A Defense of the Sermon Preached at the Consecration of the Bishop of Bath, Book 3 · Chapter 3
CHAP. III. Shewing wherin the superiority of Bishops did and doth consist: and first of the singularity of preeminence.
(Serm. sect. 3. page 32. But let vsus consider more particularly wherein the superioritie of Bishops did and doth consist, &c. ad lin. a fine 6:
THe superiority of Bishops ouer other Ministers, I place in three things: singularity of preeminence during life, the power of ordination, and the power of iurisdiction: all which I ground on Tit. 1.5. But where I say, during life, hee saith,Ad pag. 89. This addition needed not, seeing it is grounded vponupon an erroneous conceit of mine owne, whereby I charge them as holding the contrary. Secondly, that it is not proued out of the place alleaged. In the former hee sheweth how audacious he is, seeing, Beza the chiefe patron of the pretended discipline, holdeth that the Presidents of the Presbyteries (which afterwards, as he saith, were called Bishoppes) ought to be but for a short time, and that by course, and esteemeth them which had a perpetuall presidenship, to be Bishops humane gLib. 1. cap. 2. §. 17., as I hauehave shewed before. The practise also of those Churches where the discipline is vsed, doth prooue what their Founders thought was agreeable to Gods word. This their conceit is euidently confuted by the Epistles to Titus and to Timothy. For seeing they doe confesse, that they were the foreign, in the Churches of Creet and Ephesus; it is euident, that they continued in this Presidentshippe, whiles they liued there. For it is absurd to imagine, that Titus was sent to Creet, and Timothy to Ephesus, to be presidents there in their turnes, and when their turnes were ended, to be subiected to other of the Presbyters there in their course. But these things the refuter doth but cauill at by the way. For he granteth that Titus had this superioritie which we speake of: his maine answer is, that Titus was not a Bishop. Which afterwards J proue in the Sermon, by the common consent of the antient and most approoued Writers of the Church; with whose affirmation, in a matter of fact, if this Refuters deniall shall be weighed in the ballance of an vnpartiall iudgement, it will be found as light as vanitie it selfe. But of this question more hereafter hLib. 4 cap. 4.. In the meane time, J will but desire the Reader to take this for granted, because it cannot be denied, that if Titus was Bishop of Creet, then Bishops had this threefold superioritie which I speake of.
Where I commend this order of Church gouernement, consisting in the superiority of Bishoppes, and inferioritie of other Ministers; this graue and learned Refuter maketh a scorne at it, saying, It is a toy to please children, and a gay Epiphonema wanting a note of exclamation (he would hauehave said, acclamation) to grace it. The which argueth his spite against the gouernment of Bishoppes, rather then his might, being neither able to endure the iust commendation of episcopall gouernment, nor yet to confute it. For what hath he but trifles and toies to obiect against it? For where hee saith, I begge the question, supposing ech Church to be a diocesse; the conscience of the Reader, I hope also of the Refuter, will testifie, that what I suppose in this behalfe, hath beene before sufficiently prooued. Besides, those with whom I principally contend in this point, doe confesse the Churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall gouernement, to hauehave beene dioceses lLib. 1. cap. 2. §. 14, as hath beene shewed. I say then (which also I prooued afterwards by the testimonies of Cyprian and Ierome, whereto the authoritie of kBasil, epist. 67. ad Ancyr. professeth that the members of the Church are by the gouernment of the Bishop, as it were of the soule, vnited and knit together. Whether the vnitie of ech Church, depend vponupon the vnity of the B.Basil may bee added) that the vnitie of each Church, meaning a diocesse, dependeth of the vnitie of the Bishoppe: and the setting vp of a second, vnlesse it were by way of coadiutorshippe, hath euer been esteemed the making of a schisme in the Church. But of this more anon.
§. 2. But let vsus heare, if it bee worth the hearing, what more particularly hee obiecteth against these three points. And first he trifleth to no purpose, when he asketh, If there bee not as much vnity in a parish vnderunder one Pastor, as in a diocesse vnderunder a Bishoppe. For though ech parish, if it were, according to the new conceit, an entire body within it selfe, vnsubordinate to any other, may perhappes hauehave vnitie within it selfe: yet in the Church of the diocesse or prouince, that may happen (which Ierome affirmeth is like to happen, where is no Bishoppe) that there shall bee as many schismes as parishes. And surely what man of iudgement and moderation, can without horrour thinke of those manifold schismes and diuisions which would ensue, if eueryevery parish should hauehave (according to the newe conceit) sufficient authoritie within it selfe vnsubordinate and independent, for the gouernment of it selfe, in all causes ecclesiasticall? Yea but saith he, If there bee not as great vnitie of the Church in a parish vnderunder one Pastor, as in a diocesse vnderunder one Bishoppe, then the more Churches are vnderunder one gouernement, the greater is the vnitie. But the consequent is false, therefore the antecedent. The consequence of the proposition is true, being not extended without the limits of the question. The more particular Churches in any one visible Church are subordinate to one Bishoppe, the greater is the vnitie. But by one visible Church I meane the Christian people of one diocesse, or of one prouince, or at the most of one Nation. For the Christian people liuing vnderunder diuers lawes, as they be diuers Nations, so are they diuers visible Churches, though the faithfull in them all are members of one and the same Catholike Church.
Let vsus heare how he prooueth the assumption. If the more Churches are vnderunder one gouernment the greater vnitie, then welfare the Pope, who if this be true, maketh vnitie of all Churches in the world. As who should say, all the Churches in the world are vnderunder the Popes gouernment: so that whiles hee denieth the superiority of Bishoppes, hee seemeth (else there is no sense in his speech) to hold the Popes supremacie. If any man shall say, that as the vnity of ech Church dependeth on the singular preeminence of the Bishoppe: so the vnity of the whole Catholicke Church by the same reason shall depend of the Popes supremacy, (which seemeth to hauehave beene the Refuters meaning, who desireth as much as may bee that the superioritie of Bishoppes and supremacy of the Pope may seeme to bee of one tenure:) I answere, that the vnitie of the whole Church standeth in this; that it is one body, vnderunder one head Christ. And as in a diocesse, to set vp a second head, is to set vp an Antibishoppe, and to make a schisme from the true Bishoppe: so in the whole Church, to acknowledge a second head, is to set vp Antichrist, and to make an apostasie from Christ. Neither was it euer the meaning of our Sauiour, that as eueryevery particular Church should be vnderunder one Pastor, so the whole Church should be vnderunder one visible head, or earthly Monarch. For then would not he hauehave furnished his twelue Apostles with equall power and authority, as I hauehave said before.
§. 3.As touching the second, he confesseth all that I said, namely that from the power of ordination the perpetuity of the Church dependeth; and yet cauilleth with mee, as if either I had said, there could bee no ordination at all without a Bishoppe, Ad pag. 83.or that the Bishop had the sole power thereof. Thus being resolued to wrangle, if he finde not matter to cauill at, he will faine it. I did not say there could be no ordination without a Bishoppe: but that euer since the Apostles times to our age, it hath been the receiued opinion in the Church of God, that the right of ordination of Presbyters and Deacons, is such a peculiar prerogatiue of BB. as that ordinarily and regularly, there could be no lawfull ordination but by a Bishop: otherwise I doe confesse in the sermon, that extraordinarily, and in case of necessity, Presbyters may ordaine in the want of a Bishop.
Concerning the third, he saith it is enough to preserue good order in Churches, if iurisdiction be in the ministers and Presbyters. Hee meaneth in the seuerall parishes, which may after a fashion be gouerned, where the supreame ecclesiasticall officer… (I meane the parish minister) assisted with such a senate, as ech parish is like to afford, hath the reines of gouernment in all causes ecclesiasticall committed to them. But I pray you, how shall there be any good order in the gouernment of the Churches of a diocesse, or prouince, when eueryevery parish is so according to the new conceipt an entire body of it selfe, (indeed a member by Schisme rent from the the rest) as it hath neither consociation with▪ nor subordination to others? For they are not gouerned by consociation, who deny the definitiue power of synods, as our new Disciplinarians do; neither do they acknowledge any subordination: for their Pastor forsooth is the supreme ecclesiasticall officer, and the power of ech parish is independent, immediatly deriued from Christ. Now, how is it possible there should be good order in the gouernment of so many parishes in a Kingdome, where is no subordination; no superiours, nor inferiours, but all equall? But this is enough for our Disciplinarians, if they might be subiect to no superiors, but that each of them might be the supreme ecclesiasticall officer in eueryevery Church.
(Serm. sect. 4. pag. 32. As touching the first,BB. superior in singularity of preeminence for terme of life. whereas there were many Presbyters in one Citie, &c. to pag. 36. l. a fine 8.)
Jn this section I proue, that the Bishops of the primitiue Church were superior to other Ministers in singularity of preeminence for terme of life. Which is a point very materiall, prouing both against the new Disciplinarians, that the BB. were diocesan, there being but one for ech diocesse, as hath been touched before: and against the elder, that the BB. were not such as their Presidents of the Presbytery, or Moderators of assemblies among them, whose preeminence is but a priority of order, and but for a short time,Lay Presbyteries and parity of Ministers, the two pillers of the new discipline. and against both, disprouing the parity of Ministers, which is the other maine piller of the pretended discipline. Here therefore it behoued the Refuter, if his cause were such, as indeed he could maintaine with soundnes of learning, and euidence of truth, both to hauehave disproued this superiority of BB. and to hauehave proued his parity of Ministers. But he passeth by in haste, touching only vponupon the points, as a dogge by the riuer Nilus, not daring to stay by it; & yet so brag he is, that he would seem to haste away not for feare, but rather in disdain, as not vouchsafing to waste time in a matter either so impertinēt, as the former part of this section, or so needlesse, as the latter. For this is his vsual guise, to cast off those points of the Sermon, which indeed are most materiall, as impertinent or needlesse. The former is impertinent, because it is not prooued to belong to those seuen Angels, nor within the first two hundred yeeres. Which is a meere euasion, vnlearned, and J greatly doubt also vnconscionable. Doe I not plainely note that these seuen Angels had this singularity of preeminence, when as I say the holy Ghost teacheth, that whereas there were many Presbyters▪ who also were Angels in eueryevery Church: yet there was but one, who was the Angell of ech Church? For to his obiection of their not being diocesan Bishops, I hauehave answered before. And for the time, doe I not affirme, that Timothy had this singularity of preeminence at Ephesus, Titus in Creet, Epaphroditus in Philippi, Archippus at Colosse in the Apostles times? As for the rest of my witnesses, they doe either testifie de iure, which in their iudgement is perpetuall; or if they speak de facto, it is of that which was in the Apostles times. Cornelius the worthy martyr, who was Bishop of Rome about the yeere two hundred fifty, auoucheth, that there ought to be but aEpist Cornel. apud Euseb. lib. 6. c. 43.one Bishop in a Catholike Church, though the number of Presbyters and other clergy men were very great, and imputeth it as a matter of great ignorance to Nouatian, that he did not know foreign, there ought to be but one Bishop in a Catholike Church, wherein he knew there were forty six Presbyters, &c. This testimony is reiected, because it was giuen fifty yeeres after the date: which were but an euasion, if it did testifie de facto onelyonly. But seeing Cornelius speaketh de iure, of what ought to be, I hope that which ought not to hauehave been in Cornelius his time, was not lawfull before, vnlesse the Refuter can shew, that before Cornelius his time, plurality of Bishops in one Church was counted lawfull.
§. 5. The Councell of Nice bConc. Nic. cap. 8.(whose testimonie I also alleaged) was of this iudgement, that there ought not to bee two Bishoppes in one Citie. For hauing decreed, that when the Catharists, that is, Puritans or Nouatians, returned to the Catholike Church, those who were of the clergy should retaine their degree, as hee that was a Deacon or a Presbyter should so continue, and likewise a Bishoppe (for euen the Puritanes or Catharists themselues had their Bishoppes) if there were not another alreadie in the Catholike Church. But if there were a Bishoppe of the Catholike Church alreadie, then it is manifest cforeign.before hand, that the Bishoppe of the Church shall hauehave the honour of the Bishoppe: but hee that was called Bishoppe among the Catharists shall hauehave the honour of a Presbyter: vnlesse it please the Bishop to communicate vntounto him the honour of the name. But if that like him not, he shall finde him out either a Chorepiscopus, that is, a country Bishops, or a Presbyters place, that still he may be retained in the clergy, foreign, that there may not be two Bishop▪ in one Citie Which words in Ruffinus dRuffin. l. 10. c. 6. can. 10. Conc. Cabilon. ca. 4.are the tenth Canon: Ne in vna Ciuitate duo sint Episcopi. Augustine also vnderstood, though somewhat too late, that it was forbidden by the Councell of Nice, that there should be any more Bishops in a Church then one. For how soeuer, whiles he was ignorant thereof, he was drawne to take vponupon him the B…shopricke of Hippo, whiles Valerius was aliue; yet when himselfe was old, and desired that Eradius might bee his Coa…utor, whom also he nominated for his successor; yet he thought it vnlawfull that whiles himself liued he should be ordanied Bishop Whiles Valerius liued (saith he eAugust. epist. 110. Possidon. in vita August. c. 8.) I was ordained Bishop, and I sate with him, both of vsus being ignorant, that it was forbidden by the Councell of Nice. But what was reprehended in me, shall not be blamed in him. Or as Possidonius speaketh, Quod sibi factum esse doluit▪ alijs fieri noluit.
In the next place, I bring the testimonies of Ierome fIn Phil. 1.1., Chrysostome, Ambrose, Theodoret, and Oecumenius on Phil. 1. All which (I confesse) liued after the two hundred yeeres: but they testifie, that in the Apostles times there could be no more Bishops then one. And the like hath Primasius on the same place.
To all this hee answers, that he will not greatly striue about mens deuices: which no…withstanding he can neuer proue to bee humane; and I trust the singularity of preeminence in each of these Angels, in Timothy, in Titus, &c. was no humane deuice. But though he will not striue, yet he alleageth that little which hee was able, and that also more then himselfe doth beleeue to be true. For he obiecteth that Epiphanius and Eusebius also in his ecclesiasticall story, reckon both Peter and Paul for Bishops of Rome at one time. Founders they both were of the Church of Rome, as Irenaeus gLib. 3. ca. 3.testifieth, and hauing founded the Church, ordained Linus Bishop: but that either of them both, and much lesse that both at once were Bishops of Rome, the Refuter himselfe doth not beleeue. To what purpose then doth he alleage that which himselfe is perswaded to be false? Would he hauehave his Reader beleeue that to be true, which himselfe beleeueth to be vntrue?
That which he quoteth out of Athanasius hVid Athan. cont. Mess.that there were diuers Bishops in some one Church, though I cannot finde, it may be true in time of schisme and diuision; as at Antioch sometimes there were three Bishops, &c.
His allegation out of D. Sutcliffe iDe pontif. Rom. l. 1. c. 5.is very childish: as though when he saith, that Paul ordained in eueryevery Towne or Citie Presbyters and Bishops; his meaning were, that in eueryevery Citie he placed more Bishops then one. If I should say; there are Bishops placed in eueryevery Citie or diocesse throughout England, J should speake truly: and yet my meaning would be, that in eueryevery diocesse there is but one.
Where I say,§ 7. that as this singularity of preeminence was ordained for the preseruation of the Church in vnitie, and for the auoiding of schisme; so is it for the same cause to be retained; he would seem half amazed, that I, who do not deny other formes of gouernment to be lawfull, pag. 95. and no further hold the episcopall function to be of diuine institution, then as being ordained by the Apostles, it proceeded from God, without implying any necessary perpetuity thereof, pag. 92. should now plainly auouch a necessity of retaining the gouernment of diocesan BB. for the preseruation of the Church in vnity, &c. But the Read…r that fauoreth the Refuters person and cause, hath more cause to be amazed at his dealing. For first, is not this a plaine lie, and a notorious falsification of my words, to say I plainly auouch a necessity of retaining the gouernment of diocesan Bishops, &c? Where doe J mention or mean that necessity he speaketh of? Could those words, so is it for the same cause to be retained, no otherwise be expounded, then as implying an absolute necessity? That is to be retained which is meet, or fit, expedient or conuenient, profitable or needfull to be reteyned. Secondly let the reader remember how oft the refuter hath charged me for saying the Bishops calling to be holden d, iure diuino, implying a perpetuall necessity thereof, and chargeth the doctrine lPraefat. pag. 3. & 5.of my sermon to be in that respect contrary to the lawes of our land, which make the forme of Church gouernment to be alterable by the King; and yet here acknowledgeth for aduantage, that I holde no such matter. Thirdly let it be obserued, how vnderunder this pretence of amazement, he shifteth of the testimony of Cyprian, which sitteth so neare to him, and his consorts. But the reader I hope will beare in mind the words off Cyprian mCypr. l. 4. epist. 9., noting the source of all schismes to be this, when the Bishop, who is but one, and gouerneth the Church, by the proud presumptiō of some is contemned &c. And in the same epistle, you ought to know, saith he, to Pupianus, that the Bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the Bishop, and that whosoeuer are not with the Bishop are not in the Church; and that they doe flatter themselues in vaine who hauehave not peace with the Priests of God (that is the Bishops) &c. To this purpose Cyprian often writeth. nLib. 1. epist. 3., Neque enim ali…de haereses, &c. Neither hauehave heresies or schismes any other beginning then this, that Gods Priest (meaning the Bishop) is not obeied. Neither is one Bishop for the time, nor one Iudge in Christs steed acknowledged, &c. Againe, haec sunt initia haereticorum oLib. 3. epist. 9., these bee the beginnings of heretikes, these the risings and indeuors of ill minded schismatikes, that they please themselues, and contemne their B. with swelling pride. Sic de ecclesia receditur, thus doe men depart from the Church, &c. And in another place pSerm. 2▪ de zelo & liuore. Ad pag. 91.: Hence doe men rush into heresies and schismes, when they speake euill of Priests, and enuy their Bishops, &c. The Lord open their eies who are faulty in this behalfe, that they may see their sinne, and touch their hearts that they may repent thereof.
§. 8.Out of Ierome, (who is the onelyonly man among the Fathers, on whose authority the Disciplinarians in this cause doe relie) I produce three most pregnant testimonies, the first affirming,Ad pag. 91. that qCon…. Luciferianos.vnlesse this singularitie of preeminence be yeelded to the Bishop, there will be as many schismes as Priests. The second, rAd Euagr.that euer since Saint Marks time, the Presbyters hauing elected one, placed him in a higher degree, and called him Bishoppe. The third, that sIn Tit. 1.when some beganne to say, J am of Paul, I of Apollo, (which was in the Apostles time) it was decreed by the whole world, that one being chosen from among the Presbyters, should be set ouer the rest in eueryevery Church, vntounto whom the care of the whole Church should appertaine. Of these allegations, the first giueth testimony to this superiority de iure: the other two testifying de facto, beare witnesse that it hath been so in and euer since the Apostles times. These testimonies are featly auoided, with a promise to answere them afterwards, when he will say neuer a word to the present, not almost to any purpose.
The second part of this section,§. 9. wherein I prooue against Beza, and the better sort of the Disciplinarians, that the BB. had this singularitie of preeminence, neither for a short time, nor by course, but were elected for terme of life; this Refuter reiecteth, as not worth the mentioning, hee hath so oft refuted it alreadie. Refuted oft? I would bee sory that hee should bee able with soundnesse of reason and euidence of truth to refute any one sentence in the Sermon. All the refutation of this point, which hitherto wee hauehave had, was this: that I charged them with vntruths, that I threaten kindnesse on them, that I had need to be as eloquent as Pericles, if I could perswade that any of them hauehave said this, when as I hauehave brought foorth most plaine and euident allegations to this purpose. And although I forbeare to mention Beza, tendering his credit, yet what I heere confuted, is auouched by him in his twenty third chapter of his booke, concerning the degrees of Ministers, chiefly in the 141.142.143. pages.
Now because this point is of great moment,§. 10. though the Refuter hauehave tripped ouer it so lightly, like a dog ouer a hot hearth, as if I were afraid to touch it; I will therefore endeuour to giuegive the Reader some further satisfaction therein, by adding some other proofes. What antiquity thought of the singularity of Bishops, may appeare first by these two testimonies out of Cyprian and Theodoret.
For when Nouatian was ordained a second Bishop in Rome besides Cornelius, some of the Clergy hauing ben before Confessors, who also had consented to him, mooued with repentance, and returning from schisme vntounto the Church, confessed their error, saying tConcil. epist. apud Cypr. lib. 3. epist. 11., Nos errorem nostrum confitemur, &c. Neith…r are we ignorant that there ought to be one God, one Christ the Lord, whom we hauehave confessed, one holy Ghost, one Bishop in a Catholike Church. Likewise when Constantius being intreated by the godly Matrons in Rome, gaue consent that Liberius should returne, but withall appointed that hee and Felix should rule the Church in common: the faithfull people deriding that sentence of the Arrian Emperor, with one voice cried, as uTheod. lib. 2. cap. 11.Theodoret reporteth, foreign, one God, one Christ, one Bishop. After these speeches of the true Christian people adorned with pietie and iustice, Liberius returned, and Felix departed to another Citie, and shortly died. Which came to passe by Gods good prouidence, saith Sozomen *Soz l 4. c. 15., that the seat of Peter, should not be diffamed as gouerned at once by two rulers, foreign: which is a note of dissension, and repugnant to the law ecclesiasticall.
2. And that the adding of a second Bishop was iudged vnlawfull and esteemed as a note of schisme, Cyprian in some other places besides those which before I cited, doth testifie. Writing therfore to the foresaid Confessors, who had ioined with Nouatian xLib. 3. epist. 2., Granat me, saith he, it greiueth me &c. When I vnderstood that you there against ecclesiasticall order, against the Euangelical law, against the vnity of Catholicke institution, hauehave thought that another Bishop was to be made, that is to say, which is vngodly, and vnlawfull to be done, that another Church should be instituted, the members of Christrent asunder, the minde and body of the Lords flocke, which is but one, to be torne with schismaticall emulation.
And in another place yLi. 4. Epist. 2., Where a Bishop is once lawfully ordained, whosoeuer now will be made Bishop, it is necessarie that he should be put forth of the Church, and that he hauehave not the Churches ordination, who doth not hold the vnity of the Church. Whosoeuer he be, though he boast much of himselfe, and challenge verie much to himselfe; he is prophane, he is an aliant, he is out of the Church. And for as much, as after the first Bishop, there cannot be a second, whosoeuer after that one, who ought to be alone, is made, he is not the second, but none at all.
Thirdly,§. 11. the singularitie of preeminence in Bishops, during their life, is proued by their singularitie of succession, both in and since the Apostles times, noted by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Eusebius, and other approued authors, most plainly prouing, that there was but one Bishop at once in the ancient and Apostolicall Churches.
Fourthly, what the preeminence and superioritie of Bishops was ouer the Presbyters, and others of the Clergie, appeareth by this, that in good writers they are said the Bishop his Presbyters, the Bishops Deacons, the Bishops clergy. Thus Arius aEpiph. haer. 69. foreign.is said to hauehave been Alexanders presbyter, Petrus and Irenaus bAthanas. Ad sol…t. vitam agentes., Timothe… cRuff. in hist. l. 1. c. 17.and Macarius dTheodor. l. 2. c. 8.to hauehave been Athanasius eSocr. l. 2. c. 23.his Presbyters; the vicegerents of Siluester, in the councill of Nice were his Presbyters fEuseb. de vit. Const. l. 3.. Thus gSozom. l 8. c. 15.Crispio is said to hauehave been Epiphaniu… his archdeacon, Heraclides hSocr. l. 6. c. 11.to hauehave been Chrysostomes deacon. In a word, all of the Clergie were said to be the Bishops clerks, as in the councill of Africke iConc. Afric. c. 21. Carth. grac. c. 54. Socr. l. 2 c. 23.: Let no Bishop take anothers clerke, without the consent of him whose clerk he is. The which is a plain argument of the great preeminence which the Bishops of the primitiue Church had ouer the Presbyters, and others of the clergie. To these we will adde the testimonie of Bucer kDe regno Christi. l. 2. c. 12, against whom the Refuter cannot except, as being partiall for Bishops. By the perpetuall obseruation of the Church, saith he, euen from the Apostles themselues, we see it seemed good to the holie Ghost, that among the Presbyters, to whom the charge of the Church is specially committed, one shold hauehave the singular charge of the Churches: and in that charge and care gouerned al others; for which cause the name of Bishop was attributed to these chiefe Gouernors of Churches: Howbeit, without the counsell of the other Presbyters they ought not to determine any thing &c.
Thus much of the Preeminence of Bishops.