is no better with them, then if he had spoken for the Popes supremacie. But this is his desperate malice against the holy calling of Bishops, whereby he seeketh eueryevery where to parallele the Christian superioritie of BB. with the Antichristian supremacy of the Pope. But all in vaine: For though it be true in Ieromes conceit, that if there were no Bishops, there would be as many Schismes almost as Priests; yet it doth not follow, th…t if there were no Pope, there would bee as many Schismes as Bishops. For first, experience teacheth how to judge of this matter: for vntill the yeare 607. the Pope neuer attained to his supremacie; and yet the Church was more free from Schismes, before that time, then since, whereas contrariwise, when there were no Bishops for a short season, in the Apostles times, in most of the Churches, eueryevery one of the Presbyters, as Ierome aaIn Tit. 1….Titus 1speaketh, sought to draw Disciples after him: which he supposeth to hauehave been the occasion of instituting Bishops.

Secondly, there is great oddes betweene BB. and the p. 67greatest number of Presbyters. One Bishop, say the Fathers of the Africane councill bbConc. Afr. c. 22. Carth. graec. c. 55., may ordaine many Presbyters, but one man fit to be a Bishop is hard to be found.

Thirdly, before there was one supreme or vniuersall Bishop, there was vnitie and communion betweene all the Bishops in Christendome, whose course to preserue vnitie in the Churches and to auoid Schisme, was to communicate the confessions of their faith one with an other by their communicatorie, pacificall or formed letters. And if any were in error, they sought first seuerally by their letters to reclaime them; and if they preuailed not, they assembled in Councils either to reduce them to vnitie, or to depose them.

Cyprian saith ccLi 4. Epist. 9., that the Catholike Church is one, not rent into Schismes nor diuided, but eueryevery where knit togither & coharentium sibi inuicem Sacerdotum glutino copulata, and coupled with the glew as it were of Bishops agreeing mutually among themselues. And in another place ddLib. 3. Epist. 13., which before hath beene alledged; Therefore is the bodie of Bishops copious, coupled together with the glew of mutuall concord, and with the bond of vnitie, that if any of our companie shall be authour of an Heresie, & shall endeuour to rend the flocke of Christ, and to make hauocke thereof, the rest may helpe &c. Whereas contrariwise, if there were one supreme and vniuersall Bishop, whose authoritie were greater then of generall Councils, as the Papists teach; when he doth erre, who should reclame him, when he is exorbitant, who should reduce him into the way, when he shall draw with him innumerable troopes of soules into Hell, who may say vntounto him, Domine, cur ita facis? Syr, why do you so? And as the Church is to be carefull for auoiding Schisme, and preseruation of itselfe in the vnitie of truth, which may be prouided for, as it was wont, yea, better then it was wont (where are Christian, and Orthodoxall magistrates) by the BB. singularitie of preeminence in eueryevery seuerall Church, and mutuall concord of them in the truth: so must it be as carefull to auoid conspiring & consenting p. 68in vntruth. But where there is one supreme and vniuersall Bishop, when he erreth and goeth astray, he becommeth as we see in the Papacie, the head of a Catholike Apostasie from Christ. So that this pretended remedie against Schisme, causing a Catholike apostasy, is as much, or more, to be auoided then Schisme it selfe, the remedie being far worse then the feared maladie.

§ 4. What the power is wherein BB. be superiour to other Ministers.(Serm. sect. 6. pag. 37. This power is twofold, the power of ordination and of iurisdiction, &c. 19. lines to, Titus in Creet.)

Where I place the power wherein Bishops are superior to Presbyters in these two things; the Reader is to vnderstand, that I mention the principall, and most essentiall: for otherwise, ancient writers mention eeDamas. epist. de Chorepiscop. Hicronym. de 7. ordin. eccles. et aduers. Lucifer. Leo epist. BB.other prerogatiues of Bishops, wherein their superioritie doth consist; as by imposition of hands to confirme them that are baptized, and publickely to reconcile the penitents, to consecrate Churches &c. of some whereof Ierome indeed saith, they did belong ad honorem potius Sacerdotij, quàm ad legis necessitatem, Aduers. Lucifer.rather to the honor of the Priesthood, then to the necessitie of law. But what saith the Refuter? Now at the last yet, saith he, (it seemeth that hee hath been long delaied, or that he hath greatly longed, in hope to do great matters, to deale in this matter of ordination) let vsus see, how it is proued that Bishops must hauehave sole power of ordination. But where good sir, do I say they must hauehave the sole power of ordination, which you hauehave so oft objected, and now againe do repeat? make you no conscience of publishing vntruthes? cannot BB. be superior to other ministers in the power of ordination, and jurisdiction, which is the thing which I maintaine, vnlesse they hauehave the sole power? or do I heere dispute what p. 69Bishops must hauehave, when I onelyonly shew what the ancient Bishops were wont to hauehave? If he shall say, that vnlesse they had the sole power of ordination, they had not the superioritie which our Bishops hauehave; I answer, that our BB. hauehave no more the sole power of ordination, then the ancient Bishops had. And this I added in the Sermon, that although the power of ordination was held in the primitiue Church to be so peculiar to Bishops, as that ordinarilie and regularlie the ordination was not thought lawfull, which was not done by a Bishop: yet it doth not follow, but that extraordinarily, and in case of necessitie, Presbyters might ordaine. Howbeit, I must confesse, I am not able to alleage any approued examples thereof. If the Refuter can, which I do more then doubt of, he shall do well to produce them: it may tend to the credit of some other Churches, it cannot be preiudiciall to the cause which I maintaine

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

For as touching my first argument;§. 5. Ad pag. 92. BB. superiour in the power of ordination. The 1. proofe. whereas he frameth for me this consequence, It hath been the receiued opinion in the Church of God, euer since the Apostles times, that the right of ordination of Presbyters, is such a peculiar prerogatiue of Bishops, as that ordinarilie, and regularlie, there could be no ordination, but by a Bishop: therefore BB. hauehave sole authoritie of ordination, (he should hauehave said, therefore they are superiour to other ministers in the power of ordination:) he passeth by this consequence, though he would faine perswade his Reader, that it is lyable to (he cannot tell what) just exception: and only insisteth on the antecedent, which is the assumption of his prolixe syllogisme. But it is worth p. 70the hearing, how he doth disproue it. Forsooth It halteth downe right, hauing no strength but from a false supposition (and so proued to be) that there were alwaies Diocesan Bishops.

Here the Refuter, if he would hauehave said any thing to satisfie his Reader, should hauehave produced some approued example of ordination, either in the Apostles times, or since, performed by Presbyters without a Bishop; whereby he might hauehave disproued my assertion: but not being able so to doe, he betaketh himselfe to his ordinarie trade of answearing by meere cauillations. He talketh of a supposition, whereon the assumption is grounded; when as the speech is simple, and categoricall as they speake, and not hypotheticall; and the effect of his answeare is not the deniall of a supposition, but the taking away of the subiect of the question: as if he should say; Bishops were not, therefore they had not this power: For where he addeth Diocesan, that is spoken vnseasonably: for the question now is not what their authoritie was extensiuè: whether to a Diocese or not, which in this point is not materiall; but what it was intensiuè in respect of other ministers. By that starting hole therefore he cannot escape: especially, if it be added, that the supposition is not (as he vntruely saith) false: for that errour he will as I hope recant, when he shall hauehave read, what I hauehave alledged for the proofe of Dioceses and Diocesan Bishops. And whereas he saith, he hath proued it to be false; that also is vntrue: for he neuer went about it. Nec ausus est: nec potuit, onelyonly he rejected it in a glorious maner, as being so manifestly false, that he should not need to disproue it. But suppose for a little while, that the refuters, and the rest of the challengers conceit were true, that there were no Bishops but parishionall, and that the Presbyters joyned to them were lay elders: it would then be knowne, when the pastorall charge was voide, who did ordaine the new Bishop or Pastor. You will say, that is alreadie defined. It is one of the maine positions which the great challengers hauehave offred to prooue, that eueryevery parish hath within it selfe authoritie to elect, ordaine depose, and depriue p. 71their Minister: Not that the whole parish doth ordaine, but onelyonly the Presbyterie. Very good: this then is the effect of the new Disciplinarians conceit, that the power of ordination belongeth ordinarily neither to Bishops, nor to other ministers, but to their Presbyterie consisting of lay elders. But if they can proue by any one approued example, that lay elders had euer, or at any time, right to ordaine, or to impose hands, I will yeeld in the whole cause.

My second proofe he hath peruerted,My second proofe. proportioning it to his owne strength: for he should hauehave framed it thus.

If the power of ordination were not in the Presbyters of Ephesus and Creet, neither before Timothe and Titus were sent, but in the Apostles; nor after, but in the Bishops (that is to say, in Timothe and Titus, and their successors); then the power of ordination is a prerogatiue peculiar to Bishops, wherein they are superior to other ministers.

But both the parts of the antecedent are true: therefore the consequent.

The former part of the antecedent I prooue by Pauls substituting Timothe at Ephesus, and Titus in Creet, to that end, that they might ordaine elders; notwithstanding that there were diuerse Presbyters in both those Churches before. Whereto he answereth, that it had been lawfull for the Presbyters, and people to hauehave ordained: but at the first, they were lesse fit for the purpose, then an Euangelist.

That the people sometimes hauehave had some stroake in election of their Bishops, I do not denie; but that they euer had any right to ordaine, can neuer be proued. That the Presbyters had right to hauehave done it, he should hauehave declared. But what Presbyters doth he speake of? ministers? they I trust, if the new conceit be true, were confined ech man to his own parish; neither might they intermeddle in other parishes, euerie parish hauing sufficient authoritie within it selfe: neither can it be thought, p. 72that the Presbyters of latter times should be fit, and that they which were ordained by the Apostles themselues, were not fit for the execution of their power? assuredly, if it were not fit for them to ordaine, but for Timothe and Titus; by the same reason, neither is it fit for Presbyters afterwards, but for Bishops, who succeeded Timothe and Titus. Jf he say, the lay Presbyters and the people had right to ordaine; he must first proue (which he will neuer be able to doe) that euer there were such Presbyters; and then he must proue, that they and the people had right to ordaine ministers: which when he hath performed, he may hope to proue any thing.

The latter part of the antecedent, I proue thus: Who were the successors of Timothe and Titus for the gouernment of Ephesus and Creet, to them after their decease was their power of ordination deriued:

The Bishops of Ephesus and Creet were the successessours of Timothe and Titus for the gouernment of those Churches, and not Presbyters. Therefore to the BB. and not to the Presbyters, was the power of Ordination deriued.

Hereto he answereth that Timothe and Titus, were Euangelists, and not Bishops, and therefore that which followeth, of deriuing their authoritie, to their successors, is meerely idle. Thus no part of my syllogisme is answeared, vnlesse it be the conclusion. But to answeare his reason, whereby he goeth about, … cl… pel…ere: their being Euangelists, whiles they attended the Apostle in his peregrinations, and were not deputed to any one place, doth not hinder, but that they might be and were Bishops, (as all antiquitie with one consent testifieth) when they were assigned to certaine Churches. Neither is it greatly materiall, as touching the force of this argument, whether they were Euangelists, or Bishops: seeing the power which they had of ordination and jurisdiction, was not to dye with them; but to be transmitted to them, who should succeed them in the p. 73gouernment of the Church. Now that the Bishops of Ephesus and Creet, and so of all other Churches, did succeed Timothe and Titus, and other Apostolicall men, who were the first gouernors of the Churches; is a most certaine truth, as the singular succession of Bishops in those Churches from the Apostles times, doth ineuitably euince. But hereof I shall hauehave better occasion hereafter to speake. Now that the Presbyters were not their successors, it is euident: for they had the selfesame authoritie (and no greater) vnderunder the Bishops, who were successors to Timothe and Titus, which before they had vnderunder them. For they which had no other authoritie after them, then they had vnderunder them, could not be their successors.

(Serm Sect. 7. p. 37. They obiect 1. Tim. 4.14 Neglect not the gift which is in thee, which was giuen thee by imposition of hands of the Presbytery &c. to ex authoritate pag. 39.)

MY answere to this testimony out of 1. Tim. 4. is,§. 7. Their obiection out of 1. Tim. 4 14. answered. Ad pag. 93.1 Tim 4:14 That howsoeuer the Presbyterians doe vponupon this place especially build the authoritie of their pretended Presbyteries, yet this text maketh not for them.

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

If there be but two expositions which are giuen of the word Presbyterie, neither whereof doth fauour their presbyteries; then the authoritie of their Presbyteries cannot be concluded out of this place. But neither of the two expositions do fauour their Presbyteries:

Therefore their authoritie cannot be concluded hence.

p. 74The exceptions which he taketh against this answere are very friuolous. As first , that how many expositions soeuer any text in the conceit of men may admit, the holy ghost except by way of allegorie intendeth but one. Be it so: but yet there may be question, which of the diuerse expositions which be giuen, is the sense of the holy Ghost: vnlesse that must needs be alwaies the meaning of the holy Ghost, which the refuter fancieth. For my part, I did not take vponupon me to determine, whether sense is the more likely: Jt was sufficient for me, that whereas there be but these two expositions which are or can be giuen, neither of both maketh for the pretended Presbyteries. His first exception therefore is to no purpose.

Now that the former exposition vnderstanding by Presbyterium the Priest-hood or office of a Presbyter, maketh nothing for their Presbyteries, it is more then euident. And that this exposition, which so plainly defeateth their Presbyteries, is very probable; I shewe first, because the word is in that sense oft vsed, though not in the new testament, yet in greeke writers of the Church. It suffiseth the Refuter, that it is not vsed in that sense in any other place of Scripture: and yet himselfe saying that the word is no wheres else vsed in all the Scriptures, doth as much prejudge his own exposition, as this. How be it I do not deny, but the worde is else where vsed in the Scriptures; onelyonly this I say, that there is no other place, wherein it can be drawne to signifie the Christian Presbyterie, meaning either the company of Presbyters, or the office of a Presbyter. This then being the onelyonly place where it is so vsed, we must not expect parallele places in the Scripture to confirme either sense. Secondly I shew that this may be the sense, because not onelyonly diuerse in former times as Ierome, Primasius, Anselmus, Haymo, Lyra, but Caluin also doe so expound it. To this his answere is worse then friuolous, that though these writers doe so expound it, yet Doctor Bilson doth not say that therefore it may be so vnderstood. And why so I pray you? p. 75because he confesseth that Chrysostome, Theodoret and other Graecians expound it of the persons which did ordaine, not of the function whereto Timothe was ordained. Doth not Doctor Bilson say it may be so vnderstood, when more then once he mentioneth it as one of the receiued expositions of that place, approued by Caluin himselfe the chiefe patron (for I must not say founder) of the Presbyterian Discipline? neither doth his relating of Chrysostomes exposition proue that he rejecteth the other; no more, then his alledging of Ieromes interpretation doth argue, that he refuseth that of Chrysostomes: but reciting both aaPag. 129.252indifferently he referreth it to the Readers choise whither to embrace.

But let vsus heare how the Refuter confuteth this interpretation.§. 8. The former exposition, of Presbyterium, viz. that it may signifie the office of a Presbyter, defended. The exposition of Ierome, Primasius, Anselme; Haymo is not to be rested vponupon; because where Paul saith the grace giuen by Prophecie, they say, the grace of Prophecie, plainely mistaking the Apostle: as who should say, because they mistooke the meaning of the word Prophecie, therefore they erred in expounding the word Presbyterie, by which reason we may argue that hee which mistaketh some one thing, vnderstadeth nothing aright. What if the refuter himselfe doth mistake? for it is not all one to say the gift giuen foreign by Prophecie, and according to former Prophecies , as he expoundeth it. But by Prophecie, is, by the Reuelation and Direction of the holy Ghost; whereby the Bishops, who were ordained by the Apostles, were designed and chosen. But what if they did not mistake? might not they meane by the gift of Prophecie, the gift which was giuen by Prophecie? yea, was not the gift of Prophecying, and preaching aright, which Paul exhorteth him not to neglect (for he continueth the exhortation begun in the words going before bb2. Tim. 4.13.2 Tim 4:13attend to reading, exhortation and Doctrine) the gift which was giuen him by Prophecie at his ordination? Certes, Bullinger thinketh the words may so be vnderstood. Donū quod tibi delegatū est ad prophet andum. p. 76and this is all which Ierome saith, Prophetiae gratiam habebat tum ordinatione Episcopatus. But what if some of them did not call it the grace of Prophecie? Anselmus hath no such words, but calleth it gratiam Episcopalis of…icij, which by prophecie was giuen him at his ordination. But be it, that their exposition were not to be rested in, because of their other mistaking; what is this to Lyras and Caluins exposition, which is the same? What more? The three last, Anselmus, Haymo, and Lyra follow Ierome hand ouer head: For though they expound the word of the office, yet they reade it not Presbyterij, but Presbyteri. But was not this exception taken hand ouer head, and at all aduentures? did not Anselmus read Presbyterij? let his owne words testifie: For first, he readeth Pauls words thus: Quae gr…tia est data tibi per propheliam, cum impositione manuum Presbyterij; and then expoundeth them after this manner ccAnselm. in 1. Tim. 4.14.1 Tim 4:14: He speaketh of that imposition of hands, which was vsed at his ordination; which imposition of hands was Presbyterij, of the Presbyterie, or Priesthood; and then giueth two reasons of the word, either because by this imposition he receiued the Presbyterie, that is the office of a Bishop; for a Bishop is often called Presbyter by the Apostles, and likewise a Presbyter is called a Bishop: or because it was the imposition of the hands of a Presbyter, that is Paul dd2. Tim. 1.6.2 Tim 1:6, who imposed hands vponupon him: for so Peter and Iohn call themselues in their Epistles. So that he readeth Presbyterij; though in one of his explanations he expoundeth it, as if the Apostle by Presbyterij, did meane Presbyteri. The ordinarie glosse indeed readeth Presbyteri, but so doth not Lyra: For expounding the word, he saith, Est autem Presbyterium, the Presbyterie is the dignitie or office of a Presbyter, & accipitur hic Presbyterium pro Episcopatu and Presbyterie or Priesthood here is taken for the office of a Bishop. Thus you see how faithfully he hath dealt with these authors. It may be he will deale more truelie with Caluin. For wheras I alleage his iudgemēt in his Institutions, vnderstanding Paul, not as if he spake of the Colledge of Seniors, but of the ordination it self: as if he had p. 77said; Endeuour that the grace which by imposition of hands thou didst receiue when I made thee Presbyter, be not in vaine: he saith thus, that Caluin in his former writings, leaued to that sense of the word, I deny not: but in his latter times, and namely in his Commentary on that place, though he say that exposition is not much eeMuch is foisted in by the Refuter. Caluin saith, Non malè. Ad pag. 49.amisse, yet hee affirmeth, that they which vnderstand it of the Colledge of Presbyters, in his iudgement thinke rightly of it. Which answere consisteth of forged cauillations. For first he would make the Reader beleeue, that Caluins iudgement in his Institutions, is the opinion of his younger head, and that his iudgement in his Commentary is to be preferred, as proceeding from riper yeeres. It would therefore first be knowne, whether that edition of his Institutions, which I alleaged set forth by himselfe, or his Commentaries on the Epistle to Timothy, be the latter. Is it not euident that he wrote that Cōmentary in King Edwards time, whiles the Duke of Somerset was liuing? Whereas that edition of his Institutions, was set forth by him in the time of Queene Elizabeth. Againe, where Caluins iudgement seemeth to vary, who doubteth but that is to be esteemed his setled iudgement wherein he rested, which is set downe in the Jnstitutions, whereunto himselfe doth referre his Reader for this purpose: being indeed a most accurate and elaborate worke, often reuiewed, and polished by him? And therefore though the first draught of his Institutions was made in his younger daies, which in processe of time he did by little and little bring to perfection; yet the last edition much differing from the first, is as it were his last resolution, for those things which are contained therein. Whereas therefore of the two senses, which in his Commentaries he giueth of the word Presbytery, misliking neither, he maketh choice in his Institutions of that which vnderstandeth the office, and plainely reiecteth the other, which thereby vnderstandeth the Colledge of Presbyters, and that to proue, that sometimes no more then one did impose hands, which hee confirmeth by the Apostles owne testimony, who saith, that himselfe and no p. 78more did impose hands on Timothy, and that the grace which was giuen him, was by the imposition of Pauls hands, it cannot be denied, that Caluins iudgement wherein he rested, was, that by the Presbytery, not the Colledge, but the office is meant.

§. 9.But leauing other men, Refuter the is pleased to appeale to my conscience, and to appose me what gouerneth the genuine case, foreign, of the Presbytery. I answere, first, that it may be gouerned of the word gift, which trai…ction of words, the learned tongues doe better beare then the English, which for the most part disposeth words according to the construction: and yet the English will beare it well enough, if the words betweene foreign gift, and Presbytery, be inclosed in a parenthesis. Neglect not the gift which was in thee (which was giuen thee by prophecie, with imposition of hands) of priesthood or Presbytery. But indeed Ierome, Anselme, and Caluin, and the rest, to whom I adde Erasmus, vnderstand it as gouerned of the words next going before, without any traiection, with imposition of hands, that is ordination of priesthood, (for foreign and foreign, is all one euen in the iudgement of the Refuter) that is, when thou wast ordained Presbyter. So saith Ierome, Cum ordinations episcopatus, when thou wert ordained Bishoppe. Anselme; This imposition was presbyterij, of the priesthood, because by this imposition of hands (meaning ordination) hee receiued the Presbytery, that is the office of a Bishop. I vnderstand, saith Caluin, the ordination it selfe: as if he should say; the grace which by imposition of hands thou d…st receiue, when I made thee Presbyter. Calum therefore vnderstandeth it to be gouerned, as if it were said, Cum ordinatione Presbyteratus. For foreign signifieth either the Senate or company of Presbyters, which in Latine we call Presbyterium, or the office, degree, and order of a Presbyter, which we call Presbyteratus.

Yea but the Refuter will shew the absurdity of this interpretation, by laying downe the order of the words in the Greeke: and yet varieth not at all from the order which p. 79I myselfe set downe. But this is but to please the simple. For he might as well require the words in Greeke and Latine, to be set downe in the order of construction, as to make the order of words in Greeke and Latine sentences to be answerable to the English. Howbeit, this exception is against his owne conceit, of the traiection of the words; it toucheth not the exposition of Ierome, Caluin, and the rest, which is without traiection.

In his conclusion, where he bids me forbeare to bleare the eyes of the Readers with an exposition against reason, and mine owne conscience ; he wrongeth me egregiously, and not me alone, but all the Authors whom I alleaged. For first, I did not deliuer this as my exposition, but faithfully recited the interpretation giuen by these Authors. Secondly, if I had rested in this interpretation, as I did not, (though I see no reason why I may not) why should it be counted against reason, and against cōscience in me, which I receiued from so approued Authors? But what a contumely is this to Ierome, Caluin, and the rest, whose exposition it is, warranted by the testimony of Paul, to say, they bleare the eies of their Readers with an exposition against reason, and their owne conscience? I wish the Refuter, vnlesse his iudgement were better, to forbeare to condemne other mens expositions, as void of reason: and vnlesse his knowledge were greater, not to measure other mens conscience by his owne. For that which is against his conscience, as not being within the compasse of his science may bee agreeable to the science, and consceince of them, who hauehave more knowledge and better iudgements. But if he would needs censure Caluins exposition as void of reason, why did he not answere Caluins reason, grounded on the authority of Saint Paul? For if Timothy were ordained by a Presbytery▪ then vndoubtedly by more then one; But Paul (saith Caluin aaC…lu. In…li…. lib. 4. cap 3. in fine.) in another place saith, that he, and not any more imposed hands on Timothy: 2. Tim 1 6.

And so much might suffice for the former exposition, sauing that by way of aduantage, something is to bee added p. 80out of Erasmus bbE…asm. in 1. Tim. 4.14.1 Tim 4:14; who also vnderstanding the word Presbytery, of the office, giueth notwithstanding another sense: This Paul saith, Thou hast not onelyonly the gift of prophecie, but also the efficacie by imposition of hands, to giuegive the spirit also to others, and that by the office of thy priesthood, namely, as thou art Bishop. And to this interpretation hee was led by force of the Greeke preposition foreign, which signifieth with, not as an instrument, but as a companion. And this may seeme to hauehave been ccAmbros. in 1. Tim. 4.1 Tim 4Ambrose his iudgement also, that Paul gratiam dari ordinatoris significat, signifieth the grace of an ordainer to be giuē. Which sense if we follow, this place maketh wholly for the Bishops authority in ordaining, this being the sense of the Apostle, that Timothy had receiued the gift of the ministery together with power to impose hands on others, by vertue of his office, as he was Bishop.

The latter exposition is of them, who vnderstand the word Presbytery, §. 10. The second exposition maketh not for the Disciplinarians.collectiuè, for a Senate or company of men. In which sense, though the word receiueth from diuers learned men, a threefold interpretation; yet in none doth it either fauour the Disciplinarians Presbytery, or preiudge the superiority of Bishoppes in the power of ordination.

For some by Presbytery, vnderstand the Apostle, as speaking of himselfe by a synecdoche, led thereunto by the Apostles testimony in the place dd2. Tim. 1.6.2 Tim 1:6before cited, where he exhorteth Timothy to stirre vp the grace which was in him by imposition, saith he, of my hands. And this is one of Anselmus his expositions, with whom Dionysius Carthus. agreeth, ioining both his expositions in one: Manuum Presbyterij, saith he, i. manuum meaerum, that is, of my hands who did ordaine the… Bishop. By which imposition, the Presbytery or priesthood was conferred vponupon thee. So that in their iudgement (wherewith Caluin also agreeth) none but Paul did impose hands in the ordination of Timothy. The second interpretation is of the Greeke Fathers, Chrysostome, Theodoret, Theophylact, and Oecumenous, who expounding the word collectiuè, doe vnderstand a senate or company of Apostles and p. 81Apostolicall men, who were either Bishops, or more then Bishops. Chrysostomes words be these eeChrys. in 1. Tim. 4.1 Tim 4, foreign, of the Presbytery: foreign: Hee doth not speake here of Presbyters, but of Bishops: for surely Presbyters did not ordaine a Bishop. Oecumenium ffOc…um. in 1. Tim. 4.1 Tim 4hath the like words; foreign. Theophylact ggTheophylact. in 1. Tim. 4.1 Tim 4; Of the Presbytery, that is, of Bishoppes. Theodoret hhTheodor. in 1. Tim. 4.1 Tim 4; He calleth them here the Presbytery, who had receiued Apostolicall grace. Neither doth any Writer that I know of, before our age, vnderstanding the word collectiuè, for a company, expound it otherwise: but conceiuing Timothy to hauehave been ordained Bishoppe by the company of Apostolicall men, who either were Bishoppes, or more then Bishoppes. Now we doe not deny, but that diuers Bishops are to concurre in the ordination of a Bishop. But that hindereth not, but that Presbyters and Deacons may be ordained by one. So are wee taught in the two first canons iiCan. Apost. 1. & 2.called Apostolicall. Let a Bishop be ordained of two or three Bishoppes. Let a Presbyter be ordained by one Bishoppe, likewise a Deacon and the rest of the clergy. This exposition therefore defeating their pretended Presbytery, is so farre from derogating from the superiority of BB. in ordaining, as that it plainly prooueth it, because the ordination of BB. wherewith Presbyters hauehave nothing to doe, belongeth to BB.

The third exposition is of Beza, and some other new Writers, who by Presbytery, vnderstand the order of Presbyters. By which name, saith Beza kkBeza in 1. Tim. 4.1 Tim 4, that whole company is signified, which did labour in the word in that Church, where this was done. Neither will I reiect this exposition, though it be new, being vnderstood of Timothy, his ordination to be a Presbyter; so that they will not deny that which Paul affirmeth, that himselfe was so principall a man in this company, as that hee doubteth not to say, that the grace which was giuen by the imposition of hands of the Presbytery ll1. Tim. 1.14.1 Tim 1:14, was giuen by the imposition of mm2. Tim. 1.6.2 Tim 1:6his hands. p. 82Which sheweth, that if any Presbyters did ioyne with Paul, it was no otherwise then as they vse to doe with BB. by the Canon nnConc. Carth. 4. c. 3.of the fourth Councell of Carthage, and by the discipline and order ooIn the booke of ordaining Priests it is appointed, that the B. with the Priests present, shall lay their hands on the head of him that is ordained.of our Church. And this answereth the first thing which the Refuter inferreth vponupon this exposition, that if Presbytery signifie a companie of seniors, as it must (for J tell you his word must stand for law) then it will follow that the power of ordination was not in one mans hand alone. For though that alone bee of his owne adding, yet it is plaine, that Paul and antient BB. had this power as much alone, as our Bishoppes.

Where I say, this place maketh nothing either for their parish Presbyteries, or lay Presbyteries whatsoeuer, hee saith,§ 11. It skilleth not now what Presbytery this was . Belike then it skilleth not, what becommeth of the maine pillar of your Discipline, so you can make any poore shift to maintaine the point which presently is in hand. But if this be the onelyonly place of scripture, which mentioneth a Christian Presbytery, on which also the Disciplinarians do principally build the authority of their pretended Presbyteries, it maketh not a little (me thinks) for the iustifying of our cause, that it maketh not at all for their Presbyteries; which (by the confession ppCalu. Instit. lib. 4. cap 3. § 16. Hoc posiremò habondum est, filos pastore… manus imposuisse Ministris.of Caluin) hauehave no right to impose hands. Neither can it bee denied, but that it is sacrilegious vsurpation, and horrible intrusion vponupon the right of the Ministery, if lay men shalt take vponupon them to ordaine by imposition of hands. Besides, it skilleth something, that the Greeke Fathers vnderstand by Presbytery, a company of Bishops: which, as it proueth the Prerogatiue of BB. in the ordaining of BB. so doth it not impeach their superioritie in ordaining Ministers. And where hee maketh … say, they were no Presbyters; hee mistaketh the matter, vnlesse hee vnderstand meere, or onelyonly-Presbyters. For BB and Apostolicall men, yea the Apostles themselues were Presbyters, and so call themselues; but they were not bare, or onelyonly-Presbyters, as those bee which p. 83are not Bishops. But if they were not Presbyters, saith he, then was the Apostle to blame to call them so. If the word bee vnderstood collectiuè, hee calleth the company of them which imposed hands on Timothy, the Presbytery. And forasmuch as not onelyonly inferior Ministers, but Bishops and Apostles are called Presbyters, it being a common name to all Ministers of the word and sacraments, it should not seeme strange that a company or senate of Bishops, or Apostolicall men, should be called a Presbytery. Now that they were not meere Presbyters, the Fathers proue: Because Presbyters might not ordaine a Bishop: neque enim fas erat, saith Ambrose qqIn 1. Tim. 3.1 Tim 3, nec licebat, vt inferior ordinaret maiorem. Neither was Timothy any , saith he. Bluntly and peremptorilie spoken. But the Fathers that before I mentioned, take it for granted: and it is the generall consent of all the antient Fathers, as wee shall heare; the authoritie of some one whereof, in a matter of fact, ought to ouerweigh the whole nation of Disciplinarians contradicting the same.

In fine, distrusting this burrough, hee flieth to his old starting hole, out of which hee hath beene so often ferretted: that the Fathers spake onelyonly of their owne times, which is nothing to the ordaining of Ministers in the Apostles times, almost foure hundred yeeres before them. The absurdity of which euasion, the Reader may easily discerne, if hee will but call to minde what were the Greeke. Fathers wordes before cited, and vponupon what occasion they were vttered.Chrys. foreign. Hee speaketh here, saith Chrysostome and Occumenius, O…cum. foreign.not of Presbyters but of Bishoppes. For Presbyters did not ordaine Bishoppes. Is it not most plaine, that they speake of the Apostles time? And were it not absurd to vnderstand them thus, Paul by the Presbytery which ordained Timothy, vnderstandeth Bishoppes, and not Presbyters; because howsoeuer in those times Presbyters might ordaine, yet in our times they cannot?

But let me aske the Refuter this question: Seeing it is agreed p. 84vponupon by all, that Paul here speaketh of Timothy his ordination: to what function hee thinketh he was ordained? If to be a Presbyter, or Pastor, as Caluin saith, or to be a Bishoppe, as all the Fathers acknowledge, then was hee not onelyonly ordained to an ordinary function in the Church, but also assigned to a particular Church, whereof hee was made Pastor, as Caluin speaketh, or Bishoppe, as the Fathers affirme. But that his last ordination, whereof the Apostle speaketh, was not to the degree of a Presbyter, but of a Bishoppe, appeareth by the whole Epistle; wherein his singularity of preeminence ouer Presbyters, and superiority in power both for ordination and iurisdiction, is presupposed. If he say, that he was ordained to be an Euangelist, to omit the singularity & the nouelty of the conceit; it would be knowne what Presbytery this was, that imposed hands on Timothy. Had the Presbytery of any parish (such as our Disciplinarians dreame of, consisting for the most part of laymen) or the Presbytery of any particular Church, though consisting wholly of Ministers, authority by imposition of hands to ordaine an extraordinary function, and that to be exercised in other parts of the world, where themselues had nothing to doe?

(Serm. sect. 8. page 39. Yea but the Councell of Carthage (say they) committeth authority of imposing hands to Presbyters,The obiection out of Conc. Carth. 4. answered. &c. to the end of page 44)

Here the Refuter meaning to make short worke, hauing little to say, hath made a long section, which he might better hauehave diuided into three. For three diuers things are heere performed. The first, an answere to the obiection our of the fourth Councell of Carthage. The second, a new supply of proofes for the superiority of BB. in the power of ordination. Thirdly a preuention of popish cauils, p. 87in fauor of some reformed Churches, where the Presbyterian discipline is established.

As touching the first, the Refuter saith, that canon may serue to shew, Ad pag 95.that the Fathers of this Councell thought it not fit, no not to leaue ordination to the Bishop alone. But because he perceiueth, by that which I answered, that that Canon, though greatly vrged by the Disciplinarians, maketh nothing against the superiority of BB. in ordaining, and that it agreeth with the discipline of our Church, and consequently conuicteth him of vntrue dealing: (seeing he …udgeth, that BB. by that canon hauehave not sole authority of ordaining, and yet will make his Reader beleeue, that I defend their sole power of ordaining: which by the discipline of our Church, is no more sole in our BB. then it was by that canon in the BB. of Africke:) for thes… causes, I say, he refuseth to vrge this canon: though hee pretend, hee will neither trouble the Reader, nor himselfe about the examining of it; because, forsooth, it commeth not neere the time in question. Perhaps his conscience told him, that he knew of no testimony nor example of the Presbyters concurrence with the B. in ordination, before that time: and that in the foresaid Councell, their assistance to the B. in ordaining, was first ordained: which if it did, as worthily it might, then had he no reason to vrge that canon to proue the practise of the Church in the first two hundred yeeres in a particular, which by that canon was first appointed.

Hauing thus remoued their two maine obiections which stood in my way,§. 13. Other arguments prouing the BB. right in ordaining. I proceeded in the proofe of my former assertion, that the right of ordination was in the iudgement of the antient Church appropriated to BB. As first, that the Councels and Fathers speake of the ordainer as of one, and consequently presuppose the right of ordaining to bee in one, which I proued by foure testimonies. This reason, because the Refuter did not well see how to answere, he passeth by it, as if hee had not seene it. To make it therefore more conspicuous, I will inlarge it; affirming, that both Scriptures, Councels, and Fathers speake of the ordainer as p. 86of one. Timothy was ordained by the imposition of Pauls aa2. Tim. 1.6.2 Tim 1:6hands. Paul left Titus bbTit. 1.5.Titus 1:5in Creet, that he should ordaine Presbyters, and chargeth Timothy cc1. Tim. 5.22.1 Tim 5:22that he should not lay hands hastily on any man, &c.

The CanonddC. 2. called the Apostles, appointeth that a Presbyter, and so a Deacon, be ordained of one. The Councell of Antioch eeC. 9.acknowledgeth eueryevery Bishop within his owne diocesse, to hauehave authority to ordaine Presbyters and Deacons. The Councell of Africke ffAfr. c. 22. & Carth. graec. c. 45.: foreign, one Bishop may ordaine many Presbyters. The Councell of Hispalis ggHispal. 2. c. 6.or Ciuill; A Bishop alone may giuegive to Priests and Deacons their honour.

Chrysostome hhDe Sacerd.describeth the Bishop by this property, foreign, he that is to ordaine vsus. The people of Hippo iiPossidon. de vitae Aug. c. 4.wanting a Presbyter, lay hold on Augustine, and as it was wont to be done, bring him to Valerius the Bishop, desiring him to ordaine him. To these adde the penaltie inflicted vponupon the B. alone, when any ordination was irregular. Sozomen kkSoz l. 4. c. 24.reporteth, that Elpidius, Eustathius, Basilius of Ancyra, Eleusius, among other faults obiected against them, were deposed, because eueryevery of them had ordained contrary to law. The afore…aid Councell of Carthage decreeth,llConc. Carth. 4. c. 68.69. distinct. 50. ex poe…itentib. that if a B. wittingly ordain a penitent, he shall be depriued of the power of his Bishoprick, at least from the power of ordaining. And to the like penalty doth it subiect a Bishop, who shall ordaine such a one, as hath married her that is diuorced, &c. But you shall neuer reade, that the Presbyters were foūd fault with for vnlawfull ordinations, vnlesse that any of them did encroach vponupon the Bishops right in ordaining: which is a plaine euidence, that the power of ordaining was in the B. and not in the Presbyters. When Epiphanius being at Constantinople mmSocr. l. 6. c. 23.14.ordained a Deacon, he was blamed as offending against the Canons, not because hee wanted the presence of his Presbytery, but because hee did it in Chrysostomes diocesse.

§. 14.Secondly, that the power of ordination was peculiar to p. 87the Bishop in the iudgement of the Fathers, J proue first by the authority of Councels: then, by the testimonies of Epiphanius and Ierome. To the former he answereth; It is to no purpose to meddle with these allegations out of the Councels, which were well nigh three hundred yeeres after the Apostles times, and some of them such, as deserue neither imitation, nor approbation. Here let the Christian Reader iudge what credit he deserueth, that so contemptuously shaketh off the authority of antient Councels, euen the second among the foure antient generall Councels, which are and hauehave been from time to time receiued in the Church nnGregor. mag. l. 1. epist. 24. Sicut Euangelij 4. libros sic 4. concilia suscipere & venera…i mef… teor. Dist. 15. c. sicut., as it were foure Gospels. But let vsus examine the particulars, & consider whether they deserued to be so lightly reiected. The first testimony was taken out of an Epistle ooA…hana. apol. 2. in epist. …resh. & diacon. Mareot. ad Curios & Philagr. praefect. Aegyp…i.written by the Presbyters and Deacons of Mareot, in the behalfe of Athanasius the Great, their Bishop, who was accused, for that by his appointment Macarius had disturbed one Ischyras, a pretended Presbyter in the administration of the Communion, and had broken the sacred cup. They testifie these things to be false, and among the rest they deny, that Ischyras was a Presbyter, because hee was ordained of Colluthus, the Presbyter, who was but an imaginary, or ppforeign.phantasticall Bishop; and afterwards by a generall Councell qqThis seemeth to hauehave been the generall Councell of Sardica, which was not two hundred fiftie yeeres after the Apostles times., to wit, by Osius and the BB. who were with him, commanded to remaine a Presbyter, as he had been before. For which cause, all that were ordained of Colluthus, among whom was Ischyras, returned to their former place and order. The like is testified by the Synod of Alexandria rrEpist. Synod. Alex. in Apol. 2. Athanas., which denieth that Ischyras could be ordained Presbyter by Colluthus, seeing Colluthus himselfe died a Presbyter, and all his ordinations were reuersed, and all ssforeign.that were ordained by him were held as lay men. Hereunto we may adde another most pregnant testimony, expressed in the acts of the same generall Councell of Sardica ttVid. Balsam. in Co…c Sard…c. c. 18.19. & editionis Tilianae c. 20., wherein it was decreed, that forsomuch as Musaeus and Eutychianus were not ordained Bishops, that therfore such Clerks as they had ordained should be held as lay men.

p. 90My second testimony is out of the second generall Councell uuConstantinop. …. c. 4. Graec. & 6. L…t. Balsam. in Conc. Const. 1. c 4., concerning Maximus, who being by birth an Alexandrian, & by profession a Cynick Philosopher, before hee was conuerted to Christianity, and receiued into the Clergy by Gregory the Diuine, against whom he ambitiously sought the Bishopricke of Constantinople, bribing the BB. of Egypt: Who being come to Constantinople, and excluded out of the Church, went into a certaine minstrels house, and there vnlawfully chose Maximus the Cynick to be Bishop of Constantinople. The generall Councell therefore assembled at Constantinople, determineth thus concerning Maximus; that he neither was, nor is a Bishop, neither **Soz. l. 7 c. 9. foreign.they Clerks who had been ordained by him, in what degree so euer of the Clergy. And to this I will adioyne another testimony out of the fourth generall Councell ggConc. Chalc. act. 11., where Bassianus who had been Bishop of Ephesus, and now sought to recouer it, alleaged for himselfe, that if he were not Bishop, then were not they clerks which had been ordained by him.

Neither were ordinary Presbyters alone forbidden to ordaine,§. 15. Chorepiscopi forbidden to ordaine. but Chorepiscopi also, that is, country BB. sometimes were restrained, and sometimes forbidden altogether to ordaine Presbyters and Deacons. Restrained, whiles there were such as had receiued episcopall ordination, that they might not ordaine without the leaue of the Bishop of the Citie, whereunto both the Chorepiscopus himselfe, and his Country is subiect. Forbidden altogether, when they ceased to hauehave episcopall ordination, and were ordained, as other Presbyters by the B. of the Citie alone.

It seeemeth to me, that Chorepiscopi, vntill the Councel of Antioch, had sometimes episcopall ordination, being ordained by two or three Bishops. And therefore to the Councell of Neocaesaria, and Nice, they subscribed among other BB But forasmuch as they being but (for matters of lesse importance) vicegerents in the Country to the Bishop of the diocesse, whose seat was in the Citie, being after the maner yyConc. Neecaes. c. 13.of the seuenty disciples, Presbyters rather then BB. did incroach vponupon the Bishoppes rights and prerogatiues, not p. 91knowing their owne measure; therefore they were restrained, as in other matters of importance: so in ordinations, to doe nothing without the leaue of the Bishop. Thus the ancient zzWhich was before the Councill of Nice, and was within little more then 200. yeares after the Apostles times.Councill of Ancyra determined; That it was not lawfull aaC. 13. foreign., that Countrie Bishops should ordaine Presbyters, or Deacons, vnlesse bbforeign.they had leaue granted vntounto them by the Bishop, with his letters: for so Theod. Balsam. expoundeth that Canon; the Fathers of this Synode determine, that the Countrie Bishop may not ordaine Presbyters or Deacons, without the letters of the Bishop.

The Councill of Antioch thus ccC. 10.: It seemeth good to the holy Synode, that those which are placed in villages, and countrey Townes called Countrey-Bishops ddforeign., although they hauehave receiued the ordination of BB. should know their owne measures, and administer the Churches subiect to them, and content themselues with the charge and care of them, and to ordaine Readers, Subdeacons, and Exorcists, and to content themselues with preferring of them. But that they should eeforeign.not presume to ordaine a Presbyter or a Deacon without the Bishop in the citie, whereunto both himselfe and his countrey is subiect. If any shall dare to transgresse this definition, he shall be deposed from that honour which he hath; and that the countrie Bishop should be made of the B. in the citie, wherto he is subiect. Which last clause (as I suppose) was added, to take from them that colourable pretence, whereupon they had presumed before to ordaine Presbyters, and Deacons; viz. because they had Episcopall ordination by the Metropolitane, and two or three other BB. To preuent this, the Councill decreeth, that from that time forward, they should be ordained, not as other BB. by the Metropolitane, and two, or three other Bishops; but as other Presbyters, by the Bishop of the citie: and so hauing not so much as an Episcopall ordination, to make them (as they were before) titular Bishops, they might acknowledge themselues to hauehave no right of ordination of Presbyters, and Deacons. Harmenopulus ffTit. 9. de Chorepiscop.in his abridgement of the Canons, setteth this downe as the summe of both these Canons, 13. Ancyr. and 10. Antioch. p. 90Let not a Countrey Bishop ordaine a Presbyter or Deacon foreign without the licence of the Bishop.

To the like purpose the Councill of Laodicea ggConc. Laod. c. 56.determined, that Bishops may not be ordained in villages, and Countrey townes, hhforeign, so it is in …alsam and some manuscripts.but visiters: and that those which were before ordained, may do nothing iiforeign.without the consent of the Bishop in the citie. By these two Councils therefore, as Episcopall ordination for the time to come was denied to the Countrey Bishops, so also power of ordaining Presbyters, and Deacons. To the same purpose I quoted kkDamas. Epist▪ 4. De Chorepiscop.Damasus, and Leo, who proue, that Chorepiscopi were not indeed Bishops, but Presbyters; and therefore had no right to ordaine Presbyters, and Deacons. Chorepiscopi, saith, Leo, llLeo Epist. BB.according to the Canons of Neocaesaria, and decrees of other Fathers, are the same with Presbyters, bearing the figure of the sonnes of Aaron, and being after the maner of the 70. Disciples. And although in respect of the ministerie they hauehave a common dispensation with Bishops, notwithstanding some things are forbidden them by the authoritie of the old law, some of the new, and by Ecclesiasticall Canons, as the consecration of Presbyters, and Deacons, &c. And to his sentence the Councill of mmHispal. 2 c. 7.Hispalis subscribed. Basil likewise plainely signified to the Chorepiscopi, that if any without his appointment were receiued into the ministerie, he should bee held for a lay man.

These testimonies plainely euince, that in the primitiue Church the power of ordination was so in Bishops; as that either themselues did ordaine, or if this power were communicated to others, it was by leaue and permission from them. And little reason had the refuter so lightly to esteeme these testimonies, as being vnderunder age. For vnlesse he be able to shew, that in the first 200. yeares the Presbyters either had de iure the power to ordaine, or that de facto they did vse to ordaine, which he will neuer be able to shew; the worst of these testimonies for the Bishops, is of more worth then all that he shall be p. 91able to say against them. Let him produce, if he can, any one testimony of Scripture, any one sentence out of Councils, Histories or Fathers, prouing that Presbyters without a Bishop had right to ordaine, and I will yeeld to him. But he doth not goe about by sound learning and euidence of truth to refell my assertions, which indeed he cannot doe; but by vnlearned shifts, and sophistiall cauillations, to elude them, as he can; either not doubting, but such refutations would serue his turne to reteine the people in their preconceiued alienation from Bishops, or else hoping, that J would not vouchsafe him an answere.

But to returne to my proofes:§. 16. The Canon of the Councill of Ciuill. For one there remaineth yet out of the Councils; shewing, that in ancient times, they were so far from permitting Presbyters without a Bishop to ordaine, that nnConc. Hispa…. 2. c. 5. Dist. 23. c. 14.when as a certaine Bishop in the ordination of one Presbyter and two Deacons vsed only the help of a Presbyter to reade the words of consecration, and to blesse them, himself laying on his hands, but being not able for the paine of his eies to reade; the Councill of Hispalis reuersed the ordination, as vnlawfull. This is the Councill, which the refuter judged to deserue neither imitation, nor approbation: by which censure of this one, though he durst not giuegive it of any of the forenamed Councils; yet it being indefinitely propounded, he discrediteth the rest with the vnlearned, who are not able to distinguish. But let vsus heare more particularly his graue censure of this Councill; What a toy was it for the Councill of Ciuill in Spaine, to reuerse the ordination &c. What a boy is this (might these Fathers say) that presumeth thus to censure vsus? was not Isidor the Archbishop of Ciuill, the president of this Councill, and author of these Canons, one of the most learned writers which hauehave beene in the Church within this 1000. yeares ooSee Cent. 7▪ 51▪2.with whom this Refuter for learning is not to be named the same day? was not this Council held against the Heretickes called Acephali, & did it not learnedly and judiciously confute them? did these graue fathers toy, p. 94when by graue censures they sought to preserue the discipline, and canons of the Church, to maintaine the lawfull authoritie of BB. and to preuent the presumptuous vsurpation of Presbyters, contrarie to the Canons of the Church? had not the ancient councill of Orenge ppConc. Arausican. c. 29.decreed, That if any Bishop should by any infirmitie or weaknesse, either fall into the dulnesse of his senses (as this Bishop did) or loose the facultie of speech, he should not suffer Presbyters (as this Bishop also did) vnderunder his presence, to do those things which are not done, but by Bishops; but that he should call for a Bishop, to whom he may commit that which is to be done in the Church? But if we must talke of toyes, what a toy was this, that (all these things which I hauehave alleaged, being duely considered) diuers of our disciplinarian Ministers hauehave renounced their ordination, which they had receiued from a Bishop, that they might be ordained by such as themselues?

And thus you hauehave heard, how easilie he hath answered the Councils, by vouchsafing them no answere.

Now let vsus weigh his answeres to the testimonies of Ephiphanius and Ierome. §. 17. The testimonies of Epiphanius and Ierome.His common answere to both, is such, as vnlearned, yet obstinate Papists vse to giuegive; that though they cannot tell how to answere our arguments, yet there be learned men which can. There be Lectures of the par…ie of Ministers one day to be published, which will shew the weaknesse of Epiphanius his reasons; and there is another learned man that hath answered the allegation out of Ierome. Why, but hath the Refuter no answeres of his owne, that he referreth vsus thus to other men? yes no doubt; such answeres as his are neuer to seeke. First, he wrangleth with Ephiphanius, and then with me for alledging him. He telleth Epiphanius, that he beggeth the question . Alas good man, he wanted the Refuters acumen in disputing. And what was the question I pray you? was it not the same which is now betweene you and vsus, whether Bishops and other Ministers be equall, as Aërius held? This assertion of Aërius, Ephiphanius disproueth by two maine arguments, as I do yours; prouing that BB. are superiour to other p. 93Presbyters, both in the power of ordination, and iurisdiction. His former argument may thus be concluded.Epiph. haeres. 75.

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

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

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

Call you this begging of the question? Yea, but Aërius denied, that Bishops had power more then Presbyters, to beget Fathers. How is this proued? he said they were equall. It followeth not. Aerius being a giddie-headed fellow, because he perceiued the Presbyters to doe the same things, that the Bishops did in some particulars; by an insufficient enumeration or induction, concludeth, that therfore there was no difference betweene them. The parts of Aërius his induction concerne the superioritie and preeminence of the Ministerie in generall aboue the people, noting those things whch be common to Bishops, with other ministers, as their imposing hands on the penitent, their giuing of Baptisme, their executing of Diuine seruice, their sitting in the chaire or pulpit to instruct the people; but considered not the respect which was between the Bishop and the Presbyters themselues. Epiphanius therefore sheweth, that although it were true, that Bishops and Presbyters did the same things, which argue their Preeminence in common aboue the Laity: yet this hindreth not, but that Bishops were superiour to the Presbyters: and this Epiphanius proueth by two instances, which Aërius himselfe could not denie: because the Bishops were ordainers of the Presbyters, hauing the power of ordination of Presbyters and Deacons, which Presbyters had not; the second, because the Bishops were also gouernours and judges ouer Presbyters. The Refuter therefore should rather hauehave suspected the shallownesse of his own judgement, then hauehave p. 94laid such an imputation vponupon Epiphanius.

§ 18. Epiphanius, his reason defended.What then doth he answere to Epiphanius his syllogisme? He denieth in effect, though perhaps he intend not so much, both the proposition, and the assumption: and first the assumption. For where Epiphanius saith, that Presbyters were not able to beget Fathers: he asketh, What hindreth them, but the vsurpation of Bishops? In which words, two things are implied: The first, that the power of ordination, which the BB. hauehave, is vsurped by them: The second, that Presbyters hauehave as good right to ordaine as they. But you will say, how are those things proued? you must be intreated to take them vponupon his word: for proo…e he hath none: and yet can he by no meanes abide begging of the question. But such is the boldnesse of our new Disciplinarians, that they doubt not to prefer their new-fangled opinions, & self-set assertions, which hauehave no ground nor warrant in the word of God, or true reason, before the judgement and practize of all the ancient Fathers, of all the approued Councils, of all true Christian Churches of former times. We proue, that the Apostles had the right of ordaining; that this right was from them deriued to their substitutes, and to their successors; to their substitutes, as to Timothe in Ephesus, and Titus in Creet, to Mark at Alexandria, to Polycarpus at Smyrna, to Euodius at Antioch, to Linus at Rome, &c. to their successors, as to Simon the sonne of Cleophas, the successor of Saint Iames at Ierusalem, &c. that from these substitutes and first successors of the Apostles, the same was deriued to their successors, which without all doubt were the BB. of the seuerall Churches. And hereunto we adde the generall consent of the Fathers, and Councils; many of them affirming and confirming, not one, I say not one, denying the superioritie of BB. in ordaining: the perpetuall practize of all true Christian Churches, not one approued instance to be giuen to the contrarie: and yet he shameth not to auouch the Bishops right in ordaining to be but vsurpation. As touching Presbyters, that they hauehave right to ordaine, we see no p. 95warrant in the word, but rather the contrarie; no testimonie of Fathers, no decree of Councils for it, but many testimonies and decrees against it; no approued example to warrant it; how then could he say the Presbyters hauehave as good right to ordain as BB▪ But because he shal not cary the matter without proofes, this I will offer him; that if he can bring any one pregnant testimonie or example out of the Scriptures, any approued authoritie or example out of the ancient Fathers, Councils or Histories of the Church, prouing that the Presbyters had by and of themselues an ordinarie power or right to ordaine ministers, J meane Presbyters, and Deacons; I will promise to subscribe to his assertion. But if he cannot do this, as I know he cannot; then let him for shame giuegive place vntounto the truth.

Againe, whereas Epiphanius in the assumption saith, that BB. beget Fathers, meaning that they hauehave power to ordaine ministers of the word, and sacraments, or as he expoundeth himselfe,aaforeign. teachers; he fondly cauilleth at Epiphanius words, saying, that ministers are no spirituall Fathers vntill they beget children vntounto God. Why, but their calling is to be spirituall Fathers, ordained of God to this end, that they may by the lauer of regeneration & ministery of the Gospell beget children vntounto God▪ when Stephen said bbAct. 7.8.Acts 7:8that Iacob begat the twelue Patriarches, meaning those whom God appointed to bee the first Fathers of the twelue Tribes; will the refuter wrangle with him, because when they were begotten, they were not Fathers? euen so BB. are said to beget Fathers, because by ordination they beget such, as by the institution of their calling, and ordinance of God, are to be spirituall Fathers.§. 19. Ad pag. 96.

And thus much of the assumption. The proposition also he denieth, finding great fault with me, saying, that it is a strange and fearefull thing that I hauing so worth: he set out in my former Sermon the excellencie of the ministers calling in regard of his labouring in the word, doe now turne all topsey tur…y, and preferre making of ministers before begetting soules. And to this purpose he alledgeth that to beget one childe vntounto p. 96God, is more pretious then to beget a thousand Fathers to the Church, and of more comfort at the day of iudgement, &c. But be of good comfort, this fault which he layeth to my charge, is but as he saith, in his poore vnderstanding . For there be three things which shew the pouertie of his conceipt. The first, that he thinketh I do therefore preferre the ordaining of Ministers before preaching, because I say that Bishops are superiour to other ministers in the power of ordination. It seemeth he hath not learned the distinction of those three things wherein superioritie consisteth, foreign, that is, excellencie, imperie, and power. The magistrate is superior to the minister, in imperie, and ciuill authoritie; but the minister notwithstanding is superior to the magistrate in excellencie. But the second thing doth much more shew the shallownesse of his conceipt: he conceiueth of ministers, as hauing alone the power of preaching; and of Bishops, as hauing onelyonly the power of ordination: whereas if he had but considered that the authoritie of preaching is common to the Bishop with other ministers, and the Bishop in respect of his office superior in the exercise; because he may licence, and he may vponupon just occasion suspend this power in others (though perhaps in personall gifts the Presbyter may excell the Bishop:) he could not but hauehave discerned the superioritie of Bishops, without any disparagement to the ministerie of the word; for that they being at least equall in (respect of their function) to other ministers in the power of preaching, are superior in the power of ordaining. The third, that he conceiueth Epiphanius to hauehave made a comparison betweene preaching, and ordaining, which he doth not,Heres. 75. but betweene baptizing, and ordaining. How is it possible, saith Epiphanius, that a Bishop and a Presbyter should be equall? foreign. For the calling of Bishops is an order generatiue of Fathers, begetting Fathers to the Church; but the order of Presbyters being not p. 97able to beget Fathers, doth by the lauer of regeneration (that is baptisme) beget children to the Church, and not Fathers, verily, or teachers. And you are to marke how he speaketh of begetting Fathers and children to the Church. And who can denie, but that it is a matter of greater consequence, the begetting of a Father to the Church, then of a child? But Epiphanius his meaning was, that the Bishop hauing power of baptizing common to them with Presbyters,1. Cor. 1.1 Cor 1 as Paul had, though he did not greatly vse it, whereby they might beget children to the Church; hath also the power of ordaining, (which Presbyters hauehave not) whereby he begetteth spirituall Fathers to the Church. And so much of Epiphanius.

Now I come to Ierome:§. 20. The testimonie of Ierome. For the Refuter thinketh it verie strange, that I should bring him as a patron of the Bishops sole power in ordination. It seemeth, that the Refuter conceiueth nothing aright. I bring in Ierome in this place, not as a patron of BB. but as one, who pleading for the superioritie of Presbyters aboue Deacons, & desiring to raise them as neare as he can to BB. doth notwithstanding confesse, that Bishops are superiour in ordination.Ad Euagr. What doth a Bishop (saith he) excepting ordination, which a Presbyter may not do? To which, the Refuter hauing no answere of his owne, intreateth another to answere for him; which done, he craketh, as if he had layed me on my backe. The answere is, that Ierome speaketh of his owne time. No doubt: for speaking in the present tense, whereby he signifieth actum continuum , he doth not exclude his owne time. But doth he speake therefore of his owne time onelyonly? or doth he signifie, that there was a time since there were first Bishops, (which he confesseth, was in the time of the Apostles) when the Bishops had not this power? if this could be shewed, then Ierome might be thought not to speake of the Apostles times. Nay, doth not Ierome speake as well de iure, as de facto, when he saith, What doth a Bishop &c. that is, what hath a Bishop right to doe by the power of his order, which a Presbyter hath not right to doe by the power of his order, p. 98onelyonly except ordination? that I confesse to be aboue the Presbyters power. Well, and to what end doth Ierome speak this of his owne time? That hauing shewed before out of the Scriptures, and the practise of the Church at Antioch, that of old a Bishop, and a Presbyter were all one; he might see, that in his time also, there remained a proofe thereof: because a Bishop then did nothing, except ordination, which a Presbyter could not doe.

The Epistle of Ierome to Eu…grius analysed.Out of the Scriptures Ierome prooueth, that in those times when the Scriptures were written, the name Episcopus, and Presbyter were confounded; because, as the name Episcopus, was giuen to Presbyters, Phil. 1. Act. 20. Tit. 1. So the name Presbyter, to Apostles, and Bishops: as 1. Tim. 4.14. Where Ierome vnderstandeth, as before, by Presbyterium, Episcopatus; 1. Pet. 5.1. Ioan. Epist. 2. & 3. And this is Ieromes first argument that Presbyters are superiour to Deacons. But hence it doth not follow, that therefore the offices of a Bishop, and Presbyter, are confounded; especially, after the institution of a Bishop. Doth Ierome thinke, that euerie Presbyter is equall in degree with Timothe, because the office of Timothe in Ieromes vnderstanding is called Presbyterium? or that they are equall with Peter, and Iohn, because they called themselues Presbyters? His second argument to prooue the superioritie of Presbyters aboue Deacons, is, because Bishops were chosen out of Presbyters, and by Presbyters; whereas contrariwise, he that is chosen from among Deacons, by Deacons, is but an Archdeacon. The former part he first illustrateth by the end, which was to auoid Schisme; and then prooueth it by the Practise of the Church of Alexandria. In his setting downe the end, he lets fall one word, which if it be not fauourablie expounded, will make him contradict himselfe, and the truth. For vponupon the allegation of Saint Iohns second and third epistle he saith, Quòd autem poste… vnus electus, that one afterwards was chosen p. 99who should be set ouer the rest, it was prouided as a remedie against Schisme, lest euerie one drawing after him should rend the Church of Christ. What say you Ierome, were Bishops first ordained after Saint Iohns time? doe not your selfe testifie that Saint Iames a little after the ascension of Christ was by the Apostles made Bishop of Ierusalem, that Marke was Bishop of Alexandria? that euer since his time (and he dyed almost 40. yeares before Saint Iohn) there hath beene a Bishop, in a degree superiour to other Presdyters? that Timothe was Bishop of Ephesus &c. That word afterwards therefore, is not to be referred to Saint Iohns time, but to those testimonies where he prooued the name Episcopus to be giuen to Presbyters; which custome, as he supposeth, continued, vntill one of the Presbyters, beeing chosen from among the rest, was called Bishop: for indeed whiles Apostles or Apostolicke men were made BB., BB. were called the Apostles of the Churches: But when out of the Presbyters one was chosen, he began for difference sake to be called, the Bishop, the Angell of the Church. Now that BB. were chosen out of Presbyters, and by Presbyters, he prooueth by the example of the Church at Alexandria: For euen at Alexandria, from Marke the Euangelist vntounto Heraclas and Dionysius BB. (who were not chosen from among the Presbyters) the Presbyters hauehave alwaies called one, chosen from among themselues, and placed in a higher degree, the Bishop: euen as if an army doe choose their generall, or Deacons choose from among themselues one, whom they know to be industrious, and call him the Archdeacon.

His fourth argument is this. There be many things which a Bishop by the power of his order may doe, which a Deacon cannot: but there is nothing which a Bishop may doe by the power of order, excepting ordination, which a Presbyter may not doe. A Presbyter is therefore by so much superior to a Deacon, by how much he is p. 110nearer to the Bishop: this is the verie scope of this place, and to the same are all the arguments following referred &c. the summe whereof is, that the Presbyterie is a degree betweene the Bishops, and Deacons.

§. 21.You see then what Ierome prooueth out of the Scriptures; not that the office, but the name of Bishop, and Presbyter were for a time confounded. Now let vsus see what he prooueth by the practise of the Church at Antioch: he would say at Alexandria, that of old a Bishop, and a Presbyter were all one. See you not how he prooueth it, when he saith, that euer since Marks time the Bishop hath beene placed in a higher degree aboue the Presbyters? Was this to prooue that a Bishop, and Presbyter are equall, or all one? or did Ierome intend any thing else, but to prooue the Presbyters superiour to Deacons, and that by such arguments as before I analysed? We hauehave heard what Ierome prooueth out of the Scriptures, and practise of the Church at Alexandria; now at the last, let vsus heare the end of his speech. That he (I know not who) might see, that in his time also there remained a proofe thereof, because a Bishop euen then did nothing except ordination which a Presbyter could not doe. Toto coelo errat: it was not Ieromes end, to prooue the Presbyter equall with the Bishop, but superiour to the Deacon: For if the former had beene his intent; this, and the other from the practise of Alexandria: had beene very vntoward arguments to prooue his purpose. At Alexandria the Bishop euer since Marks time was superiour to Presbyters in degree, therefore they were equall. The Bishop is superiour in the power of ordination, therefore Presbyters be his equals. Hath not the Refuter now great cause, thinke you, to crake of this answere? was this, among all the testimonies which I alledged, chosen as most misalledged, by occasion whereof, he might pay me mine owne, and tell me that it was wherried in with …are… by him that looked an other …ay? Blessed bee God, that so guided me in the way p. 101of truth, that among all my allegations, the refuter hath not beene able to charge mee with misalledging any one. As for this; nothing could bee more pregnant, and pertinent to proue, that BB were superiour to Presbyters in ordination, then as I said in the sermon, that Ierome himselfe, euen when, and where he seeketh to aduance the Presbyters, as high as hee can, aboue the Deacons; doth confesse ordinatiō to be peculiar to Bishops.

Now, whereas Ierome saith a Presbyter may doe any thing which a Bishop doth,Of the power of order and iurisdiction. excepting ordination; I did easilie forsee it would bee obiected, that if BB. bee superiour onelyonly in the power of ordination, then are they not superiour in iurisdiction. This obiection I preuented in these words, Where you are not to vnderstand him, or other of the Fathers speaking som…time to the like purpose, as though the B. were not superiour, in any thing else; but that potestate ord… nis, as touching power of order, …e is superior only in ordination. For that he is superior potestate iurisdictionis, they eueryevery where acknowledge. I know some aaBell. de Cler. l. 1. c. 15.answere, that in Ieromes iudgement BB. are iure diuin… superiour to other Ministers, onelyonly in the power of ordination: but in the power of iurisdiction iure apostolico; in that hee acknowledgeth, that superiority of BB. was brought in by the Apostles necessarily for auoiding of schismes. Which answere I refusing, because Ierome saith the like bbAduers. Lucifer. in Titū. … ad Euagr. de 7. Ordin. Eccles.of the superiority of the BB. in generall, and of the power of ordination in particular, that it was reserued to the B. ne a multis disciplina ecclesia vendicata, concordiam sacerdotum solueret, et scandala generaret; made choice of this other, as the more like to bee true. Not that J absolutely was of this iudgement, that the right of ordination doth belong to the power of Episcopall order; as appeareth by that supposall which J made in the sermon page 44. l. 3. but that I supposed it to be the iudgment of Ierome, and some other fathers, who acknowledging the Bishop to bee superiour in iurisdiction, and yet affirming that hee is superiour onelyonly in the right of ordination p. 102or imposing hands: must thus bee vnderstood, as iudging the Bishop to bee superiour onelyonly therein, quoad ordinis potestatem, as touching the power of order: they holding other things belonging to the power of order, as the ministry of the word and Sacraments of Baptisme, and the Lords Supper, to bee common to BB. with other ministers: but the power of ordination to bee peculiar to the BB. and in their iudgements not communicable to Presbyters: because as Thomas cc2 2…. q. 187.2. c.saith, ea quae sunt ordinis non possunt committi nisi habenti ordinem. Hereunto the Refuter, after his malepert and saucy manner, answereth: that I vnderstand not this distinction. For, saith he, potestas ordinis, power of order is not potestas ordinationis, power of ordination, but power to doe all that which belongeth to the order of that ministery which hee hath receiued, as Tolet ddInstruct. sacerd. l. 1. c. 3.sheweth. But whether of vsus spake without vnderstanding, let the iudicious Reader heereby iudge. For he conceiueth me, as no man would that is not of a very shallow conceipt, as if I confounded the power of order with the power of ordination, and as though the power of order contained nothing else but the power of ordaining, whenas I plainely made it, according to those Fathers iudgement, but one part of the power of Order: they supposing other parts of the power of order to bee common vntounto Presbyters,Whether BB. be superior to Presbyters in the power of order. but that of ordaining to bee peculiar to the Bishop: and in that sense say, the Bishop in respect of the power of order, is superiour onelyonly in ordination.

§. 23.Yea but Bellarmine (for euen his authority when he saith any thing that may seeme to make for the Refuter, must serue the turne) saith eeDe pont. Rō. l. 4. c. 22.that Potestas ordinis refertur ad sacramenta conficienda, the power of order is referred to the ministery of the Sacraments. Me thinks the Refuter should adde, that it is also referred to the ministery of the Worde. But what doth Bellarmine and all other Papists vnderstand by Sacraments? Doe they not meane fiue others p. 103besides Baptisme and the Lords Supper, the ministery of two whereof, viz. of confirmation, and of orders they make peculiar to BB. and of the other fiue common to them with all Priests? and doth not Bellarmine therefore prooue, that the order of Bishops is superiour to that of Presbyters, and that Bishops are superiour in the power of order, because ffDe Sacram. ord. l. 1. C. 3.the Bishop may conferre two Sacraments, which the Presbyters may not, viz. the Sacrament of confirmation and of orders? Howbeit of the former, Ierome saith ggAduers. Lucifer., that it was reserued as peculiar to BB. potiùs ad honorem sacer dotij, quàm ad legis necessitatem.

It is true, that some Popish writers make BB. and Presbyters to be but one order; but you must withall take the reason of that Popish conceipt: They hold, that the Sacrament of the altar (as they call it) is the Sacrament of Sacraments, whereunto the Sacrament of orders is subordinate hh2.2…. q. 40.4. & supplem. q 37.2. c.; all their orders of Clerks being ordained to the ministerie of the altar; and that eueryevery one of their 7. orders (all which they call Sacraments) is onelyonly to be counted a Sacrament, as it hath reference to the Eucharist: to which purposehh2.2…. q. 40.4. & supplem. q 37.2. c. Thomas Aquinas doth somewhat ridiculously distinguish their 7. orders, according to their diuers offices referred to that Sacrament. And forasmuch as in the whole power of order this is the supreme act, by pronouncing the words of consecration to make the very body of Christ, which is as well performed by a Priest, as a Bishop: therefore they teach iiSuppl. q. 40.5., that Bishops, and Priests are both of one order; and that the order of Bishops, as it is a Sacrament, is not superior to that of Presbyters, but only as it is an office, in respect of certaine sacred actions; & in this sense, saith Thomas, that the Bishop hath power in sacred and Hierarchicall actions in respect of Christs mysticall body aboue the priest, the office of a Bishop is an order. For you must vnderstand that they make al Ecclesiasticall power to hauehave referrence to the kkBellarm. de Sacram. ord. l. 1. c. 9.body of Christ, either verum, his true bodie in the Sacrament of the altar, which p. 104they call the power of order; or mysticum, mysticall (that is, the the Church and members thereof) which they cal the power of iurisdiction.

This new Popish conceipt therefore of confounding Bishops and Presbyters into one order, ariseth from their idol of the Masse, & their doctrine of transubstantiation, wherby eueryevery Priest is as able to make his maker, as the Pope himselfe. I call it newe, because all the ancient writers doe confesse (as before hath been shewed) Bishops,Hier. de. 7. ord. eccl. acknowledgeth the order of BB. to be the seuēth and the highest order. Presbyters and Deacons to be three distinct degrees, and consequētly orders of the Ministery: for what is an order but that degree, which, among things or persons which are subordinate one to another, some being higher, some lower, any one hath obtained?

§. 24. That BB. are superiour in the power of order.Wherefore laying aside these popish conceipts, let vsus consider what is to bee determined concerning this matter according to the truth.

1. And first, that ecclesiasticall power is to bee distinguished into the power of order and iurisdiction.

2. That the power of order is a spirituall power, whereby ecclesiasticall persons are qualified and enabled to doe sacred actions appertayning to the seruice of God and saluation of men, which they who are not of the same order at the least, may either not at all, or not ordinarily performe.

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

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

p. 1075. That the power of the order of Presbyters is besides the performance of the diuine liturgy and power to administer the sacrament of Baptisme and to preach, common to them with Deacons (who shall be thereunto authorized by the B.) a power also to minister the holy communion, and authority to remit and retaine the sinnes of men: which last I doe not doubt to referre to the power of order. First, because it is giuen to the minister in his ordination, and belongeth to him as he is simply a Presbyter, without iurisdiction or relation to a charge. And secondly, because it continueth with him whiles he is of the order, though his charge and iurisdiction should be taken from him. Besides, this power of remitting and retaining sinnes is called the key of order, and according to the Popish doctrine nnBell. de pont. R l. 1. c. 12., belongeth to the conferring of the sacrament of penance.

6. The power of order in B.B (besides all this power which is in the Presbyters) is power by imposition of hands to conuey grace oo1. Tim. 4.14. 2. Tim. 1.6.1 Tim 4:142 Tim 1:6, as the ordinary instrument of the holy ghost, either to parties baptized for their confirmation; or to penitents, for their reconciliation; or to parties designed to the ministery, for their ordination. As touching the former, the ancient writers gather it to bee peculiar to BB. because howsoeuer many in the primitiue Church were conuerted and baptized by men of inferiour order, yet the Apostles alone, and after them the BB. had authority to put their hands vponupon them that they might receiue the holy Ghost. Acts. 8. & 19.

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

I hold this authority to impose hands to belong to the power of order:§ 25. The power of ordination belongeth to the power of order. First, because imposition of hands is a sacred action of spirituall efficacy, indeed a sacrament, not onelyonly by the doctrine of the scholemen and Papists, but also p. 106by the confession of Calum;Iust. l. 4. c. 14. § 20. Imposit…onem manuum, qua ecclesiae ministri in suum mann… …uitiantur, vt non inuitus patior vocari sacramentum, …t… inter ordinaria sacramenta (sci. quae in vsum totius ecclesia… sunt instituta) non numero. &c. 19 §. 31. Impositionem … in veris legitimisque ordinationibus sacramentum esse concedo. though not such a sacrament as Baptisme and the Lords supper, which are seales and pledges of our vnion and communion with Christ; yet in a more generall sense, as a sacrament is defined a visible signe of inuisible grace.

I say it is a sacred action of spirituall efficacie, consecrating a man to the seruice of God in the Ministery, conueiing vntounto him the power of that order whereunto hee is ordained, whereby he is qualified to performe sacred actions of spirituall and supernaturall efficacie. Wherefore I doe not see, why the power of begetting spirituall Fathers to the Church by ordination, as Epiphanius speaketh, should not be thought to belong to the power of order in BB. euen as the begetting of sonnes to the Church by baptisme, to the power of order in all Ministers.

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

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

p. 107Whenas therefore I expounded Ierome and some others, who say the B. is superior to the Presbyters onelyonly in ordination, as not meaning that he is not superiour also in the power of iurisdiction, but that in respect of the power of order, he was superior onelyonly in the right of ordaining; because whereas other parts of the power of order be common to him with Presbyters, that of ordaining is his peculiar right and prerogatiue, I did not speake without vnderstanding. Contrariwise the Refuter, as in laying to my charge that I confound the power of order with ordination, he spake he knew not what: so in the inference which he bringeth vponupon his former words, hee pratleth without vnderstanding. Now if the power of ordination did belong properly to the office of BB. then were the BB. superior to the other Ministers potestate ordinis, Ad pag. 97.(but the former I hauehave manifestly proued, therefore the latter must be granted) but that is the question, saith he; as who should say, he were resolued to deny the conclusion. But heare him I pray you. Notwithstanding (to let him inioy his owne distinction) of BB. differ onelyonly in ordination from Presbyters, quoad ordinis potestatem, then in the power of iurisdiction, Presbyters are equall with them potestate ordinis, by the power of their order. Wherefore where afterwards he draweth vntounto BB. the whole power of censuring vnderunder the name of potestas iurisdictionis, he maketh that to be adiuine, which is but an humane preeminence by his owne distinction. All which is meere babling, without sense, or vnderstanding what he saith, as the Reader who vnderstandeth what I hauehave deliuered concerning this distinction, will easily iudge.

There remaineth the third part of this section; wherein out of a Christian and charitable desire to preserue the credit of such reformed Churches as hauehave no BB. I endeuoured to preuent the obiections of Papists,§. 26. who reason thus against them: The right of ordination being peculiar to BB. it followeth, that where is no B. there is no ordination; where is no ordination, there are no Ministers; where are no Ministers, there is no Church. I answered, that although the p. 108ordinary right of ordination belongeth to BB. in the iudgement of the antient Church, that yet it was not to be vnderstood, as so appropriating it to them, as that extraordinarily and in the case of necessitie it might not be lawfull for Presbyters to ordaine, and much lesse teaching absolutely a nullity of the ordination, which is performed without a B. Which answer I confirmed by diuers reasons. Whereunto I now adde, that there seemeth to be the like reason for imposition of hands, in confirmation of the baptized, in the reconciliation of publike penitents, as in the ordination of Ministers. But although the two former were reserued as well as the third, to the B. yet extraordinarily, in the case of necessity, and in the want or absence of the B. the antient Church held it lawfull for Ministers to impose hands either for the confirming of parties baptized, or for reconciliation of the penitents. The former is testified by aaAmbros. in Eph. 4.Eph 4Ambrose and bbAug. quest. …x vet. & non. test. mixtim. 4.101.Augustine, the latter by ccCyp. l. 3. ep. 17.Cyprian and diuers ddConc. Carth. graec. c. 43. Carth. 2. c. 4. Conc. Arausic. c. 2.Councels. And moreouer, the Popish Writers themselues eeSumma Angelica. ordo. §. 2.doe teach, that the Pope may giuegive licence to him that is not a Bishop to ordaine: so that hee to whom such licence is giuen, hauehave those orders himselfe, which he would giuegive to another. If therefore by the Popes licence, a Presbyter may ordaine Presbyters, much better may a company of Presbyters, to whom in the want of a Bishop the charge of the Church is deuolued, be authorised thereto by necessity, which, as they say, hath no law. To this passage, inserted by me onelyonly in fauour of the Churches where the presbyterian discipline is established, which I would not lay open to popish cauils; the Refuter, if he had been led with a good spirit, would rather hauehave answered with thanks, then hauehave set himselfe to wrangle and cauill therewith, as if he cared not, so he may hauehave something to speake against, what becommeth of those Churches, which notwithstanding he would seeme to fauor more then my selfe. The which vngracious course he taketh againe in answering the 95. page of my Sermon; where I forced my selfe, as in this place, to speake as much as the truth would permit in fauour of the aforesaid Churches. p. 109But if my answers for them either here, or there, do not please the Refuter and his consorts, I will hereafter giuegive them leaue to answer what they please. Neither will I any more disaduentage the truth, which I defend, in a desire to gratifie them, seeing my indeuor is so vngratefully taken. Which I speake, not as though I thought his exceptions against my defence any thing worth. For where he obiecteth, that if the Fathers had thought the power of ordination to hauehave bin peculiar to BB. by any ordinance of God, they would not hauehave allowed any such ordination as I speake of without a B: it followes not. For though they held the right of Baptizing to belōg to the Ministers of the Church by Gods ordinance; though they held the right of imposing hands to be peculiar to the Apostles and their successors: yet in a case of necessity,Apostolorum & suc…ssorum …orum …st per manus impos… tionem donum spiritus sancti tradere. Damas. epist. de Chorepiscopis. Tertull. de B…ptismo. Conc. Eli…. c. 38. Hier. aduers. Lucifer. they held baptisme without a Minister, and confirmation without a B. to be lawfull. In like maner, though they held that the right of ordination was peculiar to Bishops by Apostolical institution, & therefore taught that none but Bishops could regularly and ordinarily ordaine: notwithstanding in a case of necessity, we may well thinke they would hauehave allowed of such an ordination as J spake of, though (as I said) not as regular, according to the rules of ordinary Church gouernment, yet as effectuall and iustifiable in the want of a B. If he still say they wou…d not, then must he confesse that the practise of the Disciplinarians is such, as the Fathers of the Primitiue Church would in no case hauehave allowed: and that is all the inconuenience that can come to our cause, if my defence of them be not sufficient.

As for his cauill at my supposall of the right of ordination, to belong to the power of order in BB. I hauehave answered before. To such obiections one answer is enough, two is too many.

And thus much of the Bishops right in ordaining.