A Defense of the Sermon Preached at the Consecration of the Bishop of Bath, Book 4 · Chapter 1

A Defense of the Sermon Preached at the Consecration of the Bishop of Bath · Book 4 · Chapter 1

p. 1The I. CHAPTER: Prouing the Episcopall function to be of Apostolicall institution, because it was generally receiued in the first 300. yeeres after the Apostles.

Serm. pag. 54.§ 1. That this treatise of the lawfulnesse of the BB. calling is not superfluous, though from the former points the same thing may be concluded. It remaineth, that I should demonstrate not onelyonly the lawfulnesse of the BB. calling. &c. to page 55. li. 7.

THE Refuter finding himselfe vnable to confute this discourse of the lawfulnesse of the BB. calling, would faine perswade his Reader that it is needlesse; moued, and mouing thereto by as friuolous reasons as euer were heard of. For though it be true, that this point hath already beene proued by one argument, is it therefore needlesse to confirme the same by a second? Did euer any man meete with such a captious trifler, as would not permit a man to proue the same truth by two arguments, but the one must straight be reiected as p. 2needlesse? but indeed his analysis was forced; as he could not but discerne, both by the distribution of the Sermon page 2. and also by the transition here vsed, neither was this point handled before, but the former assertion, whereby the text was explicated; that the Angels or Bishops of the primitiue Church were diocesan Bishops, and such for the substance of their calling, as ours be, superiour to other ministers in degree, &c. This which now wee are to handle, is the second assertion, being a doctrine gathered out of the text, so explicated. I confesse the former doth proue the latter; and that doth commend the methode of my Sermon, and both being disposed together may make this Enthymeme.

The Pastors or gouernours of the primitiue Church, here meant by the Angels, were diocesan Bishops, and such for the substance of their calling, as ours be.

Therefore the calling of such diocesan Bishops as ours be, is lawfull.

But I contented not my selfe with collecting the doctrine out of the text, but as the manner of all preachers is, when they hauehave collected a doctrine, which is controuersall; I thought it needfull to proue, and to confirme the same with other arguments.

But other arguments, saith he, needed not, if the three middle points were sufficiently cleared: what will he assume? but the three former points were sufficiently cleared? therefore as the first point was bootlesse, so this last is needlesse. If he like not of this assumption, he cannot make this conclusion, which notwithstanding he maketh: if he will assume, that they were not sufficientlie cleared, as he hath borne the reader in hand all this while, then he must needs conclude against himselfe, that therefore these other arguments were needfull.

The truth is, though the former points were so sufficientlie cleared, as that the refuter had nothing, whereby to auoid the euident truth thereof conuicting his conscience, but beggerly shifts and sophisticall euasions; notwithstanding, p. 3for so much as some of them, with whom I had to deale, are so lead with a spirit of contradiction, as if they were in the contradiction of Chore, (the Lord open their eyes and turne their hearts) I therefore thought it needfull, for the more full conuiction of the gainesayers, to confirme by other arguments the doctrine which I collected out of the text. But where I had beene to blame for not setting downe this collection plainely (were it not a point of Art sometimes to conceale Art) the reader is to coy the refuters head, for making so plaine a collection for his own conuiction, & as they say, for gathering a rod for his own taile. The collection being reduced into a sillogism standeth thus.

The calling of such as are here meant by the Angels is lawfull and good;

Diocesan BB. such as our be, are here meant by the Angels.

Therefore the calling of Diocesan BB. such as ours are, is lawfull and good.

The proposition is such as no man of vnderstanding or conscience will make question of,Ad pag. 108. saith the refuter, we aske no more, but to hauehave this assumption confirmed, that the Angels were such, and then you shall not need other arguments to proue this conclusion. But the assumption say I, is that which in the Sermon, and in this defence thereof hitherto hath beene proued: how sufficiently I referre to the reader, and I appeale to the refuter.

This therefore may stand for the first argument.

I proceed to that which was expressed in the Sermon, omitting what else he hath in this section as being either refuted before, or vnworthy to be mentioned now.

Serm. Sect. 2. pag. 55.§ 2. The question is of such BB. as were described in the former part of the Sermon, and in the 2. and 3. bookes of this defence. All the question now a daies is of the lawfulnes &c. to pag 56. l. 1.

All the question, saith he, of the lawfulnesse had beene ended before this time, if the Angels of the Churches had beene proued to be such BB. But say I the Angels of the Churches were the BB. of the primitiue Church, who in the former p. 4part of the Sermon were proued to be such, and those proofes in this defence hauehave hitherto beene confirmed in such sort as I hope the refuter will acknowledge himselfe to be satisfied:Ad pag. 109. if not, yet it is but folly to multiply words concerning the proofes of the former assertion: for they must stand, vntill the refuter or some other of more strength shall take vponupon him to assaile them: And I doubt not, but they will stand after they hauehave beene assailed.

My argument therefore standeth thus:

What function hath diuine institution and approbation is lawfull and good.

The function of BB. such as were described in the former part of the Sermon, hath diuine institution, as being Angels sent of God, and approbation, as being Starres which Christ holdeth in his right hand.

Therefore the function of such BB. is lawfull and good.

To the assumption he hath nothing to answere, besides the bare deny all thereof, but that which already he hath repeated three or foure times since he entred into this fift point: that diocesan BB. are not meant by the Angels and Starres, and chargeth me, as though I thought it enough to affirme it, & would hauehave my readers to take it vponupon my bare word : when the thing which I hauehave proued hitherto hath beene only this, that the Angels or BB. of the primitiue Church were such as in the former assertion wer described. But the assumption I proue in the residue of the sermon, first by consequēce, & then directly. By consequence, in the next section.

§ 3. Ad pag. 110. That the function of such BB. is of Apostolicall institution.Serm. Sect. 3. pag. 56. for what function or gouernment is of Apostolicall institution, that is to be acknowledged a diuine ordinance (in respect of the first institution, as hauing God the author thereof.)

The Episcopall function, or gouernment by BB. is of Apostolicall institution.

p. 5Therefore it is a diuine ordinance, &c. to pag. 61. l. 2.

The proposition is acknowledged not onelyonly by Beza, aaDe grad. c. 23.who saith, if it proceeded from the Apostles, I would be bold to ascribe it wholy, as all other Apostolicall ordinances, to the institution of God, but also by the refuter himselfe: as needing no proofe.

The assumption I proued by three arguments: wherein I proceeded as it were by degrees: two whereof, saith the refuter, are needlesse; as if still he held it superfluous to bring more arguments then one. I confesse, that any one of these cords are strong enough to bind a stronger man, then this refuter; yet I thought it not needlesse to vse three, knowing that, as Salomon saith, a three-fold cord is not easily broken.

The first of the three I thus propounded:The 1. argument, because it was generally vsed in the primitiue Church. That gouernment which was generally and perpetually vsed in all Christian Churches in the first three hundred yeares after Christ, and his Apostles, and was not ordayned by generall Councils, was vndoubtedly of Apostolicall institution.

This proposition I proued, first by two testimonies of Augustine, bbDe Baptisme. cont. Donat. l. 4. c. 24 & Epi. 118.whereunto might be added the like testimonies out of Tertulian, ccDe praescript. aduers. haeres. & con. Marc. l. 4.Constatid ab Apostolis traditum, quod apud Ecclesias Apostolorum fuerit sacrosanctum. T. C. ddLib. 2. pag. 2.saith, the example of the Apostles and generall practise of the Church vnderunder their gouernment, euen without a commandement draweth a necessitie.

Secondly, By reason, shewing, that both it is incredible, that all the godly Fathers and Christian Churches would abolish that gouernment which was ordayned by Christ and his Apostles: and also impossible, that a gouernment not receiued from the Apostles, nor ordained by Councils, should at once be set vp in all parts of the Christian world. But the refuter saith,Ad pag. 111. I did not need to proue the proposition: for though such a change might be possible, yet it is so vnlikly that it is against both Christianity & ciuility to suspect, that there was any such: p. 6for which grant, (though he could doe no other) I thinke my selfe as much beholding to him, as if he had granted the cause. But thereupon (saith he) we may boldly inferre, that if in the Apostles times the gouernment was in the hands of the presbitery, it continued in the Church along time after their decease: from which proposition I may boldly and truely assume & conclude; that after the Apostles times the gouernment was not in the hands of such presbiteries, as the disciplinarians speake of; therefore neither in the Apostles times.

The assumption consisteth of two parts, the former that the gouernment of the Churches by such BB. was generally and perpetually vsed in all Christian Churches in the first three hundred yeeres after Christ and his Apostles; the latter, and was not ordained by generall Councils.

§ 4.The former part I proue by foure arguments. The first whereof is this:

4. Arguments prouing the assumption: 1. Because all the Angels or gouernours of the primitiue Church in the first three hundred yeeres after the Apostles were diocesan BB.If the Angels or gouernors of the primitiue Church in the first 300. yeeres after Christ and his Apostles were diocesan BB. then the gouernment of the Church by such BB. was generally and perpetually vsed in that time.

But the antecedent is true, Therefore the consequent.

He maketh a doubt of the proposition: because he hath not learned, that speeches in disputation indefinitly propounded are generally to be vnderstood for auoiding of clenches: and therefore when I say the Angels or gouernours, I meane all the Angels or gouernours; when I say in the three hundred yeers, I meane throughout that terme: euen from the death of Saint Iohn, to the end of the foure hundred yeere after the incarnation of Christ.

The assumption hath beene proued at large in the former part of the Sermon and in this defence thereof: first by this disiunction, either the Churches after the Apostles time were gouerned by diocesan BB. as we say, or by presbiteries, consisting for the most part of Lay-elders, as the disciplinarians hold.

But neuer by such presbiteries. Therefore euer by BB.

Secondly, I hauehave proued that euer since the Apostles p. 7times, the Churches hauehave been dioceses and the BB. diocesans, superiour to other ministers in degree, hauing singularity of preeminence during life, and majoritie of power in respect both of ordination and iurisdiction: his answere is, that he hath answered those points of my Sermon, where he hath shewed that I proued no such matter: whereunto I reply,Ad pag. 112. that all his answeres were but shifts and euasions, and stand fully confuted. But perhaps the refuter will say; if I had vnderstood your proposition as vttered in generall termes, as now it is expounded by you; then I would hauehave taken the same exception against the proofe of the assumption, which I did against your proposition: for although in some part of that time some BB. were perhaps, such as you described; yet it followeth not▪ that generally and perpetually in the first three hundred yeeres after Christ and his Apostles they were such. That they were generally such in the last of the three hundred yeeres, which is the fourth century after Christ, it thing most fully testified, and most manifestly proued in the proofe of the former points, and hath been confessed by the refuter: neither can be denyed of any man, who hath any sound learning, ioyned with a good conscience. Let vsus then consider, when such BB. had their beginning. Perhaps some will say, they began with Constantine, for then was the greatest alteration in the state of the Church. I answere, the alteration was in respect of outward peace and prosperitie, wherewith God blessed his Church, not in the discipline or doctrin of the Church: in respect of the wealth, and better maintenance of the BB. not in the substance of their calling. It is euident that BB. were diocesan before they were actually Metropolitanes; and Metropolitanes, before they were Patriarches: for of the combination of dioceses, did follow Metropolitanes; and vponupon the consociation of prouinces, were Patriarches ordayned, and yet long before the Councill of Nice ffCon. Nic. c. 6.the Patriarches were in vse, and the customes of subiecting diuerse prouinces to them, are called foreign, ancient customes. In the same canon it was also decreed, that the priuiledges p. 8or prerogatiues of Churches, meaning especially the priuiledges of being mother Churches, should be reserued to them: which priuiledge, as I hauehave shewed before, belonged to them euer since the Apostles times. When the B. of Antioch attempted to ordaine the Metropolitane of Cyprus, the BB. of Cyprus complaine to the Councill of Ephesus, alledging that euer since the Apostles, the Metropolitane B. of Constantia was ordained by the Synode of the prouinciall BB. whereupon the Councill ggConc. Ephe. post aduentum Episcoporum Cypri.not onelyonly censured the attempt of the B. of Antioch as an innouation contrarie to the rules of the Apostles; but also determineth, first, that no B. should hauehave to doe with any countrey or prouince which had not, foreign, euer from the beginning belonged to his See: and secondly that eueryevery prouince within it selfe should retayne inuiolable such rights as they had, foreign, euer from the beginning according to the custome receiued of old. If therefore Metropolitanes and Patriarches were in vse long before Constantines time, who can doubt but diocesan BB. were much more? Long since saith Cyprian, hhCyp. lib. 4. epi. 2in all prouinces and in all cities BB. are ordained, in age ancient, sound in faith, tryed in affliction, &c. in Prouinces, Metropolitanes, such as himselfe was; in Cities, diocesans.

§ 5. That diocesan BB. had not their first beginning after the Apostles times.Without doubt, if diocesan BB. had their beginning after the Apostles times, then was it shortly after their decease. But that cannot be, first because, as I shall proue in the next reason, they were in the Apostles times: secondly, because, as I said in the Sermon, it is incredible that all the Churches would, and impossible that they could agree in abolishing a gouernment receiued from the Apostles, and setting vp at once in all places of the world, one other vniforme gouernment by BB. without the gaine saying of any one of the godly Fathers, or worthy Martyrs of Christ. Besides, the succession of BB. from the Apostles times, as I shall shew, doth plainely proue their originall to hauehave beene in the Apostles times. Whereunto may be added the testimony of Eusebius concerning the age succeeding the Apostles times: for hauing shewed that about the p. 9twelfth yeere of Traian, (which was about seauen yeeres after the death of Saint Iohn) Primus succeeded Cerdo in the Bishopricke of Alexandria, and Alexander Euaristus in the Bishopricke of Rome; he testifieth, iiEus. hist. l. 4. c. 1. & 2.that in those times both the doctrine kkforeign.of Christ and his Church did flourish dayly more and more. Likewise in the time of Adrian he testifieth both that the llc. 6 foreign.Churches shined in all places of the world like most glorious lights, and the faith of Christ in all nations flourished. And in the same book,mmlib. 4. c. 19.20.21.22. after he had noted the succession of the BB. of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, shewing how Soter succeeded Anicetus at Rome, Agrippinus Celadion at Alexandria, Theophilus Heros who had succeeded Cornelius, and he Heron at Antioch, and hauing mentioned some other famous BB. as Dionysius of Corinth, and Pinytus of Candy, Philippe, Apollinaris, Melita, Musanus, Modestus, and Irenaeus, he saith, that Hegesippus flourished at the same time, nnAn. 8. Antoni. Christi 169.whose testimonie of the estate of the Church in his time he hath recorded, to this effect, ooEus. l. 4. c. 22.that iourneying toward Rome, in many places he had conference with the BB. all which he found to be teachers of one and the same doctrine: and hauing spoken of the Epistle of Clemens to the Corinthians, he giueth this testimony to the Church of Corinth in particular, that it had continued in the right faith vntill that time, when hee comming to Corinth, saw Primus the B. with whom he conuersed there a good while, reioycing together in the true faith. But when I came to Rome, saith he, I continued with Anicetus, whose Deacon Eleutherius was: but Soter succeeded Anicetus, and after him Eleutherius was B. Now, saith he, in eueryevery succession and in eueryevery city all things stood as the law preacheth, and as the Prophets, and as our Lord. And afterwards speaking of the heresies which did spring in his time; after that Iames, saith he, surnamed the Iust, had suffered Martyrdome, Simon the sonne of Cleophas is made B. whom all men preferred for this cause, because he was the Lords cousin: wherefore they called the Church a Virgin; for as yet she had not been corrupted with vaine doctrines: but Thebulis because he was not made B. began to corrupt it, being the broacher of one of the seauen heresies p. 10which were in the people. So much of the first argument.

§ 6. The second argument from the two testimonies of Ierome.The second is taken from the testimonie of Ierome, in two places: the former in Titus 1. where he saith thus: before ppHier. in. Tit.that by the instinct of the deuill, factions began in the Church, and it was said among the people, I am of Paul, I … of Apollos, I am of Cephus, the Churches were gouerned by the common counsell of the presbyters:The 1. but when eueryevery one accounted those for his whom he had baptised, it was decreed in the whole world, that one being chosen from the presbiters, should be set ouer the rest in eueryevery Church, vntounto whom the care of that whole Church or diocese should appertaine, and that the seeds of schismes might be taken away. For full answer to this testimony, he referreth vsus to another place; and when he commeth thither, I doubt he will not say much to the purpose. In the meanetime, he answereth first, to the testimony itselfe, and then to my inference out of it: to the testimony he answereth, that Ierome maketh the beginning of this constitution of BB. not in the Apostles times, nor in the times immediatly succeeding the Apostles. Not the former because otherwhere he saith that BB. were superiour to presbiters rather by the custome of the Church, then any ordinance of God. Whereto I answer, that custome himselfe calleth qqAd. Euagr.an Apostolicall tradition: and else where most plainely and fully testifieth in many places (some whereof are noted in the Sermon) both that BB. were in the Apostles times, and also were ordayned by the Apostles themselues. Not the latter, because it is, as I had told him, against the modest charitie of a Christian to imagine, that all the Church would conspire at once to thrust out the gouernment established by the Apostles, and insteed thereof to bring in another of their owne. But say I, it is most manifest, that BB. were placed in all Churches in the next age to the Apostles: and therefore he must either grant, that the Apostolicall Churches receiued this gouernment from the Apostles, or else confesse (according to his vsuall modesty in setting light by the testimony of all antiquitie,) that all Churches conspired to alter the gouernment which the Apostles had established. But of his p. 11modestie I would know, when he thinketh this gouernment by BB. began; and whether he must not be forced of necessity, either to lay that foule imputation vponupon all the ancient Churches, on all the godly Fathers and blessed Martyrs; or to yeeld that they had receiued this forme of gouernment from the Apostles.

My inference also he denyeth. When as not withstanding the allegation giueth full testimonie to the generality, saying, it was decreed in the whole world: and of the perpetuity there can be no question, if the beginning were not latter then I intended. But it is plaine, that by Ieroms meaning it began in the Apostles times: at the first indeed he saith, before BB. were ordained, the same men were called Presbiteri & Episcopi: and vntill factions beganne, the Churches were gouerned (viz. in the absence of the Apostles) by the common counsell of the Presbiters: which may be true of the most Churches, excepting that of Ierusalem, by Ieromes owne confession. But when factions began, as those did in the Apostles rr1 Cor. 1.1 Cor 1times, whereof he speaketh; the Apostles ordayned, and in the whole Christian world it was obserued, that for auoiding of schisme one should be chosen from among the presbiters, who should be set ouer the rest, and to whom the whole care of the Church, that is, the diocese should appertaine.

As for the reasons whereby he proueth the consequence feeble, they are exceeding weake. First, because Ierom speaketh not of the times immediately succeeding the Apostles. It is very true: for he speaketh of that which was done in the Apostles times, as hath bene said: secondly, saith he, because he saith it was decreed in the whole world, which could not well be without a generall Councill, vnlesse it soaked in by little and little, till at the last it ouer-flowed all places. The decree which he speaketh of, could be no other but of the Apostles: for as hath been said, what was generally obserued in the Churches in the first three hundred yeares, before there was a generall Councill to decree it, proceeded vndoubtedly from the Apostles. Now it is more then euident, that long p. 12before the first generall councill, there were not onelyonly Diocesan BB. but Metropolitanes also, yea Patriarches: that which he talketh of soking in by little and little, agreeth not with the generall decree, whereof Ierome speaketh, whereby what is instituted is ordayned at once. Neither can hee assigne any time after the Apostles, when BB. had either lesse charges, or lesse authority, then in the end of the first three or foure hundred yeares. Their Diocesses oft times as hath beene shewed, were lessened in processe of time, but seldome or neuer enlarged. Neither is it to be doubted, but that their authority among Christians was greater before there were Christian Magistrates, then afterwards. For before, they called and held their Councels by their owne authority, they heard and iudged all causes among Christians, they punished all kindes of faults ssConc. Ancyr. c. 16.20.21.22.23.24.25. Et Neocaes. c. 2. & 3.by Ecclesiasticall censures.

The other testimony of Ierome, is out of his commentarie on Psal. 45. which I hauehave mentioned before.§ 7. The second testimonie of Ierome in Psal. 45.Ps 45 That the Church in steed of her Fathers, which were the Apostles, had sonnes which were the BB. who should be appointed gouernours in all parts of the world.

He saith first, this testimonie is an allegorie vponupon the 45. Psalme, and not a historie of the times. Which is a friuolous euasion. For it is an exposition of the Prophecie by the historie or euent, and so not onelyonly he, but Augustine also expoundeth the place.

Secondly, he alledgeth, that Ierome doth not say, that the Church had BB. as soone as the Apostles were gone: which also is friuolous. For he signifieth that the BB. did succeede the Apostles in the gouernment of the Church, which else where he plainly professeth, saying, that ttAd. Euagr.BB. are the successors of the Apostles. If any other had come betweene them and the Apostles, those other should hauehave beene the Apostles successors, and they the predecessors to the BB. Besides, others of the Fathers in plaine termes testifie, that the Apostles committed the Church eueryevery where to the BB. and left them their successors: which in the successions also p. 13of BB. in the Apostolicall Churches is plainely declared. Simeon the sonne of Cleophas succeeding Iames, Evodius, Linus, Timothie, Tittu, &c. substituted by the Apostles, Peter and Paul, and succeeding them in the gouernment of those Churches wherein they were placed.

Thirdly, Ad pag. 113.he saith, Ierome applied the Psalme to the practise of the times wherein he liued, not expounding the meaning of the Prophecie, which if he had done he must hauehave acknowledged that such BB. were by the ordinance of God. Who could be so shameless as to say, that Ierome expoundeth not the meaning of the Prophecie when hee commenteth thus: Pro patribus tuis nati sunt tibi filij. Fuerunt O Ecclesia Apostoli patres tui, quia ipsi te genuerunt: nunc autem quia illi recesserunt à mundo, habes pro his Episcopos filios, quia à te creati sunt: sunt énim & hi patres tui, quia ab ipsis regeris. Hee therefore expoundeth the meaning of the Prophecie, applying it to the state of the Church immediatly after the decease of the Apostles, and not onelyonly to Ieromes times. Why but then Ierome must be thought to hauehave helde the function of BB. to be a diuine ordinance: that followeth not; for he might hold them to be prophecied of, as he also confesseth, Es. 60. and yet esteeme them but an apostolical ordinance, being neither immediately ordained of God, nor yet prouided as generally & perpetually to be necessarily obserued, as those things which are said to be simply diuini iuris.§ 8. The third argument consisting of two parts: the first affirmatiue, that all Councils, Histories and Fathers giuegive testimony to BB.

My third argument consisteth of two branches; the former, affirmatiue, that the Councels, Histories, and Fathers with one consent giuegive testimony to the gouernment by BB: the other, negatiue, that not any one pregnant testimony of any sound writer, or example of any one orthodoxal or apostolicke Church (viz. in the first three hundred yeares after Christ and his Apostles) can be produced to the contrarie. To the former he answereth, that the Councels, Histories and Fathers, either beare witnesse of their owne times, which is nothing to the purpose, seeing the ancientest uuNote his reason: the testimonies of the Fathers to no purpose, because the antientest Councils were in the fourth age.Councell was in the fourth age of the Church, or else iudge of the BB. in former p. 14times, by that which they saw then in practise, taking all that had the same name of BB. to hauehave beene pertakers of the same authoritie.

If the Fathers did beare witnesse onelyonly of their owne times, it were sufficient for the proofe of my assertion, seeing there were diuers in all the terme specified of three hundred yeares after the Apostles, which giuegive testimonie vntounto it: as in the first age after the Apostles (to omit them of the two latter) Ignatius, Hegesippus, Irenaeus, Clemens, Tertullian, doe giuegive plaine testimonie vntounto it; and two of them, as hath beene shewed, to wit, Ignatius and Irenaeus, were not onelyonly Diocesan, but also Metropolitane BB. But the Fathers, histories and councils, doe not onelyonly speake of their owne times; but also relate what was done in the Apostles times, and immediatly vponupon their decease. Doe they not testifie with one consent, as I partly shew in the two arguments following, that there were BB. in the Apostles times, appointed and ordayned by the Apostles themselues? doe they not say, that the Apostles committed the Churches to them, and left them to be their successors in the gouernment of the Church? is not this one of the chiefe things which Eusebius propoundeth to himselfe in his history, vvvvThey be the first words of Eusebius. foreign, &c.to set down the succession of BB? chiefely, of those who next succeeded the Apostles in the Apostolicall Churches? But let the Reader iudge of the Refuter, and his cause, by that which followeth.

The Fathers discerned not, or knew no difference betweene the calling or authority of the BB. which were in their owne time, and those which had beene before them, but thought and wrote of them as being alike, the chiefest of them in eueryevery age from the Apostles, being BB. themselues. The refuter and his fellowes comming thirteene or foureteene, yea almost fiueteene hundred yeares after some of them, will needes hauehave a difference; and rather then it shall not stand, all the Fathers must be condemned as Idiots, for not seeing that which these learned men doe see. I greatly meruaile with what face, or rather p. 15with what conscience the refuter could auouch these things.

The Nagatiue part of my reason,§ 9. The second part of the third argument negatiue, that no instance can be giuen to the contrary. he saith, is directly false in both the parts of it, as well for testimonies as examples . But I desire the reader to hauehave an eye to the refuters dealing, so shall he easily discerne to what poore shifts he is driuen: first consider, what was the assumption of my first Syllogisme, which by these foure arguments I doe proue; to wit, that in the first three hundred yeeres after Christ and his Apostles the gouernment by BB. was generally and perpetually vsed. This I proue in this third reason, by the testimonies of Antiquity, both affirmatiuely, that all antiquity, viz. Councils, Fathers, Histories, with one consent giuegive testimony to it: and also negatiuely, that no testimony or example of antiquity, no ancient Councill, Father or History, no example of any antient orthodoxall or Apostolicall Church, can be produced to the contrary.All the refuters instances either false or impertinent. This any reasonable man would take to be my meaning.

Now consider his instances, wherein he spendeth aboue sixe leaues; and if any one of them be both true and direct to the purpose, then say that I hauehave no iudgement.

First for testimonyes: We hauehave pregnant testimonies, saith he, of the ancients, and of many sound writers in these latter ages, who affirme, that BB. and ministers were all one in the Apostles times, and that one minister exercised not authority ouer his fellow ministers, as BB. since hauehave done and still doe. First, consider the persons of the witnesses, which he is about to produce, and then the things which they are to depose▪ for whereas I neuer meant to extend the negatiue part of my reason, further then the affirmatiue: and therefore as I said that the Councils, Histories, and Fathers, doe all giuegive testimonie to the Episcopall gouernment, so I meant that no pregnant testimonie either of Councils, Histories or Fathers, (which I comprised vnderunder the generall name of sound writer) could be produced to the contrary: he, for instance alledgeth a company of new writers in this present age, as if they were competent witnesses to depose in a matter of fact, or to testifie what was done or not done in the Church p. 16foureteene or fifteene hundred yeeres agoe: or as if when I chalenge them to shew any one testimony of antiquity to the contrary, it were a sufficient instance, to oppose against me a sort of new writers, who for the most part also are parties in the cause. But yet what shall these witnesses testifie? forsooth two things: First, that in the Apostles times BB. and ministers were all one: whereunto in the first place I answere, that this deposition is not to the purpose. In this argument I speake of what was in the first three hundred yeeres after Christ and his Apostles; but he will make his witnesses to depose what was in the Apostles times: perhaps he will say, the conscience must build it selfe vponupon the practise of the Apostles times: (but say I) in this reason I proue, that the Episcopall gouernment was in vse in the Apostles times, because it was generally and perpetually vsed in the next three hundred yeeres after the Apostles times; which consequence himselfe hath granted …gainst the assumption therefore he should bring his witnesses, if they had any thing to say; and not to be so absurd, as by them to deny my conclusion againe, the Ancients that say BB. and Presbiters were all one in the Apostles times, speake of that part of their time, when as in the most places there were no BB. or at least not chosen from among the Presbiters: for before there were such BB. the same persons indeed were called Episcopi & Presbyteri: but when BB. were chosen out of the Presbiters, which they also confesse was done in the Apostles time (as namely at Alexandria) they professe,Hier. ad Euagr. that then those which were so chosen and placed in a higher degree aboue the Presbiters, began to be called BB.

The other thing, which he will hauehave his witnesses testifie is, that in the Apostles times one Minister did not exercise authority aboue another as BB. since hauehave done : to which assertion, I am sure no sound writer will depose▪ for I pray you, were not the Apostles ministers? were not Timothie and Titus ministers? were they not also superiour to other ministers? did they not exercise authoritie ouer them? If p. 17Timothie therefore and Titus were superiour to other ministers and exercised authoritie ouer them; why may not BB. who succeed not onelyonly them (whether they were BB. or not) but also the Apostles in the gouernment of the Church, be superiour also to other ministers, and exercise authoritie ouer them?

But come we to his witnesses,§ 10. The refuters instances out of the old writers. Ignatius, Iustin Martyr, Tertullian. whereof he would seeme to hauehave great store: howbeit, he will content himselfe with a few, and he will passe by Ignatius, Iustin Martyr, and Tertullian, as hauing done their seruice already: …et the reader vnderstand, that this is a most vaine flourish: for he is not able to produce any one testimonie out of any one of the Councils, Histories or Fathers, that speaketh against the gouernment of the BB. in the first three hundred yeeres, in respect either facti or iuris, that is, as either denying that the Church was so gouerned then, or that it ought to hauehave beene so gouerned. And as for Ignatius, Iustin Martyr, & Tertullian ▪ the greatest advantage he could hauehave by them, was to vse their names: for there is not a word in them sounding against the gouernment of BB. but pregnant testimonies for them: especially in Ignatius and Tertullian, whom I hauehave often quoted in this cause.

It is true, that the refuter did alledge these Authors as witnesses to proue that fond and vnlearned conceipt, that the ancient Churches were no other but Parishes, to proue that which is more fond, that there is and ought to be no other visible Churches indued with power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment, but Parishes. But the vanitie of his conceipt, and the weakenesse of his allegations, hauehave I hope beene sufficiently layd open before in the defence of the second point. Passing therefore by them, the refuter will begin with Cyprian, aaCyp. l. 3. Epi. 19who affirmeth that the menaging of the Church busines, euen in his dayes belonged to the Counsell of himselfe and the rest of the Presbyters, omnium nostrûm concilium spectat, and therefore durst not take it to himselfe alone, praei…dicare ego & soli mihi re… omnem vendicare non audeo. p. 18Here let the reader consider with me, first, the person of the witnesse which is produced, and then the thing which is witnessed: was not Cyprian himselfe, not onelyonly a Diocesan, but also a Metropolitane B.? did not he in iudgement allow the function of such BB.? directly he saith that BB. bbl. 4. Epist. 9.are the successors of the Apostles, and that they answere to the high Priest in the law: that the Lord Iesus, when he appointed Apostles, ccl. 3. Epist. 9.ordained BB. The Deacons must remember, saith he, that the Lord himselfe chose Apostles, that is, BB. but Deacons were chosen by the Apostles themselues after the Ascension of the Lord, as ministers of their Episcopall function, and of the Church. Doth not he teach ddli. 3. Epist. 2. & 13. l. 4. Epist. 2.that in one Church, meaning a whole Diocese, there may be but one B.? & that to set vp a second is to make a schisme, and to rend in pieces the body of Christ? doth he not often plead for the superioritie of BB. ouer the Presbiters, shewing eeli. 1. Epist. 3. l. 3. epi. 9. & 14. & 15.how they ought to reuerence and obey them, and that the contrary is the source of all schisme? Neither doe heresies, saith he, ffli. 4. Epist. 9.arise or schismes from any other beginning then this, that the Priest of God (meaning the B.) is not obeyed, neither one Priest for the time in the Church, and one Iudge for the time in stead of Christ is acknowledged: whom if the whole brotherhood according to Gods commandement would obey, &c. How oft doth he speake of the vigour ggli. 3. Epist. 9. & 16. li. 1. Epist. 3.of the Episcopall power, and of the authoritie of his chaire, whereby he acknowledgeth, euen those of the Clergie might be either excommunicated or deposed. Is it not likely therefore thinke you, that Cyprian would testifie against the function or authoritie of BB.?

§ 11. Cyprians testimonie examined.But let vsus examine the allegation it selfe. There were some in the Church of Carthage, that had fallen by denying their faith in time of persecution; and returning to the Church againe, would in all hast be reconciled and receiued to the communion: whereof some by their importunity preuailed with some of the Presbiters, whom as I noted in the Sermon, Cyprian hhli. 3. Epist. 14., being absent, reprooued by letter, that they not regarding their Bishop set ouer them, nor theiiEpi. 15. & 16. honour p. 19due to him, nor reseruing to him the honour of his Episcopall office, and his chaire, had without his appointment (though absent) reconciled them and receiued them to the communion: others procured the Martyrs and Confessors to write to Cyprian in their behalfe; that when peace should be restored to the Church, peace might vponupon the examination of their cause be giuen to them. Cyprian kkli. 3. Epist. 15.therefore writeth to the Martyrs commending them, that whereas the Presbiters should hauehave taught them what appertained to the discipline of the Church; they were to learne of these Martyrs, to referre their petitions and desires to the B. and then willeth them to set downe in writing particularly, whom they desired to be receiued: he writeth also to the people, llli. 4. Epist. 16.signifying, that he had receiued letters from the Martyrs in the behalfe of those which had fallen, promising when God should grant peace vntounto them that he might returne to them, the behauiour and repentance of them which had fallen should be examined in their presence: and hauing signified his great dislike of the Presbiters act, who not reseruing vntounto him the honour of his Priesthood and chaire, had without his allowance communicated with them which had fallen. In the end, he desireth that they which had fallen would patiently heare his counsell & expect his returne, that when through Gods mercy we shall come vntounto you many of my fellow BB. being assembled together, may according to the discipline of the Lord, in the presence of the confessors, examine the letters and desires of the blessed Martyrs: he writeth in like manner to the mmEpi. 17. & 18Clergy, that is, to the Presbiters and Deacons; willing them, for as much as still his returne was delayed, that in the case of necessity they should not expect his presence, but for such, as should be in danger of death, to lay their hands vponupon them, and reconcile them; especially, such as had beene commended by the Martyrs; as for the rest, he would hauehave them stay, till hee being restored to the Church, and they all being assembled together, might determine what was to be done. But being importuned againe by letters p. 20from the Confessors, who had desired him, and by him the rest of the BB. to grant peace, as themselues did to them which had fallen; he writeth againe to the Presbiters and Deacons that letter, which by the refuter is cited; saying, nnL. 3. Epist. 19.concerning those (which had fallen, and by the Confessours hauehave desired to be reconciled) vntill it be certainely knowne, what course they hauehave taken since their fault committed, seeing it is a matter which belongeth to the Councill and iudgement of vsus all, I dare not preiudicate, and challenge to my selfe a thing which is common; and therefore appointeth that course to be taken, which I mentioned out of the last Epistle: and to the same purpose writeth to diuers BB. and by name to Calidonius ooL. 3. Epist. 20., shewing him what order he had taken in this matter, and willing him to signifie the same to other BB. that the like course might be taken by them.

If these letters, all concerning the same businesses, be conferred together, you may obserue, first, that Cyprian was a Metropolitane B. hauing authoritie to assemble and to direct his comprouinciall BB. as may appeare also by the Synodes held, and Synodicall Epistles written by him. Secondly that he speaketh not of Church businesse in generall, but of this particular; which was of so great importance, that he saithppL. 3. Epist. 18., it was the cause not of one Church or of one Prouince, but of the whole world. Thirdly, that he would not deale alone in this busines, but he would call a Synode of his fellow BB. besides his Clergie; and in the presence of the people hauehave the cause of them which had fallen examined. Fourthly, that although he would not deale alone in this busines, being a cause of so great moment, but would hauehave it referred to the examination & censure of his fellow BB. besides the concurrence of the people, and his owne Clergy in this iudgement; notwithstanding the chiefe stroak in this busines was in him; as appeareth, both by their petitions, and his directions. And therefore the whole cariage of this businesse doth prooue the Episcopall authoritie of the B. and Cyprians superioritie, not onelyonly ouer his owne Presbiters, but also ouer his fellow p. 21Bishops, so farre is it from impleading the same▪ and further I say, that Cyprian, because his comming to the Bishopricke was much resisted by Felicissimus and his complices, and the time wherein he liued troublesome and dangerous: therefore though he might (as Ierome qqIn Tit. 1.Titus 1speaketh of all Bishops) rule alone as Moses, yet as Moses, he voluntarily vsed the assistance of others, hauing as himselfe rrlib. 3. Epist. 10saith, from the beginning of his Bishoprick determined to doe nothing by his own priuate sentence, without the counsell of the Clergy, and consent of the people: whereby it appeareth, that his vsing of the Clergies counsell, and consent of the people, was not of necessity, but voluntary: and therefore when he saw cause, and did finde himselfe not to need either the counsell of the Clergy, or consent of the people, he would sometimes doe matters of importance, (as namely the ordination of Clerks) alone: as himselfe signifieth in an Epistle sslib. Epist. 5. l…b. 3. Epist. 22. lib. 4. Epist. 5.to the Presbiters, Deacons, and the whole people. In ordaining of Clerkes I doe vse before hand to consult with you, and by common counsell to weigh the manners and deserts of all: but humane testimonies are not to be expected, when we hauehave diuine suffrages; and therefore signifieth that he had without them ordained Aurelius and others to be Clerks. But suppose, that of necessitie Cyprian was to vse the aduise, or expect the presence and conscience of his Clergy, in dispaching matters of importance; would this be an instance against the Episcopall gouernment in those times? did the fourth Councill of Cathage ttCon. Carth. 4. cap. 22. & 23., set foorth these two Canons, the one, that a B. without the Councill of his Clergie should not ordaine Clerkes: requiring also that the assent or conniuence and testimony of the people should be had? the other, that a B. should heare no mans cause but in the presence of his Clerkes, and that the sentence of the B. should be void which was not confirmed by the presence of his Clergie, and yet no man doubteth, but that when that Councell was held (which was about foure hundred yeeres after Christ) the sway of Ecclesiasticall authoritie, both for ordination, and iurisdiction was in the Bishop. p. 22But I hauehave vouchafed too long an answere to so weake an allegation.

§ 12. The testimony of Ambrose in 1 Tim. 5.1 Tim 5In the next place he mentioneth Ambrose his testimony, which was, as he saith, debated at large in the first point. It was debated indeed, but nothing to this present purpose. Ambrose saith, that the B. was wont to vse the aduise of his Presbiters; though in his time it was growne out of vse: and the matter debated betweene vsus, was, whether those Seniors, were Ministers, as I proued, or Lay-elders as the refuter pretended; but whether they were the one or the other, the authoritie and gouernment of the B. was no more impayred by vsing their counsell, then the authority of a Prince by vsing the aduise of his Counsellours: vntill such time and in such cases as by the Canons and Canonicall law their consent was required as necessarie.

These two allegations, if they had beene reduced into sillogismes, would hauehave made very loose inferences: and so would the testimonies of Ierom, The testimonies of Ierome answered.who eueryevery where almost, saith the refuter, speaketh for vsus. This is vauntingly spoken, and yet the truth is, that as no wheres indeed he speaketh for them; so none of the Fathers is more plentifull of pregnant testimonies, then he is, for BB. as partly hath beene shewed already, and more shall be declared hereafter. Of the testimonies which the refuter citeth, three uuAd Ocean in Tit. 1. Ad Euagr.Titus 1are all to one purpose; that at the first in the Apostles times, BB. and Elders were all one : that is, the same men, who were called Presbiters, were also called BB. (but by the way, where were the Lay-presbiters then? were they also called BB.?) and that till factions did arise, the Churches were gouerned by the common counsell of Presbiters. To these allegations I hauehave already made answere, which I doe breifely repeate; that in the Apostles times before BB. were ordayned, the Churches were gouerned by the common counsell of the Presbiters, as vnderunder the Apostles: and vntill the BB. were elected from among the Presbiters in the seueral Churches, the names of Presbiters & Episcopus, were confounded, but when BB. were chosen out of the Presbiters, p. 23as they were not at the first (for the first BB. were Apostles, as Iames; and Apostolicall men, as Marke, Timothie, and Titus, Linus, Evodiu…, &c. and were not called Episcopi, but Apostoli) then, (w)(w)Hier. ad Euagr. Theodor. in 1 Tim. 3.1 Tim 3for distinction sake, he which was chosen from among the Presbiters and placed in a higher degree, began to be called Episcopus, euen in the Apostles times: the name of Apostle being left to them who principally were so called. But what will the refuter conclude from hence? There was a time whiles the Apostles liued, when thesame men were called Presbiters and BB. that is, the names were confounded.

Therefore in the three hundred yeeres after the Apostles the Churches were not gouerned by Diocesan BB.

But as the allegations were impertinent,§ 13. A fourth testi.+mony of Ierome misalledged aduers. Lucifer. so the other aduers. Lucifer, is not onelyonly impertinent, but also misalledged. The Bishops preferment, saith Ierome according to the refuters allegation, was not by necessitie of law, but granted to him to honour him withall. In that Dialogue, there is a controuersie betweene the true Christian, and the Luciferian: the true Christian would hauehave those which were baptised by Arians, to be baptised againe, before they should be receiued againe vntounto the communion: because by their baptisme, who belieued the Father alone to be God, the Sonne a creature, and the holy Ghost the seruant of both, the holy Ghost was not communicated: the Luciferian held, they might be receiued without baptisme, by imposition of hands, whereby the holy Ghost should be giuen them, which before they had not receiued: and to that purpose alledgeth the practise of the Apostles, who by imposition of hands gaue the holy Ghost to those whom Philippe the Deacon had baptised; and the custome generally receiued of the Church, that BB. by imposition of hands doe communicate the holy Ghost to them that are baptised. The true Christian replyeth, that BB. vse to impose hands onelyonly on those who were baptised into the true faith, and that by the baptisme giuen by a Presbiter of Deacon, the holy Ghost also is conferred. But, p. 24saith he, if here you demaund why hee that is baptized in the Church receiueth not the holy Ghost but by the hands of the B. whom we hold to be giuen in true baptisme; vnderstand, that this obseruation is deriued from that authority that the holy Ghost after the ascension of the Lord descended vponupon the Apostles: and the same thing we finde done in many places, ad honorem potius Sacerdotij, quàm ad legis necessitatem; more for the honour of the Episcopall function, then for the necessitie of a law. For otherwise, if onelyonly at the prayer of the B. the holy Ghost doth descend, then lamentable is their case, who in Villages and Townes, and in other remote places, being baptized of Presbiters and Deacons, doe depart out of this life, before the B. visite them: the safety of the Church dependeth on the dignitie of the B. &c. as hath beene oft alledged.

That which Ierome speaketh of this one prerogatiue of BB. the refuter extendeth to his whole preferment, or preheminence; and saith, he hath it not by any necessitie of law, but is granted to him to honour him. The preheminence of the B. in generall, Ierome supposed to be of such necessity as that the safety of the Church dependeth vponupon it; but for this particular of giuing the holy Ghost, he saith, there was no such necessitie: because in the Baptisme by a Presbiter, or Deacon before the B. imposeth his hands, the holy Ghost is bestowed.

But as I said, this testimonie is also impertinent, not concluding that for which it is brought. For it is a strange inference: their preheminence was giuen not of necessitie, but to honor them; therfore the Church was not gouerned by them in the three hundred years after Christ, & his Apostles. Neither is it impertinent only to his purpose, but also it concludeth for me: for if BB. had their preheminence in the primitiue Church, as here it is presupposed: then their gouernment is proued to hauehave beene in vse: but whether it were by an honour voluntarily giuen them, or by necessitie of law, that in this present point is not materiall.

§ 14. Ad pag. 114.After Ierome, he citeth Augustine in an Epistle to Ierome, granting that the office of a B. was greater then another p. 25Minister,The testimony of Augustine Epist. 19. through a custome of the Church, that had gotten the vpper hand, and not otherwise. If by the custome of the Church the office of a B. was become greater before Ierome and Augustines time, then BB. had this preheminence in the three hundred yeares after the Apostles; so farre is this testimonie from disprouing the gouernment of BB. in those times. But neither is it truely alledged: for he speaketh not so much of the office, as the names; and that not otherwise is added by the Refuter: and the granting he talketh of, was not a yeelding vponupon necessitie, but a modest cession from his right. Augustine towards the end of the Epistle earnestly desireth Ierome, that hee would boldly correct him, wherein hee should thinke it needfull: Quanquam enim secundum honorum vocabula, quae iam Ecclesiae vsus obtinuit, Episcopatus Presbyterio maior sit, tamen in multis rebus Augustinus Hieronymo minor est; licèt etiam â minore quolibet non sit fugienda vel dedignanda correctio. For though according to the names of honour, Bishopship is greater then Priesthood, that is, is a name of greater honour, or is honoured with greater titles, notwithstanding in many things Augustine is inferiour to Ierome: howbeit correction is not to be shunned or disdayned from eueryevery one that is inferiour.

In that Episcopatus is a name of greater honour then Priesthood, it is to be ascribed to the vse and custome of the Church; for at the first they were confounded. Againe, might not some one of our BB. in King Edwards time, hauehave vsed the same words, writing to Caluin, as well as Augustine vsed them towards Ierome? would therefore the Refuter inferre, that in the times fore-going, there had not beene Diocesan BB. or that they ought not to be superiour to other Ministers? Surely, howsoeuer Augustine in modesty, or any other being a B. was loath to preferre himselfe before Ierome, or any other man of renowne, being but a Presbiter, by reason of his great learning and renowned piety; yet were it a sawcie part for him that is but a Presbiter, to thinke himselfe equall with a Bishop. Ierome was farre from p. 26it: and therefore in his Epistles to Augustine, giueth him titles of great honour, vsing this inscription: aaAug. …. 2. Epist. 17. & 18.Domino verè, sancto, & beatissimo Papae Augustino, &c. And this farewell, the Lord preserue you, Domine verè sancte & suscipiende Papa: and the like I hauehave said before of Caluin bbAd Cra…er..

From Augustine, he maketh a large step to Erasmus ccErasmus in 1. Tim. 4.1 Tim 4, who saith, Of olde there was no difference betweene a Presbyter, a Priest, (but that the Refuter left out, for feare of excluding his lay-elder) and a B. And then hee leapeth backe againe to Theodoret, Theodoret. Beda. Sedulius. &c.Beda, Sedulius, Oecumenius, Primasius, Theophilact, &c. who affirme the same. And doe not I my selfe professe the same in this Sermon? doe I not also proue it in the Sermon of the dignity of the ministerie, that in the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles these two words Presbyter & Episcopus, were confounded, and the same men were called Presbyteri & Episcopi? what will hee conclude thereof? that therefore in the three hundred yeares after the Apostles the Church was not gouerned by BB? or that the office of a B. and a Presbyter, were at any time confounded? nay, can hee proue so much as the names after the Apostles time were vsually confounded? Ignatius, who liued in the Apostles times, eueryevery where distinguisheth them; and so doe the after Writers, as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Eusebius, &c. sauing that to BB. they giuegive sometimes the more generall name of Presbyters, or ddSacerdotes.Priests: which is not to be meruailed at, seeing the Apostles, Peter and Iohn, doe call themselues Presbyters.

Yea, but some Protestant Writers, whom afterwards hee will cite, hauehave vnderstoode Ierome and the rest as the Refuter doth: and not they onelyonly, but Michael Medina a Popish Writer, is of opinion, that they held the same error with Aerius. This is a strange kind of arguing, which our Refuter vseth, to bring new Writers to depose what the old hauehave testified. Are not their testimonies extant in print? may we not read them with our owne eyes, and weigh them in our owne iudgements? that wee leauing the records themselues, should seek to the d…positions of new writers to know what p. 27the olde hauehave testified? but of the errour of them, who suppose Ierome, and some other of the Fathers, to hauehave beene of the same iudgement with Aerius I hauehave spoken before, neither doubt I now to affirme that they ioyned in opinion with Aerius, no more then I do: for they writing on Phil. 1. 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1. 1 Pet. 5. doe say, that in these places the names Presbyter & Episcopus, were confounded, which places my selfe hauehave alledged to the same purpose.

After he had alledged what hee was able out of the olde Writers,§ 15. Allegations out of the new Writers. and yet neuer a word to the purpose; he proceedeth to the new Writers, who as he saith were called out of the thickest mists of Poperie, to the light of the Gospell: heaping vp a sort of testimonies without order, and without iudgement, and mingling also some testimonies out of the canon law, and some Popish Writers among them. And because to follow him, were to runne the wild-goose race, I will reduce their testimonies to certaine heads, and then giuegive him an answere to them all. Some therefore are brought to testifie, that in the Apostles times BB. and Presbyters were all one, (the which is true, for the same men were called Presbyters and BB:) as Heming. and Zauch. in Phil. 1.1. Isidor. and Dist. 21. c. Cleros. ex Isidor. Duaren. de ministr. & benef. l. 1. c. 7. Gloss. ord. Hugo Card. Cassander, the councils of Constance and Basill, Chemnitius, Lubbertus, D. Fulke. D. Willet. D. Morton. Some, that there was no difference betweene B. and Presbyter till after the Apostles times: but afterwards BB. were set ouer Presbyters: as Danaeus. Some, that at the first there were no such BB. as were afterwards: and when they were brought in they were not Monarches of the Church, &c. as Chamier. Some, that iure diuino Episcopi & Presbyteri be all one: as Iunius and Phil. Morney, and D. Whitak. which is true concerning the vse of the words in the Scriptures. Some that Episcopatus is not a distinct order from Presbyteratus iure diuino, as D, Holland: whose not writings, but speeches, he citeth vponupon report.

Some, that B. and Presbyter by the word of God is the same, not in name onelyonly, but also in office: as Sad…l. Some, that in the Apostles p. 28times the Churches were gouerned communi presbyterorum consilio, but after the Apostles they chose one to be B. as Musculus.

Some that Christ made ministers equall, & that there was at the first no contention, (which how true it is appeareth by Christs appointing twelue Apostles and seauentie Disciples, and by the contention among the Apostles themselues for superioritie, whiles Christ was with them,) as Bullinger. Some, that as the Apostles were equall, so their successors: which is true; for the BB. are equall among themselues, though superiour to other ministers, as the Apostles were to the seauentie Disciples,) as D. Whitakers. Some, that Aerius was not an hereticke for saying that according to the vse of the scriptures Episcopus & Presbiter, is all one, which is true, neither had he beene an hereticke if he had said no more, and that Ambrose, Chrysostome, Ierome, and Augustine, were of the same iudgement, as B. Iewell.

Some, that in the Apostles times there were onelyonly two degrees of ministers, Presbiters and Deacons, as D. Humfrey.

Some, that Bishops were not in the Apostles times, as Sadeel.

Some, that BB. he superiour to Prebiters by mans decree, and not by scripture: by custome of man, not by the authoritie of God: by mans law, and not by Apostolicall institution, as Heming, in Phil. 1.1. Bulling. Iunius, B. Pilkington, the Canon law falsified de iure positiuo, as Cusanus: not by Gods law, as D. Raynolds: no otherwise but by custome, as Sadeel.

Some, that Episcopus and Pastor of one flocke was at the first all one. as D. Raynolds.

Some, that there was alwaies one principall, which by common vse was called a B. being chiefe, though not alone, both in gouernment and ordination, as D. Fulke.

Some, that BB. be in a higher degree of superioritie, but not Princes; that not they onelyonly are Pastors, that they hauehave the right of consecration, though not onelyonly, as D. Willet.

p. 29Some, that the sole and supreame authority in a B. is tyranny, as Bullinger.

Some, that the gouernment of the Church by the first institution was not Monarchicall, but Aristocraticall, as Chamier.

Some, that elections were not in corners, nor by one, as Gualther.

Some, that Presbiters may ordaine, as being all one with BB. in office, as Sadeel.

Some, that Priests had voices and seates in Councils (as indeed they hauehave with vsus) as the councill of Constance and Basill.

Some, that such Archbb. as are aboue Metropolitanes, were not ordayned by Christ, and his Apostles, as D. Bilson; who also is alledged as hauing beene of the Refuters minde, because he citeth Ierome in Tit. 1.1. & ad Euagr.

Some, that there were two sorts of Elders, as Iunius.

Some, vnderstanding Ieromes words of the time when factions began, not of the Apostles times, but afterward, as Iunius.

These are all his witnesses,§ 16. His allegations out of new Writers answered. besides some, with whose names onelyonly, without their testimonies, he thought best to make a simple flourish. Now if any one of these allegations were reduced into the forme of a Syllogisme, concluding the contradictorie to my assertion, viz. that some auncient Councils, Histories, or Fathers doe testifie that in the three hundred yeares after Christ and his Apostles, the gouernement by BB. was not generally and perpetually vsed, it would appeare to eueryevery one how ridiculously our refuter argueth. As for example:

Danaeus, Musculus, Iunius, &c. doe testifie, that in the three hundred yeares after Christ and his Apostles the gouernment by BB. was not generally receiued.

Therefore some ancient Councils, Histories, or Fathers, doe testifie so much.

Yea, but you speake of sound Writers in generall, will he p. 30say, and so I conclude: Therefore some sound Writers doe testifie so much. But it is plaine say I, that I meane the ancient.

But to his argument such as it is, I answere: first, that if these Writers had testified that which is contayned in the antecedent, yet had not they beene competent witnesses in a matter of fact fourteene or fifteene hundred yeares before their time, the greatest part of them being also parties in the cause. But indeede not all, no nor any one of his witnesses doth testifie that in the three hundred yeares after the Apostles the gouernment of Bishops was not generally receiued; but all his allegations accommodated to that conclusion, are most ridiculous. As for example: in in the Apostles times Bishops and Presbyters were the same. Therefore in the three hundred yeares after the Apostles, the gouernment by Bishops was not receiued. Bishops were ordayned not by Gods law, &c. Therefore they were not in the first three hundred yeares: and so of the rest.

But some body will say, though these testimonies be impertinent to the present purpose, and I must needes confesse, that your Refuter did grossely abuse his vnlearned Readers in making such a flourish with them: notwithstanding, some of the allegations contayne assertions contrarie to some points in your Sermon. Of whom, in steed of answere, if I should aske this question, whom hee conceiueth to be aduersaries to vsus in this cause? he would answere, those that stand for the pretended discipline. And who be those? Caluin, Beza, Danaeus, lunius, Sadeel, and the most of those whom the Refuter hath alledged. If they be aduersaries in this cause, is it to be wondred that they hauehave deliuered contrary assertions? and if they be parties in the cause, are their testimonies to be admitted? Verily, he might better hauehave alledged M. Cartwright, and M. Trauers, then some of those whom hee did cite, being more parties in the cause then they, as not onelyonly hauing written in defence of their discipline, but liuing where it is practised; but that hee p. 31knew the simple Reader, vvho cannot be ignorant that T. C. and W. T. are parties, vvas ignorant that these outlandish Writers vvere aduersaries vntounto vsus in the cause, to vvhose assertions, seeing it is folly to oppose the authorities of learned men, vvho are on our side, vvhom the Refuter vvould reiect as parties; I oppose the testimonies of antiquity, and the reasons contayned in this booke; desiring the Reader in the feare of God to giuegive credit without partiality to that side on which there is better euidence of truth.

And thus hauing turned ouer,§ 17. Ad pag. 125. Allegation of Examples. and as I suppose ouerturned more then fiue leaues, vvhichwhich hee blotted vvith these testimonies; I come to his examples, of vvhichwhich hee hauing not any one betweene the Apostles times and ours; therefore giueth instance in the Churches of our time, and in the time of the Apostles. But marke I pray you, vvhat vvas my assertion, vvhichwhich hee vvould seeme to contradict. Was it not this, that no example of any Orthodoxall or Apostolicall Church can be produced, to proue that in the three hundred yeares after Christ and his Apostles the gouernment by Bishops vvas not generally receiued? No: saith hee, vvhat say you then, to the Churches of Heluetia, France, lowe Countries, &c. **I omit here how shamefully he belyeth the Doctrine of the Churches of England, Wirtemberge, and Sweueland, as opposite to the gouernment of BB. quoting Harmon. Confess. Sect. 11. The Church of Sweueland is so farre from opposing it selfe to the spirituall authority of Bishops, that it doth not contradict the secular power and soueraigntie of such Bishops as be Princes.in our time? and to the Church of Corinth, Cenchrea, Ephesus and Antioch in the Apostles times? Marry this I say; that the Refuter is a very trifler, vvho pretending to giuegive instance of some Church vvithin three hundred yeares after the Apostles times contrarie to my assertion, thinkes to satisfie his Reader eyther vvith examples of some Churches in our age, or of those in the Apostles times, vvhereof this present question is not.

I confesse that the Churches in the Apostles times at the first had not Bishoppes excepting that of Ierusalem. p. 32Notwithstanding, before the death of Saint Iohn, the Churches had not onelyonly Bishops but diuers of them a succession of Bishops, and such were two of those which he nameth, to wit, Antioch and Ephesus: for at Antioch there were Bishops successiuely in the Apostles times. Evodius and Ignatius. And at Ephesus, before the Angel, (to whom that Epistle is directed Apoc. 2.1) Timothie. About the yeare one hundred seauenty and foure aaEuseb. Chron. anno 174.Dionysius was B. of Corinth, and before him was Primus, who was of the same time with Anicetus, Anno one hundred fifty sixe: before whom there was a succession from the Apostles time, as bbEuseb. hist. l. 4. c. 21. & 22.Hegesippus recordeth. As for Cenchrea, that neuer had a peculiar Bishop of her owne, but was subiect as other Townes and Parishes of Acha…a to the Bishop of Corinth. As touching the Churches after the Apostles times, the Refuter hath nothing to obiect, but what before he hath alleadged out of Iustin Martyr, and Tertullian, in whom there is not a word against Bishops. Iustin Martyr, ccApol. 2.speaketh but of one gouernour in each Church, whom he calleth foreign (that is, the B. saith Beza) speaking so plainely for the singularity of preheminence of one B. in each Church, that T. C. ddLib. 1.14.who would perswade that in the seueral Churches there were more Bishops then one, saith, that euen in Iustines time there began to peepe out something which went from the simplicity of the Gospell, as that the name of foreign, which was common to the Elders, with the Ministers of the word, was it seemeth appropriated vntounto one. And whereas this place of Iustine was alleadged eeLib. 2.621., to proue the Bishops superiority ouer the Presbyters (for euen Beza ffBez. in 1 Tim. 5. & in Phil. 1.1 Tim 5Phil 1confesseth hee was the President of the Presbyterie, who afterwards was called a Bishop) hee answereth; if it should be granted that Iustines President had superioritie ouer the Ministers, yet how fondly is it concluded, that it is Lawfull, because it was? And as I hauehave answered his allegation before ggLib. 1. cap. 11. § 3.out of Tertullian hhApologe…. c. 39.for lay-elders, wherein is nothing that maketh against Bishops: so hauehave I cited pregnant places in his vvritings, p. 33giuing testimony not onelyonly to the gouernment of BB. in his time, but prouing a continued succession iiPraescrip. contr. haere.of them from the Apostles to his time. It is plaine therefore that the refuter with the help of all his collectors, is not able to produce any one example of an orthodoxall and Apostolicall Church in the first three hundred yeeres after the Apostles times, wherin the Episcopall gouernment was not receiued: so that my argument standeth firme and sure in all the parts of it.

To my fourth reason concluding the perpetuity of the Episcopall gouernment in the ancient Churches,§ 18. Ad pag. 126. The fourth argument from the succession of BB. from the succession of BB. deduced from the Apostles times vntill the Councill of Nice, remayning as yet vponupon authenticall records, Eusebius kkEuseb. hist. & Chron., eueryevery where carefully setting downe this succession, and Irenaeus llIren. li. 3. c. 3.and Tertullian mmTertul de praescript.prouing the deriuation of the orthodoxall doctrine from the Apostles to their time by the personall succession of BB. in the Churches teaching the same truth.

He obiecteth,Augustine Epist. 24. Christiana societas persedes Apostolorum ac successiones Episcoporū certa per orbem propagatione diffunditur. and saith the obiection is worth the answering, that I deceiue them with the name: he confesseth there was a succession of BB. but the first were not like the latter: for though the latter were Diocesan Bishops yet the former were not. Belike they were first Parish BB. and then titular Diocesan BB. and then ruling Diocesans, then Lord Diocesans, then Metropolitanes, then Patriarches: which being obiected vponupon ridiculous grounds nnli. 3 cap. 1. §. 10 & 12.(heretofore confuted) I held scarse worth the mentioning in the Sermon. It is apparant by this succession, that within the compasse of eueryevery Diocese there was onelyonly one B. at a time, there hauing bin no more in any Diocese at the end of the first or second hundred, then were at the end of of foure hundred yeeres: and therefore this succession doth euidently proue a perpetuitie of Diocesan BB. from the Apostles times downewards. And thus the former part of my assumption is manifest. Wherefore (as I said in the Sermon) this to a moderate Christian might seeme a sufficient commendation of the Episcopall function, though no more could be said for p. 34it: that in the best times of the primitiue Church, it was borne of so many thousand godly and learned Bishops, receiued in all true Churches, approued of all the orthodoxall and learned Fathers, allowed and commended of all the famous Councils.

The Episcopall function not first ordained by Councils.The latter part▪ that the Episcopall function was not first ordayned by generall Councils, I proue by vndenyable euidence: but this proofe the refuter had no mind to deale withall, because it also proue…h the former part by such an argument as he could not tell how to answere: & that vvas this, that the first generall Councill ooConc. Nic. c. 6.of Nice, was so farre from first ordayning Bishops or Metropolitanes, that it acknowledgeth Patriarches to hauehave beene long before that time in vse, and confirmeth the ancient ppforeign.custome of subiecting diuers Prouinces to them. For there were Diocesan Bishops before there were Metropolitanes actually, and Metropolitanes were long before Patriarches, and Patriarches had beene long in vse before the Councill of Nice, and yet that Councill was held within two hundred and thirtie yeeres after the Apostle times.

Wherefore seeing the proposition of my syllogisme was so euidently true,The conclusion. as that the refuter could not deny it, viz. that gouernment which was generally and perpetually receiued in all Christian Churches in the first three hundred yeeres after Christ and his Apostles, and not ordayned by generall Councils, was vndoubtedly of Apostolicall institution: and seeing the assumption was proued by foure or fiue vnanswerable arguments, that the gouernment by such Bishops as were described in the former part of the Sermon, was generally and perpetually vsed in all Christian Churches in the first three hundred yeeres after Christ and his Apostles, and not ordayned by generall Councils; therefore the conclusion is of necessarie and vndenyable truth, that the gouernment of the Churches by such Bishops was vndoubtedly of Apostolicall institution.

§ 19.After I had thus concluded affirmatiuely to proue my p. 35assertion, I propounded another syllogisme,A syllogisme concluding against the pretended discipline vponupon the same ground…. concluding negatiuely against the pretended discipline: therein intending to prouoke and challenge him that should take vponupon him the refutation of my Sermon, to bring some proofes for their gouernment in the first three hundred yeeres after Christ. The syllogisme was this:

That gouernment which no where was in vse in the first three hundred yeares, is not of Apostolicall institution.

The gouernment of the Churches by a parity of ministers and assistance of Lay-elders in eueryevery parish was no where in vse in the first three hundred yeeres.

Therefore it is not of Apostolicall institution.

The proposition is as certaine as the former; the assumption I hauehave already proued in the former syllogisme. For if the gouernment by Diocesan BB. was generally and perpetually receiued in those three hundred yeares after the Apostles: then is it manifest, that this gouernment, which they speake of, was no wherein vse. But because it is infinite to proue such a negatiue by induction of particulars, which might be disproued by any one instance by them which hold the affirmatiue; therefore I left the proofe of the affirmatiue to the refuter. Let vsus see then how he answeareth; forsooth by opposing the like syllogisme, saying:

That gouernment which was generally in vse in the first three hundred yeeres, is of Apostolicall institution.

The gouernment of the Churches by a parity of ministers and assistance of onelyonly-gouerning Elders in eueryevery parish, was generally in vse in the first three hundred yeeres.

Therefore it is of Apostolicall institution.

And then braggeth that his proofe for their discipline is as good as mine against it. Wher the refuter doth not so much bewray his ignorance in the lawes of disputation, as the badnes p. 36of his cause; choosing rather to boast, that their gouernment was generally and perpetually vsed, then to giuegive any one instance to proue it. what needed this generall assertion, vnlesse it were to beguile the simple who are lead with shewes, when one perticular instance would hauehave serued? But that the reader may vnderstand, that this my assumption was vndoubtedly true, I will make the refuter this faire offer; that if he can bring any one pregnant and approued example of a Christian Church gouerned by a parity of ministers, and assistance of onelyonly-gouerning Elders, I will promise to suscribe to their discipline. wherefore let not the reader be carried away with vaine shewes, neither let him belieue, that their pretended discipline was instituted by the Apostles, vntill they be able to shew (as they neuer will be) that it was sometime and some where practised within three hundred yeeres say a thousand foure hundred if you will after the Apostles.