A Defense of the Sermon Preached at the Consecration of the Bishop of Bath, Book 3 · Chapter 5

A Defense of the Sermon Preached at the Consecration of the Bishop of Bath · Book 3 · Chapter 5

p. 110CHAP. V. That Bishops were superior to other Ministers in the power of iurisdiction.

(Serm. sect. 9. pag. 45. Now I am to shew, that the B. is superiour also in the power of iurisdiction. The Presbyters indeede, &c. to the end of the page.)

HEre the Reader is to obserue, what is by me propounded to be proued, not that the BB. had, or hauehave the sole power of iurisdiction, the defence whereof the Refuter eueryevery where would faine force vponupon me, but that they are, and were superiour in the power of iurisdiction or gouernment. I deny not the Presbyters (which hauehave charge of soules) to hauehave iurisdiction both seuerally in their parishes, and iointly in prouinciall synods. And I hauehave confessed before, that Presbyters hauehave with, and vnderunder the Bishops exercised some iurisdiction. I grant that godly BB. before they had the countenance and assistance of Christian Magistrates, and direction of Christian lawes, vsed in all matters of moment to consult with their clergy; imitating therein, as Ierome aaHier. in Tit. 1.Titus 1speaketh, the example of Moses, Qu… cùm haberet in potestate solus praesse populo; who when it was in his power to gouerne the people alone, hee chose seuenty with whom to iudge the people. This was practised by Cyprian bbLib. 3. epist. 10. f., who resolued from the beginning of his Bishopricke, to doe nothing of importance alone, because he would preuent dissension p. 111and scandals. Ambrose ccIn 1. Tim. 5. ….1 Tim 5, also teacheth that there was a time, when nothing was done without the aduice of the Presbyters, who therefore by Ignatius ddforeign. Ignas▪ ad Trall., are called the counsellours and coassessours of the B. Which course if it were vsed still, as it would ease the Bishops burden very much; so would it nothing detract from their superiority in gouerning: the sway of their authority being no lesse when they vsed the aduice of their Presbyters, then when they vsed it not. For the assistance of the Presbyters was to helpe and aduice, but neuer to ouerrule the Bishop. Neither will any man say, that the authority of a Prince who vseth the aduice of his counsell, is the lesse for it, but the mo…e aduised.

But what the authority of BB. was in the primitiue Church in respect of gouernment,The authority of BB. shewed absolutely. I will first shew absolutely, and then by way of comparison with Presbyters. What the foreign, as the Councell of eeC. Carth. grae. c. 68.Carthage calleth the authority of BB. was, may first appeare by this, that they were accounted the gouernours and rulers of the Churches, meaning thereby dioceses. For though there were many ministers, who were Angels, Pastors, Bishops: y…t there was but one in eueryevery Church, who was the Angel, the Pastor, the Bishop, the gouernour of the Church; bearing as Ignatius ffIgnat. ad. Trall.saith, the sway of authority aboue and ouer them all. But I delight to heare Ierome, the onelyonly pretended patron of the Disiplinarians; who confesseth, as wee hauehave heard ggContra Lucifer., that of necessity a peerelesse power and eminent aboue all, is to bee attributed to Bishoppes, and that the safety of the Church dependeth thereon. Hee therefore in his Commentary vponupon hhHier. 1. Esa. 60.Isa 60Esay chap. 60. verse 17. reading according to the Septuag. iiforeign., I will giuegive thy Princes in peace, and thy Bishops in righteousnesse, saith, Herein the Maiestie of the holy Scriptures is to bee admired, which calleth, principes futuros ecclesiae episcopos, the Princes or Rulers which should bee of the Church, Bishoppes, whose visitation is all in peace, and the name of their dignitie (meaning their superintendencie) in righteousnesse. p. 112And on those words kkHier. in Psal. 44.Ps 44, of the 45. Psalme, In stead of fathers children shall be borne vntounto thee; O Church, saith he, the Apostles were thy fathers, for they begate thee. Now forasmuch as they are gone out of the world thou hast BB. who were borne of thee. For these also are thy fathers, because thou art gouerned of them. And on the words following, whom thou shalt make Princes in all the earth: for, saith he, in the name of God the gospell is spread in all ends of the world, in which Principes ecclesiae, i. episcopi; the princes of the Church, that is to say, the Bishops are placed. On which words Augustine llAug. in Ps. 44Ps 44also doth comment to the like purpose: In stead of the Apostles, sonnes are borne to thee, BB. are ordained: thinke not thy selfe forsaken, because thou seest not Peter and Paul who beg at thee; of thine owne issue is sprung a fatherhood: Agnoscant qui pr… cisi sunt, veniant ad vnitatem, &c. Let them which are precise or cut off by schisme, acknowledge it and come vntounto vnity. The Church hath borne sonnes, and in steed of her fathers, hath made them princes ouer all the earth. Optatus mmL. 2. aduers. Parmen.likewise calleth the BB apices & principes omnium.

The Councell of Carthage nnCarth. gr. c. 39. Afr. c. 35.decreed, that when the Donatists returned to the Church, they should be receiued each one in their degrees, according to the will and pleasure of the B. foreign, who gouerneth the Church in the same place, if he shall thinke it expedient for the peace of the Church▪ Cyprian ooLib. 1. epist. 3., though he had approued Cornelius his courage, in that Felicissimus a wicked schismaticke, attended with a troope of desperate fellowes, was by him vigore pleno, quo episcopum agere oportet, pulsus de ecclesia, with full vigour of au…hority and courage, wherewith it behoueth a B to deale, driuen out of the Church; yet perceiuing him to be somwhat daunted with the threatnings of those lewd companions; if this be so, saith he, that the …daciousnes of wicked men be feared, that what they cannot doe by right and equity, they may …ccomplish by rash and desperate courses, actum est de episcopatus vigore, & de ecclesiae gubernandae sublimi ac diuina potestate, then farewell the vigour of episcopall authority, and that high and diuine power of gouerning the Church. But p. 113more fully is this authority described in the Councels of Antioch and Constantinople, and also in the writings of Ierome. EueryEvery Bishop (saith the Councell of Antioch) ppConc. Antioch. c. 9.hath authoritie of his owne See, both to gouerne it according to the feare of God which is before his eies, and to hauehave a prouident care of the whole Countrey which is vnderunder his Citie, as also to ordaine Presbyters and Deacons, and to gouerne all things with iudgement. The Councell held in Trullo qqConstant. in Trullo. c. 37.decreed, that forasmuch as some Cities being occupied by the Barbarians inuading Christian kingdomes, the Bishops of the said Cities could not enioy their seat, and performe such offices there as belong to the episcopall function; that they should retaine their rrforeign eximiam ill. … pontificatus dignitatem.eminent dignitie and authoritie, so that they may canonically exercise ordination of the diuers degrees of Clerkes, and that they may vse within their bounds foreign, the authoritie of their Prelacie, and that all their ssforeign.administration be firme and lawfull. But what saith Ierome? He hauing intreated ttDe 7. ordinib. Eccles.of the other degrees of the Clergie, at the last commeth to intreat de praecipuo gradu Ecclesiae of the chiefe degree of the Church, qui ordo episcopalis est, which is the order of Bishops: the power whereof he setteth downe in these words: Hee ordaineth Priests and Leuites, that is, Presbyters and Deacons, &c. Hee uuFabricae Dei praeest.gouerneth the Church of God: he sheweth what eueryevery one ought to do: he cond…mneth, he receiueth, he bindeth, hee looseth that which was bound, hee hath the keyes of the kingdome of heauen, hee openeth and shutteth the throne of God, (meaning heauen) hauing nothing (meaning no ecclesiasticall order) aboue him, &c.

But the superioritie of Bishops ouer Presbyters I shewed in the sermon,§ 3. The iurisdiction of Bishops compared with that of Presbyters. by comparing the iurisdiction of BB. with that which Presbyters hauehave, both in regard of the greatnesse and largenesse, and also in respect of the deriuation thereof.

The Presbyters iurisdiction is ouer the flocke of one parish: the iurisdiction of the Bishop is ouer the whole Diocese. The Presbyters is priuate in the court of conscience: the Bishops publike, and in the externall Court also. The p. 114Presbyter gouerneth the people onelyonly of one flocke: the Bishop gouerneth not only the people of the whole Diocese, but the Presbyters also themselues. The Presbyters receiue institution vntounto their iurisdiction from the Bishop, and exercise it vnderunder the Bishop of the Diocese, who hahauing (as the Councell of **C. 24.Antioch and Ierome say) the care of the whole Church or Diocese, admit the Presbyters in partem solicitudinis, into part of their care, by giuing them institution to their seuerall parishes. The Presbyters doe answer to the sonnes of Aaron, and are the successours of the 70. Disciples, as diuers of the Fathers doe teach: but the Bishops answer to Aaron, and are the successors of the Apostles, as I proue by the testimonie of Ierome, xxHieron. ad Marcel. aduers. Montan.who saith, that in the true Church Bishops doe hold the place of the Apostles; and of Irenaeus, yyIr. l. 3. c. 3.that the Apostles left the Bishops their successors, deliuering vntounto them their owne place of gouernment.

To all this the Refuter maketh a dilatorie answer, not purposing indeede to answer these allegations at all. Of these points I purpose not (saith he) to say any thing in this place, because the former concerning the difference of the Bishops and Presbyters iurisdiction, must presently be disputed: the latter is to be discussed in the last point of his fiue. And thus hath he by a cleanly deuice au…ided these allegations, which he knew not how to answer, and very featly rid his hands of them. But if the Reader shall vponupon examination finde, that hee speaketh nothing to these allegations, and proofes in the places whereunto he is differred, hee must needes thinke, that their cause of sinceritie (as they call it) is not very sincerely handled.

Hauing thus in generall noted the superioritie of Bishops in the power of iurisdiction,§ 4 The BB. authority in respect of the things of the Church. let vsus now descend vntounto particulars.

The authoritie therefore of the Bishop respecteth either the things of the Church, or the persons. Whatsoeuer things (saith the Councell aaC. Ant. c. 24.of Antioch) appertaine to the Church, are to be gouerned, husbanded, and disposed by the iudgement p. 115and authoritie of the Bishop, to whose trust the whole people is committed, and the soules of the congregation. And againe: bbIbid. c. 25.foreign, that the Bishop hath the power or authoritie of those things which belong to the Church. And this authoritie the Bishops had from the beginning; for, as what was at the first giuen to the Church, was laid at the Apostles feet, so afterwards what was contributed, was committed (saith ccApol. 2.Iustine Martyr) foreign, to the Bishop. Heereof you may reade more, Conc. Gangr. c. 7. & 8. Concil. Tol. 3. c. 19. & 4 c. 32. Balsam. in Concil. Carth. Gr. c. 36. alias 33.

As touching persons,In respect of persons. they were distinguished at the first into Clericos & Laicos, vntounto whom afterward, a third sort was added, viz. Monachi, monasticall persons; who, though they were sequestred from the companie and societie of secular men, as they count them, yet were they not exempted from the iurisdiction of the Bishop. The great Councell of Chalcedon ddConc. Chalc. c. 4.determined, that no man should build a monastery any where, or house of prayer, without the consent of the Bishop of the Citie: and that those which in eueryevery Citie or Countrey, eeforeign.did leade a monasticall life, should bee subiect to the Bishop. See more, c. 8. Conc. Afric. c. 47. Agath. c. 27. & 58. Theod. Balsam. saith, ffBals. in Conc. Carth. c 83.that Monkes were more subiect to the Bishop, then to the Gouernour of the monasterie.

As touching the Laitie, I said, Serm. sect. 10. pag. 46. to pag. 47. l. 6. I should not neede to prooue the Bishops authoritie ouer the people of their Diocese, § 5.if I demonstrate their rule ouer the Presbyters thereof, Their authoritie ouer the people. Ad pag 98.&c. Not neede (saith the Refuter?) Ye… you must prooue the power of censuring the people to be their only right, vnlesse you yeeld that preeminence to be giuen them jure humano, as indeede it must be, seeing they hauehave it not potestate ordinis, by the power of their order. The Refuter is to be borne with, if hee talke at randon, seeing he is (as it seemeth) out of his element.

The thing which I was to prooue, if it had beene needfull, was, that whereas Presbyters did gouerne each one the people of a parish, and that priuately, the Bishop gouerneth p. 116the people of the whole diocese, and that publikelie: the which I held needlesse to prooue, because before it was prooued, that they had the charge of the whole Diocese, and were Pastors thereof: And secondly, because if I prooue they gouerned the Presbyters, who were the gouernours of the seuerall flockes, then much more their iurisdiction did extend to the flockes themselues. Where he saith, J must prooue that the censuring the people is their onelyonly right ; I answer, it is sufficient to prooue their superioritie in iurisdiction, which I intended, and that none in the Diocese doth exercise externall iurisdiction, but from the B. and vnderunder him. A notable euidence whereof wee hauehave in Siluanus ggSocr. l. 7. c. 37.the famous Bishop of Troas, who perceiuing those of his Clergie to make gaine of mens suits, appointed others whom he thought good, to bee the Judges of mens causes, whereby he got himselfe great renowne. And as for the power of binding and loosing in the court of conscience, it is common to Bishops with all Presbyters, howsoeuer in respect of the vse and exercise thereof, they are subiect to the Bishop.

Where hee saith, that Bishops hauehave their iurisdiction jure humano, because they hauehave it not potestate ordinis, by the power of their order , he seemeth to harpe vponupon something, which hee doth not well vnderstand. For although the Schoolemen and Papists hhBellarm. de Pont. R. l. 4. cap. vlt.teach, that to the power of order belongeth a character and grace which God alone doth giuegive in their ordination; yet they grant also, that the jurisdiction which is conferred to them by the will of man, doth also mediately proceede from God. And howsoeuer it be true, that Bishops with vsus are assisted iure humano, iiStatut. anno Elizab. 1.to exercise their publike and externall iurisdiction, and to iudge in causes ecclesiasticall by the Kings ecclesiasticall Law; yet this doth not hinder, but that they are authorized thereunto iure Apostolico, as is manifest by the Apostles themselues, by Timothie and Titus, and all the ancient Bishops of the Primitiue Church, who by authoritie deriued to them from the Apostles, did exercise the ecclesiasticall p. 117censures ouer the people and clergy, before there were any lawes of Christian Magistrates to authorise or assist them thereunto.

But he is pleased to see how I proue the BB. to hauehave been superior to the Presbyters in iurisdiction;§ 6. Their authority ouer the clergy. though not pleased that I speake in generall of BB. for here his Coccysme againe hath place, that I should hauehave proued the Angels of the seauen Churches to hauehave had iurisdiction ouer ministers vnderunder them. Which is a miserable poore shift indeed. Was not this the thing propounded to be proued, that the BB. of the primitiue Church were superior in iurisdiction? doth not himselfe confesse, that the ancient Churches were all of one Constitution? And is not the proofe of the generall, a proofe of the particular also? If I should say, these seauen Angels had this iurisdiction; some such exception of singularity in them, would with as great reason be taken, as against Timothy and Titus. But when I proue, that BB. in generall had this superiority, I doe more then proue, that these seauen Bishops had it.

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

If the Bishoppes had maiority of rule both ouer the Presbyters that assisted them, and also ouer the Pastors allotted to their seuerall charges, then had they power of iurisdiction.

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

Therefore they had power of iurisdiction.

Why? Needes this to be proued, that Bishops had power of iurisdiction, which eueryevery parish Minister hath? Or doth the Refuter deny, that Bishops had power of iurisdiction? Or if he cannot but grant the conclusion, what a folly is it to wrangle with the premises? And yet for feare of p. 118granting the conclusion, first hee pickes a quarrell with the proposition. For though they had maiority of rule, &c. yet w…ll it not follow they had sole power of iurisdiction. Whence commeth this sole I pray you, that hath so oft been foisted in? I feare greatly from an euill conscience, resolued to oppugne and deface the truth. Cannot the B. be superior to Presbyters in the power of iurisdiction, vnlesse they hauehave (as none hauehave) the sole power of iurisdiction?

§ 7. 1. Ouer the Presbyters of the Citie.Then hee flatly denieth the assumption. But what reason doth he giuegive of his deniall? what euidence of truth doth he bring to proue the contrary? Alas, he troubleth not himselfe that way, all his care and endeuour is to find out starting holes and euasions to elude the truth.

I proue first in generall, that BB. had maiority of rule, or superiority of iurisdiction ouer the Presbyters, euen those of the City, who were the chiefe. Then in particular, in the next section. The former I proue, first, by the testimony of Ierome llAduers. Lucifer., who confesseth, that of necessity a power eminent aboue all and admitting no partner, at least no compeere, is to be granted to the B. To this besides the poore euasion of Ieromes minority, and being vnderunder age, before answered, he saith, Ierome speaketh of such BB. as hee acknowledgeth to … no warrant in the scriptures, and to hauehave beene brought into the C…rch by occas… of schisme after the Apostles times. Both which I hauehave before proued, and shall▪ againe proue to be manifestly false. Doth Ierome deny BB. to hauehave warrant in the scriptures? besides the places of the new testament often alledged, call to mind those two mmHier. in. Ps. 44. & in Esa. 60.Ps 44Isa 60, on Psalme 45. and Esay 60. Where he calleth them, principes ecclesia by warrant of those scriptures. Doth Ierome say, they were not brought into the Church vntill after the Apostles times? doth not he confesse Iames, Mark…, Timothy Titus, and diuers others to hauehave been BB. in the Apostles times, and that euer since S. Marke there hauehave beene BB. at Alexandria?

Secondly, I alledge Ignatius nnAd Trall. VVhat is a B. but he that holdeth all authority ouer all?, whom themselues oft alledge for their Presbyteries. But see what hard hap some p. 119men hauehave: he, whose authority is so good when he is alleaged by them, is but a counterfeit when he is produced by me. And yet those whoooProblem. Perk. suspect fiue of his epistles, because Eusebius and Ierome mention but seauen, acknowledge this ad Trallianos to be none of the fiue which are suspected, but one of the seauen which are receiued. This …uasion should not hauehave bin vsed, if he could tell how to answer his testimony otherwise. Yes that he can. For though Ignatius doe say that a B. is such an one as holdeth or manageth the whole power and authority aboue all,Ad pag. 99. yet that proueth not the sole iurisdiction of BB. God amend that soule, that so oft foisteth in that sole besides my meaning and my words. And yet truely Ignatius saith faire for the sole power. For if the B. hauehave the whole power and authority aboue all, why may he not be said to hauehave the sole power and authority ouer all? what? saith the refuter, he alone? May not a man say as much of the Duke of Venice, or of the King of Polonia? yet are neither of these soueraignes: no more had the B. for all these words any supreme and sole authority. Do I any where say, that the BB. hauehave or ought to hauehave supreme and sole authority, which here againe he obiecteth to make the BB. according to my iudgement forsooth absolute Popelings? will these odious slanders wilfully deuised to disgrace the truth, which I taught, neuer bee left? and yet that is vntrue which he saith of the Duke of Venice, and that is more then we desire, that the B. in his diocese, should be like the King of Polonia in his kingdome. For though the Duke of Venice bee aboue any other in Venice; yet hee hath not the whole power and authority aboue al: neither doe we make the B. to hauehave supreme power in his diocese, as the King of Poland hath in his realme; though in respect of the election of him to his kingdome, and of BB. to their sees, there be somelikenes.

In the third place I alleage another testimony of ppAd Antioch.Ignatius, §. 8. Another testimony of Ignatius.where hee exhorteth the Presbyters of Antioch, where himselfe was Bishop, to feed the flocke which was among them, vsing the words which Peter doth 1. Epist. 5. p. 120Vntill God should declare who should bee their qqforeign.Gouernour, meaning the Bishop. Where the B. in plaine termes is called the gouernor of the Presbyters. There can be no question but foreign, is a maiority of rule. And yet he saith this testimony doth not proue any such maiority of rule: and that for foure worthy reasons. First, because this is one of those places which the disciplinarians absurdly alledge for the proofe of onelyonly-gouerning elders (which neuer were) the duty inioined them being pastorall. Secondly, because the Church whereof he was B. was but one congregation at that time. And yet he expressely calleth himselfe the rrAd Roman.Bishop of Syria: which plainely proueth, that he was not onelyonly a diocesan, but a Metropolitan B. Yea but in his epistle to Ierome he calleth it foreign . I wil not vrge the error in the name Ierome, for Heron: perhaps it was not our Ieremies ssPref. to inform., but his Barucks fault. The word foreign, which hee absurdly translateth, Synagogue and parish, signifieth congregation, and is the same with ecclesia, or Church. For Ignatius hauing signified to him that he should be his successour in the Bishopricke, he saith ttIgnat. ad Heronem.; foreign, and the congregation of the Lord shall not be as sheepe without a pastor. But hereof I hauehave spoken heretofore. Howbeit, both this and the former answere here are meere euasions. For suppose that (which I hauehave proued to be most false) that there were onelyonly-gouerning elders in Antioch, and that the Church had been but one parish, can he be so absurde asto say, that none of the Presbyters in Antioch were ministers? If any were (as indeed they were all as I hauehave abundantly proued before) is not the B. here plainely noted to be their gouernour? and if he were their gouernour, was he not aboue them in the power of iurisdiction or gouernment? Or what is this to the present question, whether the Church of Antioch contained one congregation or more, if it cannot be denied that the B. was superiour in the power of iurisdiction to the Presbyters of that Church, how great or how little soeuer it was?

His third reason of all others is most impertinent. For p. 121what is this to the purpose, if it were true, that the duty which Ignatius inioineth them of feeding, that is, of instructing and guiding the people, was not perpetually belonging to their office, but onelyonly in the time of the vacancie, till they had another gouernour , seeing he noteth that himselfe had been, and his successour should bee their gouernour? But it is vntrue which he saith, concerning the perpetuity of the duty. For Ignatius his meaning was, that as they were at all times to feed the people, so especially in the absence or want of the Bishop, the care and attendance of the flocke in the defect of a B. being deuolued to them.

Fourthly,§ 9. If M. D. doe vrge, saith he, that Ignatius was, and so also his successor their gouernour, (which was indeed the onelyonly thing for which the place was alleaged, and to which point alone hee ought to hauehave directed his speech) the answere is easie, that he might be so, and yet the Church but a parish, and those Presbyters gouerning Elders. An easie answere indeed: as who should say, though the allegation doe proue that for which you bring it, yet it doth not disprooue some other of our absurdities, for the disproofe whereof you do not bring it: as that the Church was a parish, and the Presbyters onelyonly gouerning elders. Was the disproofe of those points to be expected from this place, and at this time? do you not say, it is one of the places which is ordinarily brought out of Ignatius, for proofe of onelyonly-gouerning Elders? And must this be your shift to auoid my argument, proouing out of this place the superiority of Bishops in the power of iurisdiction, that for any thing can hence be alleaged, the Presbyters might be onelyonly gouerning Elders? Js not the Refuter neere driuen, thinke you, when he would beare his Reader in hand, that his lay Presbyters be sufficiently proued, if the place which themselues bring for them, doth not disproue them; but especially, when he is driuen to alleage this as a poore shift to auoid another thing in question? Yea but if the Church were a parish, and they onelyonly gouerning Elders, then was Ignatius but as a Parson of a parish: and Parsons, though they be called, rectores p. 122ecclesiarum, gouernours of the parish Churches, are farre enough from the maiority of rule in question. Whereto J answere, that if he would need… make Ignatius but the Parson of a parish, assisted with a Presbytery of lay Elders, hee should hauehave conceiued him to be such a one as themselues fancie, and not as ours are. For he should not hauehave been subordinate and subiect as ours are (and as all Presbyters of ttThe Councell of Sardica saith, they are foreign subiect to the B. and ought to performe a sincere ministery vntounto them, c. 14.parishes euer were) to the Bishops, but as they fancy, indued with a power vnsubordinate and independent; and therefore had a supremacy, rather then superiority, as being the supreme ecclesiasticall officer in all that Church. But how I beseech you is it proued, that Ignatius was but a parish Bishop? Because, forsooth, the Church of Antioch might be a parish, and the Presbyters thereof onelyonly-gouerning Elders, for any thing that I hauehave here said to the contrary, which indeed I intended not in this place. But now I discerne a worthy stratageme of this Refuter, in chusing rather to answere the places out of Ignatius, being brought for superiority of Bishops, then himselfe to vrge them for the lay-elders: hoping to perswade some kind of Readers, both that their Elders are sufficiently proued, if they be not disprooued out of the places which themselues doe bring to proue them: and also, that by such an answere, the superiority of Bishops is sufficiently auoided. But to conclude this point, whiles the Refuter goeth about to proue, that Antioch (which was the Metropolis of Syria, and the chiefe Citie of all the East) was but a parish Church: and the Bishop of Antioch, who was also (as Ignatius testifieth of himselfe) the Bishop of Syria,Theodor. hist. l. 5. c. 23. and as Theodoret saith, foreign, the chiefe or pr…ate of all the Bishops in in the East, to hauehave been but a Parson of a parish Church; the Reader will hereby learne, what conceit to hauehave of his learning and iudgement, and what credit to giuegive to his new-…angled opinions.

p. 123(Serm. sect. 11. pag. 47.) Now the Presbyters were subiect to their B. both as their ruler to be guided,§. 10. The BB. did rule and direct the Presbyters. &c. to page 50. med.)

Hauing in generall shewed the Bishops superiority in iurisdiction ouer the Presbyters, euen those of the Citie; in this section J proue it more particularly by the parts of gouernment, which are, both to rule and direct; as also to censure and correct. I shew therefore, that the Presbyters of the Citie were subiect to the Bishoppe, both as their ruler, to be guided and d…rected by him, and also as their Iudge, to be censured and corrected of him. Where the Refuter, if he would needs be analysing and syllogising, should hauehave framed this argument:

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

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

Therefore the B. was superiour to the Presbyters in power of iurisdiction and maiority of rule.

The proposition of this syllogisme is of euident & vndeniable truth. The assumption consisteth of two parts: the former concerning the rule of direction, the latter concerning the power of correction: which I doe in order proue by euident testimonies, whereunto he opposeth nothing but cauilling shifts and euasions. By way of analysis he saith thus:The former proofe of the assumption touching the Bishops maiority of rule, was generall, concerning diocesan and parishionall Presbyters. Now follow the reasons for each of p. 124them in particular: and first, for the Bishoppes iurisdiction ouer the diocesan, in regard of direction. Where I desire him to tell vsus, what he meaneth by diocesan Presbyters, whether such as assisted the Bishop in the diocesan gouernment? If yea, hee dreameth of that hee cannot proue. To omit the commendation of his skill in analysing, which is not great, his resutation heere is, as you plainely see, not onelyonly a dreame, but the dreame of a dreame. He saith, I dreame of diocesan Presbyters , when himselfe (belike) did dreame so. Where speake I one word of diocesan Presbyters? where doe I once name them? Is the Refuters conscience no better, then still to father vponupon mee vntruths for his owne aduantage? doth he not thereby bewray what a cause he maintaineth, which cannot be vpheld but by forgeries? Neither if J had spoken of diocesan Presbyters, would I hauehave vsed the word in that sense. For as parts of the diocesse in the country are sometimes in the Councels called dioceses; so are Country Ministers called aaConc. Agath. c. 22. Tolet. 3. c. 20.dioecesani, qui bbCarth. 4. c. 36.per dioeceses ecclesias regunt: which in the Councell of Neocaesaria, are ccNeocaes. c. 13.called foreign, that is, Country Ministers, and are opposed to the Presbyters of the Citie, who are there called foreign, and else where ddC. Agath. c. 22. Ad pag. 100., ciuitatenses Presbyteri. Of whom it may bee truly said, that the Colledge or company of them was the Presbytery, which being not assigned to any one parish, was prouided to assist the Bishoppe in the feeding and gouernment of the diocesse, as I hauehave prooued before, and in that sense might be called dioecesani.

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

The former part of my ee§ 10.aforesaid Assumption, that the Presbyters of the City were subiect to the B. as their ruler to be directed by him, I proue, first in generall, because p. 125they might doe nothing of importance without his direction or consent, then particularly, in respect of those things which did belong to the power of their order. For as touching the former; if the Presbyters might doe nothing without the B. nothing without his appointment, or consent; then were they subiect to him, as their ruler, to be guided and directed by him. But the former I proue by these testimonies, whereto more may be added; therefore the latter cannot be denied.

Of the Syllogisme which he framed, hee denieth first the Consequence of the proposition; not shaming to affirme, that although the ancient Canon called the Apostles, though the auncient Councels of Ancyra and Arles, though Tertullian, Cyprian and Ignatius, doe all testifie the maiority of rule in BB: yet it would not follow that they had it. It will follow then, that the ancientest Councels, and Fathers deserue no credit: which whosoeuer shall affirme, doth much more without comparison, deserue not onelyonly no credit, but no audience, nay no sufferance, he is not to bee endured. But what pretence hath hee, to discredite their authorities? forsooth none of them, excepting Tertullian and Ignatius liued in the first 200. yeares. As if all truth were confined within that periode: or as if some of the Fathers which succeeded (as Cyprian by name) deserued not as much credite as they. As for Cyprian, hee came 40. or 50. yeares after: and the Councell of Ancyry some 50. or 60. yeares after him. No doubt, but great alteration in discipline, and Church-gouernement, was or could be pretended to hauehave been in the Church, before Constatines time whiles it was vnderunder the Crosse. But let the Refuter esteeme of these authorities as hee pleaseth; there is no modest or moderate Christian, but will preferre the affirmation of any of these, especially, in a matter of fact, before the negation of a thousand such as the libelling refuter.

After he hath thus eleuated their authority,§. 12. hee cauilleth with their testimonies, denying also the assumption. p. 126And first to the ancient Canon,Presbyters might doe nothing with out the leaue or consent of the Bishop. forbidding Presbyters & Deacons to doe anything ffCan. Apost. 39. al 40.foreign, without the appointment and consent of the Bishoppe, hee frameth such an answere, as eueryevery word whereof almost doth argue extreame either vnconscionablenesse, or ignorance. Hee saith, It doth not proue they had maiority of rule, or sole soueraignty ouer them▪ Sole soueraignity? O defiled conscience, which ceasest not to ascribe such odious and absurd assertions to me! But why is not the maiority of rule in the Bishoppe hence proued, and the subiection of Presbyters to him as to their ruler, to bee guided and directed by him, seeing they are charged to doe nothing without his direction and warrant? what can bee more plaine? forsooth, the like Phrase is vsed Can. 35. and Conc. Antioch. c. 9. where BB. are enioyned to doe nothing without the sentence of the Archbishoppe, nor he in their Parishes without the sentence or appointment of them all. If therefore the Maiority of rule in BB. may be proued from this Canon, then in like manner from the other two Canons, the maiority of rule not onelyonly in Archbishops in those dayes ouer BB. but also of Bishops in their Parishes, ouer the Archbishop. But the consequent is false in both the parts of it: the former, for there were no Archbishops in those dayes; the latter, because BB. had not authority ouer Archbishoppes: therefore the Antecedent also is vntrue. Here the refuter vnderunder some shew of learning hath bewraied much ignorance. For first, as touching the proposition: his reason is vnlike, and his allegation out of the ggCan Apost. 34. a… 35.34. Canon is vntrue. The Bishoppe of eueryevery natiō m…st agnize him that is the first or Primate among them, and esteeme him as the chiefe, foreign. It is not said as in the Canon by me cited, foreign simply, as the refuter citeth it; but foreign. Is there no difference betweene these two speeches, to doe nothing simply, and to do nothing more, or exceeding their own bounds? For that this is the meaning of the Canon, the words following doe plainely declare, foreign, but that they doe onelyonly those things which appertaine to their own See, p. 127and the countries vnderunder it. But more plainely in the Councel of Antioch hhCon. Antioc. c. 9., that the rest of the Bishops doe foreign, nothing more then those things onelyonly which concerne eueryevery mans owne Church and Countries which bee vnderunder it. And that you should not vnderstand them, as the Refuter doth without vnderstanding, they adde; for eueryevery Bishoppe hath authority of his owne City, both to gouern according to the feare (of God) which hee hath, and to hauehave care of all the Country, as also to ordaine Presbyters and Deacons, and to administer euerything with iudgement. And yet I doe not deny, but that the Metropolitanes are superior to their Comprouinciall Bishoppes, in the power of Iurisdiction; although all Bishops whatsoeuer, are equall in the power of order. Neither should the Bishops by the like reason be superiour to the Archbishops in their parishes, as he ignorantly addeth. For the Canon doth not speake of the seuerall Bishops in their Dioceses, which hee absurdly calleth Parishes; but of the whole Company of them assembled in a Prouinciall Synode, saying that he must doe nothing foreign, without the consent of them all. Howsoeuer therefore either the Metropolitane, or any other of the Bishoppes in their owne seuerall Dioceses might doe those things which concerned their owne proper charge; yet iiforeign. Conc. Const. 1. c. 2.prouinciall businesses (which exceeded the bounds of any one mans charge) were to be dispatched in Prouinciall Councels; wherein the Metropolitane was to be acknowledged as the chiefe and President thereof, who called them together, and moderated the assembly; but so, as the Bishops might doe nothing without him seuerally, so he might doe nothing without them all iointly; and as hee was superiour to them seuerally, so was hee inferiour to them all iointly, that is, to the Synode.

The Assumption likewise in the former part of it is false, and the reason of it also. For there were Metropolitanes in the first two hundred yeares, and they were superiour in the power of iurisdiction to their Bishops. But before p. 128he will let this testimony passe, hee hath one point of ignorance more to shew, and that is, because Archbishoppes are mentioned, c. 35, alias 34. therefore these Canons were none of the Apostles, nor any others aboue an hundred, he will not say (whatsoeuer hee thinkes) two hundred yeares after them. For Archbishops were not hatched (so reuerentlie he speaketh) a long time after, all men being iudge. The antiquitie of these Canons I hauehave touched before; shewing, that within little more then two hundred yeares after the Apostles time, they were then accounted auncient Canons. But to the point. If hee speake of the name Archbishoppe, it is not mentioned in the Canons, called the Apostles; if of the office of a Metropolitane, which is meant in the aforesaid Canon; I hauehave proued before, that it hath beene euer since the Apostles times. Those learned men, which hold Archbishops to be of a latter edition, by that name vnderstand Patriarches; and those of 2. sorts, being either so called foreign as the Patriarches of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Ierusalem; or such as are more vsually called Archbishops, or foreign gouernors of large prouinces, beeing in a degree betweene, Metropolitanes, and Patriarches, which seeme to hauehave beene ordained in the first Councell of Constantinople, as Socrates kkSocr. hist. l. 5. c. 8.witnesseth. Hence it is, that Isidor llOrig. lib. 7. c. de clericis.saith Ordo Episcoporum quadripartitus est, i. in Patriarchis, Archiepiscopis, Metropolitis atque Episcopis: and the same distinction is noted in the Councill of mmC. Chalc. c. 9. et 17.Chalcedon, and in the nnLib. 1. tit. 4. de episcopali audientia.Code,§. 29. Sanc…mus: et Novell. 123 c. 22. and constitutions of Iustinian, and in the ooIus graecorom page 88.foreign made by Leo the Emperour &c.

To the same purpose I alledged the ancient Councell of Arles ppArelat. 1. c. 19, that Presbyters may doe nothing without the knowledge, and consent of their BB. and of Ancyra the most ancient approued Councill that is extant qqAncyr. c. 12. alias 13. I cite the Latine text because the Greeke seemeth to be defectiue., Non licere Presbyteris ciuitatis, sine Episcopi praecepto amplius aliquid imperare, nec sine authoritate literarum eius in vnaquaque parochia aliquid agere. That it is not lawfull for the Presbyters of the citie to doe any thing of importance without the Bishops appointment, p. 129no… to do any thing in any parish without the authoritie of his letters.

To these J adde the first Councill of Toledo; rrToletan. 1. c. 20.Sine conscientia Episcopi nihil p…nit… Presbyteri agere praesummunt, Let the Presbyters presum… to doe nothing at all without the knowledge, and consent of the Bishop.

And forasmuch as for a poore euasion he alledgeth, that these Councils by me cited, though the ancientest that are extant, are vnderunder age; which ill becommeth him to object, who hath no witnesses to the contrarie before this present age; I will therfore produce one or two more, who liued in the Apostles times, and conuersed with them. Ignatius therefore in an Epistle which the Refuter hath before cited, saith ssAd Magnes.that neither Presbyter, nor Deacon ought to doe any thing without the B. foreign, neither let any thing seeme reasonable vntounto you, which is done without his warrant. To him I will adioyne a testimony of Clement, wishing the Reader to credit it no further then he seeth cause. HettEpist. 1. ad Iacob. therefore reporteth it as a doctrine of Peter, that no Presbyter ought to doe any thing in any Bishoppes parish or diocesse, without his permission; and that all Presbyters ought without delay to be obedient to their BB. in all things.

§. 14. But as I prooued that Presbyters might doe nothing without the Bishoppes appointment or consent,The Presbyters might not doe those things which belong to the power of order, without authority from the B. As not baptize. so I noted especially those things which belong to their power of order; as the actions of their ministery, to baptize, to celebrate the Communion, to preach, to say the publike Liturgy, or diuine seruice.

As touching Baptisme, I alleaged Tertullian uuLib. de baptisme., testifying, that the Bishoppe hath the right to giuegive Baptisme; then the Presbyters and the Deacon…: but yet not without the authority of the Bishoppe, for the honour of the Church, (that is, the honour due vntounto him in the Church) which being safe, peace is safe. Where note in Tertullians time, within the first two hundred yeeres, the Bishoppe was so greatly honoured, that the peace of the Church was supposed to depend on the honour of the Bishoppe, as Ierome p. 130also speaketh, & that the ordinary right of baptizing was primarily in the Bishop; secondarily, in the Presbyters & Deacons, but not to be exercised by them without his authority: whereas extraordinarily, and in case of necessitie, lay men in his iudgement might baptize. To this the Refuter giueth fiue answeres, but neuer a good one. As first, that Tertullian speaketh not of their iuresdiction in the Apostles times, or af…er by authority from them. Hee speaketh nor de facto, but de iure; noting what right Bishops had: and hee sheweth the ordinary right of baptizing which the Presbyters had, was not without the Bishops authority.

2. That the preeminence he giueth them was for the honor of the Church, and preseruation of peace. What then? was this peculiar to his time? Were they not as carefull of the honour of the Church, and preseruation of peace in the Apostles times, as after?

3. Neither doth he speake of the authority of the Bishop in generall, but of an honour giuen him in one particular.And for one particular belonging to the power of order, did I alleage it, that hauing prooued this point in generall, I might also shew it in the particulars, which cannot otherwise be done, but sigillation, one by one. Yea but this honour no one particular, might well bee in a titular Bishoppe, that had no such iurisdiction. Titular Bishops in the primitue Church were such, as had the name and title, but not the authority of a Bishop granted to them. Such a one was Meletius, who by the censure of the Councell of Nice**Epist. Synod. Nic. apud. So…r. l. 1. c. 6., was not to hauehave foreign, the authority, but foreign, the bars name of a Bishop. And such were xxSynod. Nic. c. 8.Nouatian Bishops, returning to the Church permitted to be, if the Catholike Bishop would gratifie them with the name and title of a Bishop.

I reade of Eustathius yyEpist. Synodi Ephes. ad synodum Pamphyl., the Metropolitan B. of Pamphylia, who being desirous to leade a more quiet and solitary life, gaue vp his Bishopricke: whereupon Theodorus was chosen in his roome. For it was not meet foreign, that the Church should continue a widow, and that the flockes …f our Sauiour should remaine without a gouernour. But he afterwards p. 131repenting him of the abdication of his Bishopricke, putteth vp a petition to the Councell of Ephesus, that hee might at the least retaine the name and honour of a Bishop. At his request, the Councell writeth to the Synod of Pamphylia, that he might hauehave foreign, the name, the honour, and communion of a Bishop: but yet so, as that neither he doe ordaine, nor taking vponupon him the charge of the Church, should performe sacred actions by his owne authority Thus we see who were titular Bishops in the primitiue Church, such as were gratified with the name, but wanted the office and authority of a Bishoppe. As for those who had the office of a Bishoppe, of whom Tertullian speaketh; they had also vigorem episcopatus, the vigor of the episcopall office: whereof Cyprian so oft speaketh, and the sway of authority ecclesiasticall was in their hands: insomuch that Presbyters and Deacons, who by the power of their order had right to baptitize, might not euen in Tertullians time exercise that power, but by authority from the Bishop.

In the fourth place the Refuter obiecteth, that these Presbyters were not ordinary Ministers of the word and Sacraments,§ 15. Ad pag. 101. but such as he and his fellowes dreame of; because Tertullian in the very next words affirmeth, alioquin etiamlaicis iut est, otherwise lay men also might baptize. That the Presbyters were Ministers, I hauehave manifestly proued before, and I hauehave noted already, that Tertullian signifieth the ordinary right of baptizing to be in the Bishop, Presbyters & Deacons, that yet extraordinarily and in the case of necessity, lay men might baptize. And so Ierome aaAduers. Lucifer.seemeth to exhound Tertullians meaning. Hence it is that without Chrisme (which bbConc. Carth. 4. c 36.the Presbyters of the seuerall parishes were to fetch from their B.) and without the commandement of the Bishop neither Presbyter nor Deacon hauehave right to baptize. Which notwithstanding wee know to be oft times lawfull for lay men to doe, si tamen necessitas cogit, but yet so, if necessity doe compell. But nothing is more euident then that the Presbyters were Ministers, by that which hath p. 132heretofore been deliuered. Whereunto this helpeth somewhat, that Tertullian opposeth Presbyters and Deacons to laymen. This obiection the Refuter thought to preuent, by saying, that the gouerning Elders and Deacons were accounted among the Clergy. Which also is an vnlearned assertion. For to omit the arguments which before were brought to prooue, that the Presbyters and Deacons were degrees of the sacred Ministery; it is plaine, that the clergy of each diocesse was a company of such as were trained vp in learning, it being the seminary of the whole diocesse. And as they profited in yeeres, learning, and pietie, so they were preferred to bee Readers, then Exorcists, then Acolythi, then Sub-deacons, after that Deacons, then Presbyters, out of whom ordinarily was chosen the Bishoppe. And moreouer, the Presbyters and Deacons, with the rest of the Clergy, had all their maintenance according to their place and degree in the Church. And therefore our disciplinarians, if they will hauehave such Presbyters and Deacons as were in the primitiue Church, they must fetch them from the Vniuersitie, and schooles of learning, as we doe, and maintaine them by the charges of the Church, as well, though not with so large allowance▪ as the Bishop.

His last euasion (for none of his answers is better) is, that the lower Tertullian speaketh of, might well be, and was on a parish Bishop, the Presbyters being subiect to him, as his assistants for that one Church. But parish Bishoppes, such as they speake of, and lay elders be of one edition, neuer heard of before our age. For the more manifest proofe whereof, I referre you to that which before hath been by mee alleaged. Jt is euident therefore by the testimonies of Tertullian and Ierome, that such was the superioritie of Bishoppes, in respect of iurisdiction, that the Presbyters and Deacons, though the right to baptize belonged to their power of order, yet they might not exercise that power, without iurisdiction and authority granted them from the Bishop.

§. 16. Presbyters might not administer the Communion without the Bishops license.The like I alleaged concerning the Lords Supper. Ignatius p. 133ccAd Smyrnens.saith, foreign: Let that Eucharist be allowed as firme and warrantable, which is celebrated vnderunder the Bishop, that is, in his presence; or by such (namely in his absence, or in those Congregations where he is not present) as he should permit or appoint. The words foreign, preuent the Refuters cauill, who saith, that the Church was but one Congregation, wh…rein no man had authoritie to minister the word or Sacraments, but with the liking of the Pastor. For that Eucharist which was foreign, was in the congregation, where the Bishop was present, it being administred in other congregations by such as the Bishop did authorize. But the idle conceit of one onelyonly Congregation in the greatest Churches hath beene before sufficiently refuted.

Where I alleged Cyprian, reproouing the Presbyters of Carthage, for giuing the Communion to some which had fallen in time of persecution, without warrant from him, though he were absent, therin not regarding as they ought ddCypr. li. 3. ep. 14.15.16.praepositum sibi Episcopum, the Bishop who was set ouer them, nec Episcopo honorem Sacerdotij sui & Cathedrae seruantes, nor reseruing vntounto the Bishop the honour of his Priesthood and Chaire: the Refuter saith, the same answer which he gaue to Tertullian, will serue (as a poore shift) for Cyprians testimonie, who had iust cause to complaine, that the Presbyters, who in his absence were to feede the Flocke, had taken vponupon them to admit to the Communion, &c. Doth not the Refuter see his former shift will not serue the turne? Is it not plaine, that the Presbyters which Cyprian speaketh of, who as hee saith elsewhere, eeLi. 3. epist. 1.were cum Episcopo sacerdotali honore coniuncti, ioined to the Bishop in the honour of Priesthood, who were to feed the people, and whose office it was to deliuer the holy Communion to the people, were Ministers of the word and Sacraments? Againe, will it serue the turne to say, either that the Presbyters had authority only in this particular of the Sacrament, or that Cyprian was either but a titular or a parish B. whom I hauehave proued before to hauehave beene a Metropolitan? In the end he resteth in his p. 134first answer, that Cyprian is vnderunder age. Alas good Cyprian, how hard was thy happe, that thou wert not Bishop one ffCyprian testifieth when hee wrote the booke, De duplici martyri…, that it was about the year 240. and it is plaine that he was B. in Fabianus the B. of Rome his time, who ended his life in the yeere 249. after hee had beene B. 14. yeeres. § 17. The like is said of other ministeriall functions.fortie yeeres sooner, that the Refuter and his consorts, which now hauehave excluded thee without the compasse of their imagined Primitiue Church, might hauehave esteemed thy testimonie as good as Tertullians, or others who wrote in the first 200. yeeres!

The like I might hauehave added concerning other ministeriall functions. The second Councell of Carthage ggConc. Carth. 2. c. 9.decreed, that if any Presbyter without the consent of the B. should in any place agenda celebrare, celebrare diuine seruice, and performe such actions as belong to the ministerie, hee should be deposed. The Councell of Gangra pronounceth him accursed, who shal performe the actions of the church, meaning those things which appertaine to Gods publike seruice, and the ministerie of the word and sacraments, hhGangr. c. 6.foreign, there being not present a Presbyter by the appointment of the Bishop.

The ancient Canon, iiC. 30. aliâs 31.called the Apostles, appointeth, that such a Presbyter as will of his owne authoritie, without the appointment of the B. hold assemblies for the seruice of God, & vse of the sacraments, that he should be deposed, foreign as ambitious. The same hath the Councell of Antioch, kkConc. Antioch. c. 5.in the fifth Canon; which Canon being recited in the Councell of Chalcedon, llAct 4.Acts 4all the BB. gaue it this acclamation: This is a iust rule; this is the rule of the Fathers. This case being propounded in the Councell of Carthage, mmCarth. graec. c. 10. & 11.if a Presbyter being condemned by his owne B. shall swell with pride against him, and thinke he may apart celebrate the diuine seruice, and offer the Communion, &c. the Councell determined, if any Presbyter swelling with pride against his B. shall make a schisme, withdrawing himselfe from the Communion of his B. &c. let him be anathema.

For a conclusion, I alleged the words of Ignatius, nnAd Smyrn.foreign, Let no man without the B. that is, without his leaue and authority, doe any thing that belongeth to the Church. To which the Refuter maketh this one only answer, of one congregation, which I p. 135hauehave confuted more then once.

To proue the Bishops power and authority in correcting Presbyters,§. 18. The Bishops authoritie in correcting Presbyters. in the first place I alleged Cyprian, who ooLi. 3. epist. 9.telleth Regatianu… a B. who had beene abused of his Deacon, that pro Episcopatus v…gore & Cathedrae authoritate, for the vigour of his Bishopricke, and authority of his chaire, hee might himselfe hauehave censured him as he thought good; & counselleth him, if the Deacon did persist, hee ppFungaris circa eum potestate honoris tui, vt eum vel deponas, vel abstineas.should exercise the power of his honor towards him, and either depose him, or excommunicate him. Secondly, Ierome qqAduers. Vigilant. ad Riparium.maruelling that the B. where Vigilantius was Presbyter, did not virga apostolica, with the apostolike and with an iron rodde, breake that vnprofitable vessell, and deliuer him vntounto the destruction of the flesh. Both these the refuter casteth off, as vncompetent witnesses, who speake but of the practise of their owne times ; as who should say, it had beene otherwise before their times. But it is plaine almost by innumerable testimonies, some whereof I will cite rr§ 20.anon, that the ancientest Canons, Councels, and Fathers acknowledge and allow this correctiue power in the Bishops ouer the Presbyters and Deacons in the Primitiue Church. As for the Apostles times, I prooue the same out of the Apocalypse, but more plainely out of the Epistles to Timothe and Titus.

The former reason, if the Refuter will giuegive me leaue to frame it, is this:

Those who either are commended for examining, and not suffering such in their Church, as called themselues Apostles, and were not, or were reprooued for suffering false Teachers, had a correctiue power ouer other Ministers.

The Angell of the Church of Ephesus ssApoc. 2.2.Rev 2:2is commended for the former: the Angell of the Church of Thyatira ttApoc. 2.20.Rev 2:20is reproued for the latter.

Therefore these Angels, which before I hauehave proued to be BB. had a correctiue power ouer other Ministers.

His answer is friuolous,Ad. past. 102. that neither these Angels were diocesan Bishops, which before hath been prooued, nor these false Teachers diocesan Presbyters, which word himselfe p. 136deuised for a shift. Is it not against sense (saith hee) that the Presbyters which were subiect to the B. should call themselues Apostles? If they were not subiect to him, why is hee either commended for exercising authoritie ouer them, or reprooued for suffering them? And if they were not Presbyters, because they called themselues Apostles, be like they were better men. Js it not then against sense, to deny that Presbyters were subiect to the cēsure of the Bishop, because he imagineth these, who were subiect to their censure, were better men? Whatsoeuer they were, whether Presbyters, or in a higher degree; whether of the Bishops presbytery, or not; whether of his diocese originally, or come from other places, it is plaine, that they were Teachers, and that being in their diocese, the Bishops had authoritie either to suffer them to preach, or to inhibit them; to retaine them in the Communion of their Church, or to expell them.

My other reason, that BB. had correctiue power ouer the Presbyters, is, because Timothe and Titus had such power ouer the Presbyters of Ephesus and Creet: as I proue by most euident testimonies out of Pauls epistles Tit. 1.5.Titus 1:5written to them,uu1. Tim. 1.3.5.19.20.21.22.6.14.1 Tim 1:31 Tim 1:51 Tim 1:191 Tim 1:201 Tim 1:211 Tim 1:221 Tim 1:61 Tim 1:14 and Epiphanius **Haeres. 75.his inference on these words to Timothe: Against a Presbyter receiue not thou an accusation, but vnderunder two or three witnesses, &c. Therefore (saith he) Presbyters are xxPar in parem non habet imperium.subiect to the B. as to their Iudge. To my inference out of S. Paul he answereth, that Timothe and Titus were not BB. and that I shall neuer prooue they were. I desire therefore the Reader to suspend his iudgement vntill hee come to the proofes on both sides; and if he shall not find my proofes for their being BB. to be better then his to the contrarie, let him beleeue me in nothing. In the meane time let him know, that if the generall consent of the ancient Fathers deserue any credit for a matter of fact, then must it be granted that Timothe and Titus were Bishops.

Against Epiphanius hee obiecteth, that hee tooke for granted that which Aerius constantly denied. But this is one of his presumptuous and malapeit conceits; for when Epiphanius prooueth against Aerius, that Bishops were p. 137superiour to other Presbyters, because Timothe was, taking it for granted that Timothe was a Bishoppe: what moderate or reasonable man would think otherwise, but that this assertion, that Timothe was a Bishoppe, was such a receiued truth, as hee knew Aërius himselfe would not deny it?

(Serm. sect. 12. pag. 50. But consider also the Presbyters as seuered in place from the Bishop,The Bishops authority ouer Presbyters hauing cures. and affixed to their seuerall Cures, &c. to offenders, pag. 52.

My first Argument to proue the iurisdiction of Bishops ouer Presbyters assigned to their seuerall cures, is, that when any place in the country was voide, the Bishoppe assigned a Presbyter to them out of his Presbytery, which as hath beene said before, Caluin confesseth; and is an euident argument, as to proue the iurisdiction of the Bishop ouer the country parishes, and Presbyters thereof, so to demonstrate that the Bishops were Diocesan. This reason because hee could not answere, he would as his maner is, perswade the Reader that it is needlesse .

Secondly, I alledge that these Presbyters might doe nothing but by authority from the Bishoppe, from whome they had their iurisdiction, and therefore were subiect to him as their ruler.

Thirdly,Ad Pag. 103. that they were subiect to his iudgement and censures. These two points with their proofes, hee passeth ouer, as if hee made hast to the reason following, which he supposeth to be the weakest. For this is his maner, to passe by in breuity, or in silence the best proofes, and if he meet with any thing which seemeth to him weaker then the rest, there he resteth like a…lie in a raw place. But by his leaue I will insist a little on these two points. And first, for the former point in generall, the ancient Councell of Laodicea hauing ordained that Country Bishops might do nothing p. 138without the consent of the B. in the City; in like maner commaundeth the Presbyters aaCon. L…od. c. 56 alias 57.to doe nothing foreign, without the consent of the B. The same hath Damasus, bbEpist. de Chorepiscopis.who hauing spoken of Country Bishops, in like manner saith, this must be held concerning Presbyters; vt sine iussu proprij Episcopi nihilagant, that they do nothing without the commaundement of their owne B. To omit those actions that belonged to the power of order, which I hauehave already proued they could not performe without licence and authority from the Bishop: consider, how in respect of their persons those of the Clergy were subiect to the Bishop, to be disposed by him. First, hee had authority to promote thē from one degree to another, as he saw cause; insomuch ccConc. Carth. Graet. c. 31. & Aquisgran. c. 56.that if they refused to bee promoted by him they were to loose that degree from which they would not be remoued.

Secondly, they might not remoue ddCan. Apost. 15. Con. Antioc. c. 3. Constant. in Trul. c▪ 17. Carth. 4. c. 27.from one Diocese to another without his consent. If they did, he had authority to call them backe. Or if any other Bishop should ordaine any of his Clerks without his cōsent, or letters dimissory eeforeign., and in that Church preferre him to a higher degree; his own B. might reuerse that ordination, & bring him again to his own Church. Con. Nic. c. 16. Arel. 2. c. 13. Sard. c 15. Constant. in Trullo. c. 17. Venet. c. 10 Epaun. c. 5.

Thirdly, they might not so much as trauel from one City to another, without the B. licence, & his commendatory ffforeign.letters. This was decreed by the councell of Laodicea ggC. Laod. c. 42. & 41., and diuers others, as Con. Agath. c. 38. Epaunens. c. 6. Aurelian. 3. c. 15. Venet. c. 5. Turon. c. 11.12. Hereby the Reader will easily discerne, that the whole Clergy of eueryevery Diocese was subiect to the B. as to their Ruler.

§. 20. The B. iudge of the Presbyters.And that he was their iudge, it is euident. Cyprian hhl. 1. Epist. 3. In their controuersies.testifieth, that heresies and schismes arise hence, that the Bishop is not obeied, nec v…us in Ecclesia ad tempus sacerdos & ad tempus index vice Christi cogitatur, neither is one B. in the Church and one iudge for the time in the stead of Christ acknowledged. First, in their controuersies: for when Clerks iiCon. Carth. 4. c. 5….are at variance, the B▪ shal bring them to concord, either by reason, p. 139or by his power. If there be a controuersie betweene Clerks, saith the Councel of Chalcedon kkc. Chalc. c. 9., they shal not forsake their owne B. but first their cause shall be tried before him. And if in their sutes they thought themselues llc. Carth. grae. c. 28 & 126.wronged in their Bishoppes court, then were they either to se…ke to the next BB mmC. Chalc. 9., if the matter could not be differred to the next Synode: or else they might appeale nnCod. Iustin. de audien. tia episcopali c. sancimus.to the Metropolitane, or Prouinciall Synode. But that the B. should be ouerruled, controlled, or censured by his owne Presbytery, it was neuer heard of, vnlesse it were by way of insurrection or rebellion.

Secondly, in causes criminall,In causes criminall. that the Presbyters and others of the Clergy were subiect to the BB. censures, it is eueryevery where almost in the ancient Canons and Councels either expressed, or presupposed. If any Presbyter or Deacon, saith the ancient Canon ooCan. Apost. 32., be excommunicated by the B. he may not be receiued by another into the Communion, then by him who did excommunicate him whiles he liueth. Which Canon is ratified in the Councell of Nice ppConc. Nic. c. 5.in these words; as touching those which be excommunicate, whether they be of the Clergy or Laity, by the BB. in eueryevery Prouince, let that Canō be obserued, that those that are excommunicated of one should not goe to another, &c. The Councell of qqC. Antioch. c. 4.Antioch decreed, that if any B. being deposed by a Synode, or a Presbyter or Deacon by his owne B. shall presume before they be restored by a Synod to exercise their ministery, their degree should be vnrecouerable; and that they which communicate with them, should be cast out of the church. Again, rrIbid. c. 6.If any of the Laitie, or Clergy, whether Presbyters or Deacons &c. shalbe excommunicated by his own B. he may not bee receiued of another. And yet againe,ssC. 12. If any Presbyter or Deacon being deposed by their owne Bishop, &c. The Councell of Sardica ttSardic. c. 13.forbiddeth a Bishop to receiue a Presbyter or Deacon, &c. whom hee knoweth to hauehave beene excommunicated by his owne Bishop. Againe,uuC. 14. If any B. through choler shall rashly excommunicate a Presbyter or Deacon, it shall bee lawfull for them to appeale to the Metropolitane. Exuperantius a Presbyter being excommunicated by Triferius p. 140his Bishop for some misdeamenour towards him, the Councill of Taurin **C. 4.left his restitution to the arbitrement of the Bishop; by whom he had beene excommunicated. The Councill of Carthage xxCarth. graec. c. 9. Carth. 2. c. 7.decreed, that they which receiued those which be excommunicated, shall be guiltie of the same fault with them, who doe flie from foreign, the canonicall sentence of their owne B. Out of the same Councel yyCarth. graec. c. 10. Carth. 2. c. 8.I cited before a decree cōcerning Presbyters which were condemned of their owne Bishoppe. And in the zzAfric. c. 29. & Carth. gr. 63 &c. 133.134.African Councel there is another decree concerning Clergy men of what degree soeuer, that hauehave beene condemned by the iudgement of their Bishop. In the 4. Councell of Carthage aaCarth. 4 c. 55.it was decreed that the Bishop should excommunicate the accusers of their brethren, and that if they did repent, hee should receiue them vntounto the communion, but not into the Clergie. The councell of Ephesus bbEphes. c. 5.Eph 5, that if any for their misdeedes being condemned, either by a Synode, or their own Bishop, should be restored by Nestorius or his complices either to the communion or to their degree, that they should notwithstanding remaine excommunicated or deposed. The Councell of Agatha ccC. 2.appointed▪ that disobedient Clerks should bee corrected of their Bishop. In the Councell of Chalcedon there is a Canon ddChalc. c. 23.concerning such Clerks as being excommunicated by their own Bishops, got themselues to the City of Constantinople, &c. In the same Councell Carosus eeAct. 4.Acts 4vseth these words; They are Bishops, they hauehave power to excommunicate, and to condemn. These testimonies for councels may suffice. For I will not descend to those of latter times, the latest which I hauehave cited being the 4. generall Councell. For examples, the like plenty might bee shewen of them, who hauehave been excommunicated or deposed by the B. Thus Alexander deposed ffTheod. l. 1.c. 2.Arius; ggSocr. l. 6. c. 4. Sozom. l. 8. c. 3.and Chrysostome diuers of his Clergie. Euryches was canonically hhEuagr. l. 2. c. 4.deposed by his owne Bishop, and diuers Presbyters excommunicated by iiConc. Chalc. act. 10.Ibus the Bishop, &c. To conclude, Bishops, saith Balsam… kkBals. in Conc. Eph. c. 5.Eph 5, hauehave authority eyther to excommunicate their Clergy or to depose them.

Thus hauehave I proued by euident testimonies, that al sorts p. 141of Presbyters, and other clergy men in eueryevery diocesse were subiect to the Bishop. Whereunto this I adde, that since the first institution of Bishops, which was in the Apostles times vntill our age, it was neuer otherwise: but all clergy men, if either they withdrew themselues from their subiection to their orthodoxall B. they were counted schismatickes; or if they liued vnderunder no Bishop, they were wont to be called headlesse Clerks. By no meanes, saith the councill of llBurchard. decret. l. 2. c. 126. ex Conc. Parisiens.Paris, are they to be accounted Clerks, or Priests, who do not liue vnderunder the gouernment and discipline of some Bishop: for such the custome of the ancient Church called acephalos, that is, headlesse.

To these testimonies in the end I added a reason,§. 21. The superioritie of BB. in iurisdiction prooued by reason. wherein the refuter, because he hoped to finde some aduantage, is pleased to insist. The reason standeth thus:

The pastors of seueral parishes in the primitiue church were either subiect to the authority and iurisdiction of the Bishop; or they had associates in the parishes ioyned with them in the gouernment thereof, or ruled alone without controle…t, beeing neither restrained by associates, nor subiect to BB.

But neither had they associates in the parishes ioined with them, neither did they rule alone without controlement, beeing neither restrained by associates, nor subiect to the Bishop.

Therefore the pastors of seuerall parishes in the primitiue Church were subiect to the authority and iurisdiction of the bishop.

First he taketh exception against the conclusion, saying that I doe not conclude that which he looked for. What he looked for, I know not, nor care not; the thing which I propounded to proue, was, that the Bishops in the primitiue Church were superior to the Presbyters in the power of iurisdiction or gouernment. Which is most euidently proued by this argument a relatis: If the Presbyters were inferiour and subiect to the iurisdiction and gouernement of the Bishops, then were the Bishops superiour to them in the power of iurisdiction and gouernement. What can bee more p. 142plaine? or how could they bee, as he absurdly imagineth subiect to the iurisdiction and gouernement of the B. if he neither had power to rule and direct them, nor authority and iurisdiction to censure and correct them? His exception therefore against the conclusion is a very friuolous cauill, like all the rest of his answers.

To the proposition hee answereth, by denying the distruction as insufficient, because a fourth thing might bee added, and that is the authority of the congregation. But though this might be added according to the phantasticall conceit of some fanaticall spirits in our time, who make the gouernement of the Church to be neither monarchiall, nor aristocraticall, but democraticall, or rather ochlocraticall; yet was it not to be added, because there could bee no question thereof according to the iudgement and practise of the primitiue Church, whereof I spake. But let him adde it if the please; for it may as easily be denied in the assumptiō, as added in the proposition. The proposition will perhaps seeme somwhat the better, and the assumption wilbe neuer the worse. Therfore, this also was a meere cauill.

As touching the assumption: that part which denieth them to hauehave ruled alone,§. 22 as being neither restrained by associates, nor subiect to Bishops, he saith hee would hauehave granted, but that I proued it. See the spirit of contradiction. What then? will he deny it? No, but heereby he wil take aduantage to inferre his triumphing conclusion,Ad pag. 104. that our Bishopsforsooth he Popes, & then say it is my conclusion. But to this their conclusion, which they hauehave published in print in most glorious and vaunting manner fiue times that I know of, arguing nothing but their gerat malice & small iudgement, I hauehave answered before to their shame. How oft must they bee told, that wee neither make our Bishops supreme gouernours, as they doe their parish Bishop: nor sole, as theirs would bee, if they had not the assistance of their Presbyters? And who knoweth not, that it is the supremacy that maketh a Pope: and supremacy they giuegive to their parish Bishop.

The other part of the assumption, which saith they had p. 143not assistants in the parish to restraine them, he denieth. But before he wil examine my reasō which I broght to proue it, his grauity thoght good to cauil with the phrase, which (saith he) soundeth very strangely in our eares. Assistants are for his helpe whom they assist, not to hinder in the execution of his office; so doe the Iustices of peace assist the Iudges at the assises. Therefore he should either, not hauehave called them assistants, or forborne the terme of restraining. Where were so many eares, as he speaketh of, there were more heads then one that ioined in this work, as I vnderstand there did. But where so many heads were, it is strange there was no more iudgement. Are your Presbyteries assisting your parish Bishop, to be compared to the Iustices of peace at the assises, who hauehave no right of suffrage or giuing sentence? or not rather to the Iudges assisting the chiefe Iudge in eueryevery Court? hauehave not all in your Presbyteries or consistories equal right of suffrage, and are not all things carried by plurality of voice? Is it not plaine, that the Iudges in the Kings bench, or common plees, who are assistants to the L. chiefe iustices, are ioyned to either of them, as to he…lpe him in giuing right iudgment, so to restraine him, that he iudge not alone, according to his own pleasure? Is it not euident when more are ioyned in one commission, that they are ioyned as well to restraine him that is the cheefe, that he shall doe nothing alone, as to helpe him in the execution thereof? What a shallow conceit then was this, that assitants might not be said to restraine; seeing their office is, as to helpe him whom they assist to doe right, so to restraine him that hee doe no wrong.

Let vsus now heare what hee can say to the reason; which is this: If the pastors of eueryevery parish had assistants, then Presbyteries, either of lay-presbyters or of Ministers But they had not presbyteries to assist them, neither of lay-presbyters, nor of ministers. Therefore they had none assistants.

The Proposition is grounded vponupon this hypothesis, which I tooke for granted, that all assistants or coassessours p. 144ioined with the Bishop or pastor in the gouernment of the Church, that are any wheres noted to hauehave been in the primitiue Church, were Presbyters. For that which againe he addeth concerning the whole congregation, is a very fond conceit.Whoeuer heard that the whole congregation assisted the pastor in the gouernement of it selfe? assuredlie they which attribute authority to the whole congregation ascribe vntounto it the chiefe authority, as in popular states: which the refuter hath before acknowledged, saying, aaPage 6.that they subiect both the pastors & elders to the whole congregation, turning the world vpside down, and making the flock to rule their pastor. And yet how this standeth with their other position, that the pastor is the supreme ecclesiasticall officer in eueryevery Church. J cannot sell, vnlesse they meane the highest vnderunder the Church it selfe. Which if it be so, then is not the Church according to their conceit assistant to the Pastor, but the Pastor is the Churches deputy and lieuetenant for the gouernement of it selfe, in which gouernement of the Church the Presbyters bee his assistants. But whatsoeuer might be added to the proposition, according to the vnstayed fancies of certaine innouators, which I respected not, the proposition is necessary according to the practise of the primitiue Church wherof only J sp…ke.

Ad. pag. 105.But he denyeth the assumptiō also, saying, that they had other Presbyters which were not ministers. But I hope he wil vnsay that saying, when he shall hauehave read what before hath beene deliuered concerning their onelyonly-gouerning Elders. Besides, against their parish-presbyters I alledged the practise of the Churches in Scotland and Geneua. For in Scotland they had not a Presbytery or consistory in eueryevery parish, but in such circuits as are answerable to our deanries. And whereas he saith, that neither I nor hee … truely what the practise of Geneua is, but by uncertaine reports ; hee should hauehave spoken for himselfe. For what I report concerning Geneua, I hauehave read, as in other Authors, so in Beza himselfe, shewing that they hauehave but one Ecclesiasticall presbyterie, or consistorie, for all the parishes both in the city and territory thereto belonging, consisting of eighteene p. 145seniors, whereof 6. are Ministers constant, and 12. chosen eueryevery yeare out of their 3. councils of state, viz. 6. out of the councill of 200 4 out of that of 60, and 2. out of the 25. as I hauehave noted before. But where he saith that Geneua may well be taken for one parish, seeing it hath no diocesan Bishop , it seemeth he doth not greatly care, what he saith. Belike there is but one parish church, and all the rest, beeing aboue 20. be chapels of ease; and who then is the pastor of the whole Church of Geneua? and what be they that are set ouer the Churches, if they bee not the pastors of them? Againe, it is not long since Geneua was vnderunder a Bishop, and then was it a Diocese, and is it now come to bee but a parish? or shall we not rather say, that as the Bishop in his time was Diocesan; so the presbyterie now, is not a parishionall, but a Diocesan presbyterie, and that the whole Church of Geneua consisting of many parishes, is as well a Diocese now, as it was before?

It remaineth therefore as I said in the sermon, that the ministers of seuerall parishes were subiect to the Bishop, whose pastoral care extended it selfe to al, euen theremotest parishes in his Diocese &c.