A Defense of the Sermon Preached at the Consecration of the Bishop of Bath, Book 4 · Chapter 2
The II. CHAPTER. Prouing the function of BB. to be of Apostolicall institution, because it was vsed in those times without their dislike.
Serm. Sect. 4. pag. 61. Now I proceede to the second degree, ascending to the Apostles times, from whence in the second place I argue thus: That gouernment which euen in the Apostles times was vsed in the Apostolicall Churches and was not contradicted by them, was vndoubtedly of Apostolicall institution, &c. ad pag. 65.
WHere I take this proposition for granted (namely of the aduersaries) he saith,His answere to the proposition. I reckon without mine host: & yet confesseth it to be true according to their opinion who hold there may be but one gouernment in the Church, and that instituted by the Apostles; which is the generall opinion of the Disciplinarians, confessed in effect by himselfe, Pag. 130. Yea but I say afterward, in fauour of the Disciplinarians (therein clawing a Churle, according to the homely prouerbe, as appeareth by this refuter) that though the gouernment by BB. is the best; yet we doubt not but where this may not be had, others may be admitted, neither doe we deny but that siluer is good, though gold be better. If therefore, saith he, there be diuers kindes of gouernment which may be admitted, then might there be a gouernment in the Churches in the Apostles times not contradicted by them, which yet was not of Apostolicall institution. whereto I answere: first, that I did not say simply, that other gouernments may be admitted besides that which was ordained by the Apostles, but where that cannot be had. But whiles the Apostles liued, that which they ordayned might be had. Againe, if any in the Apostles times should of their owne heads hauehave altered the forme of gouernment established by them, and consequently hauehave set vp a worse, it cannot be thought, that either the Apostles would hauehave allowed it, or that all Churches would hauehave retayned that gouernment, vvhichwhich they had not receiued from the Apostles. Besides, it is incredible, that in the Apostles times any forme of gouernment was vsed in the Apostolicall Churches, but that which was ordayned by the Apostles: and therefore the proposition is more then manifest.
Now followeth the assumption: vvhereof are two parts, the one, that the gouernment by BB. was vsed euen in the Apostles times, the other that it was not contradicted by them.
The former I proue by two arguments: the one because the seauen Angels were in the Apostles times, and they were BB. for the substance of their calling such as ours be: and therefore such BB. were in the Apostles time.
§ 2. Ad pag. 128. His answer to the assumption.Ere the refuter will answere to the matter of the assumption, he propoundeth two things worthy his obseruation: the one, that I confine the number of the Angels to seauen, which neither the text doth (saith he) nor himselfe euer did till now: Did not I before obserue in the Sermon, that there was but one Angell in each of the seauen Churches; and doth not the text say, that the seauen Starres are the Angels of the seauen Churches? I hauehave spoken of this point before, onelyonly let the refuter call to mind this argument among the rest.
The text saith the Starres were seauen.
The text saith that the Angels be the Starres.
Therefore the text saith the Angels be seauen.
The other is, that I shunne the terme Diocesan, in which notwithstanding the whole question consisteth: for no man doubteth, that the gouernment was by BB. in the Apostles times, seeing that both ministers and ruling Elders were called BB. doth he not speak against the light of his owne conscience, when he saith I auoid the name Diocesan, seeing in expresse termes I said, they were for the substance of their calling such as ours be? If I had onelyonly said Diocesan, he might hauehave excepted in behalfe of the learneder sort of Disciplinarians; that they doubted not but that the Angels were superintendents of the City and countrey adioyning; but all the question (would they say) is, of the superiority, whether they had a singular preheminence for terme of life, a superiority in degree, a maiority of power in respect of ordination and iurisdiction: when as therefore I say, that for the substance of their calling they were such BB. as ours are, I doe say, not onelyonly that they were Diocesan, but also that they were superiour to other ministers in degree, &c.
But whence I pray you, hath the refuter this confidence so boldly to affirme, that their ruling Elders were called BB.? Caluin and M. Trauers, &c. confesse that BB. signifie onelyonly preaching Elders, and are your Lay-elders now become BB? the people may hauehave ioy of such guides that cease not to broach such fansies.
After he hath played a little vvith the assumption,§ 3. His answere to the former part of the assumption and the proofes therof. hee plainely denieth it: what thinke you, saith he, M. D. bringeth to proue it? Nothing saith the refuter, but that which hath already beene answeared: if that were true, yet that nothing is more then the refuter will euer be able to disproue: and that is this, that the seauen Angels were BB. all doe confesse: that they were such BB. as ours be for the substance of their calling, I proued in the first foure points of the Sermon: yea but saith he, I hauehave proued that for the substance of their calling they were but ordinarie ministers: let the reader therefore in Gods name iudge secundum allegata & probata, according to the euidence which hath beene brought on both sides and where he saith, I quickely hauehave done with the scriptures, because they indeed afford but slender shew, &c. I answere first, that I had no reason to insist longer in this proofe, vnlesse I would hauehave repeated the former part of the Sermon againe: was it not sufficient to referre them to the former part where this point was professedly handled? neither is he ignorant, but that in demonstration of the latter part of the assumption▪ I bring other proofes out of the scripture. But faine he would disgrace our cause with the reader as though we had no proofes in scripture: which ill becommeth him, that hath not one sillable in the scriptures, or other monuments of antiquity to proue their Presbiterian discipline.
But it is vntrue, that I bring nothing to proue the assumption, but what was before answered. For I bring two other arguments, to proue that these seauen Angels were such BB. The former, though this great analyser either did not, or would not see it: that two of these Angels were Polycarpus and Onesimus, Polycarpus the B. of Smyrna, and Onesimus the B. of Ephesus, and what is said of two, is to be vnderstood of the rest. That Polycarpe was in these times the B. of Smyrna, I proued by the testimonie of the Church of Smyrna aEus. l. 4. ca. 15., testifying that he had beene the B. of the Catholicke Church in Smyrna. And of Bullinger bin Apoc. co…. 9., who noteth, that Polycarpe had beene B. of Smyrna thirteene yeares before the reuelation was giuen, and so continued for many yeares after. Whereunto may be added those authenticall testimonies which after are alledged, that he was made B. of Smyrna by S. Iohn. That Onesimus was B. of Ephesus at this time▪ I proue by the testimonie of Ignatius who liued at the same time, who in his Epistle to the Ephesians mentioneth their B. Onesimus.
The latter argument prouing that these seauen Angels were BB. is, because from them all a succession of BB. was continued in those seauen Churches to the Councill of Nice, and afterwards: for to omit, that the auncient BB. of these Churches are sometimes occasionally mentioned cEus. l. 5. ca. 24. & lib. 4. cap. 26. Sozo. lib. 4. c. 24., as Polycrates of Ephesus, Thraseas of Smyrna, Melito of Sardes, &c. it is euident, that the Bishops of these Churches subscribed to diuerse of the ancient Councils, as to the councill of Nice, Menophantes B. of Ephesus, Eutychius of Smyrna, Artemidorus of Sardes, Thomasion of Philadelphia, Serras of Thyatira, Nunechius of Laodicea▪ to the Council of Chalcedon, Stephanus of Ephesus, Aethericus of Smyrna, Eutropius of Pergamus, Helladius of Thyatira, Florentius of Sardes, Megalus of Philadelphia, Nunechius of Laodicea. To this argument the Refuter answereth nothing in particular.
With these two arguments the refuter ioyneth that which I propounded Pag. 63. concerning the succession of Bishops in some Churches within the Apostles times, being indcede the second argument, whereby I proued the assumption, that in the Apostles times were BB.
To all these he answereth,§ 4. Ad pag. 129. first ioyntly, and then cauilleth with some of them seuerally. His ioynt answere to them all, I reserue vntill I come to that second argument. The Epistle of Smyrna, which himselfe heretofore alledged as authenticall, being now alledged by me, so hard is my hap, is growne suspitious: and why I pray you? for the Refuter trauailed of a point of learning, which he desired to be deliuered of. Forsooth because it vseth the word Catholicke, which is not to be found in any of the Epistles of Polycarpus, or Ignatius, nor seemeth to hauehave beene in vse vntill the end of the second age. Clemens Alexandrinus I thinke is the ancientest in whom it can be found. How many Epistles of Polycarpus this Refuter hath read I know not; for my part I hauehave seene no more but his Epistle to the Philippians dInter Orthodoxographa.. Indeede Suidas eIn Polycarpo., who noteth him to hauehave beene the Disciple of S. Iohn, and the successor fforeign.of Bucolus, who was the first B. of Smyrna, saith▪ he wrote an Epistle to Dionysius the Areopagite, and to other Churches; which Epistles, if the Refuter hauehave, he should doe well to communicate them; if not, how can he tell that the word Catholicke was not vsed in them? But to the point, was not the Creed of the Apostles as ancient as this Epistle, which writeth of the martyrdome of Polycarpe, who was put to death in the seauenth of Aurelius Antonius, about the yeare one hundred sixtie and nine? and yet that mentioneth the Catholicke Church. Againe, vvas not this a high point of learning, to suspect this Epistle to be counterfait, because it vseth a word which hee confesseth, is vsed by Clemens Alexandrinus, who liued at the same time, though wrote not perhaps more then twentie yeares after?
Where I proued, that Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, or at least that testimonie which I cited concerning Onesimus their Bishop, not to be counterfait, because Eus… bius gEuseb. l. 3. c. 35.mentioneth that Epistle, and those words; he saith, this argument is none of the sufficientest: but I alwaies thought, if Ignatius his Epistles were counterfaited, that this happened to them since Eusebius time. It sufficeth me, that the testimonie which I alledged, vvas not in Eusebius his time, who liued vvithin two hundred yeares after Ignatius, suspected as counterfait. For if Eusebius, and those in his time, knew no cause to suspect that Epistle; I know no reason, besides his owne suspiciousnesse, vvhy the Refuter should suspect it.
The second argument, whereby I proue the former assumption is this,§ 5. The second argument, prouing the assumption. that it is with great consent testified by Authors hIranaeus. Eusebius. Epiphanius. Augustine. &c., of best credit in the Church of God, that in the Apostles times, reckoning vntill the death of S. Iohn, that is, to the yeere of our Lord one hundred and one, there were not onelyonly BB. but also a succession of BB. in diuerse Churches: as at Rome, Linus, Anacletus, Clemens, Euaristus: at Ierusalem, Iames the iust, and Simeon the sonne of Cleophas: at Antioch, Evodius and Ignatius: at Alexandria, S. Marke, Anianus, Abilius, Cerdo: hereto he saith, that he hath formerly shewen, that if not all, yet the most of these witnesses doe affirme that those BB. were ordinary ministers, without any such supreame power (he ought to say if he would leaue his calumniating superiority in the power) of ordination and iurisdiction. But this is one of his vsuall bragges, vttered with what conscience I know not: for what one of these hath he or what one among all the ancient Writers can he bring to make good his assertion?
Now the answere, which he maketh to these arguments ioyntly,His ioynt answere to the former reasons. is, that the seauen Angels, and these Bishops whereof there were, as I said, successions in the Apostles times were Bishops indeed (no meruaile for so were the lay Elders) but not Diocesan: for what though long after the Apostles times they were so, doth it follow thereupon, that therefore they were so in their times? If euer there had beene within the compasse of a Diocesse more Bishops then one at once since the Apostles times, or if it could be truly alledged, that the circuit of the Bishops charge was enlarged from a Parish to a Diocesse; then were there some colour for this exception, but these conceipts I hauehave disproued heretofore, and therefore doubt not most confidently to conclude, that if the successors of these seauen Bishops, or of the others whom I named, as hauing beene Bishops in the Apostles times, were in the end of three hundred yeares Diocesan Bishops; then were their first antecessors such. Neither is his example of the Duke of Venice to the purpose; vnlesse hee could proue, that the latter Bishops within the first three hundred yeares had vsurped or vsed, as they were Diocesans, a greater and larger authoritie then had belonged to their Predecessors.
The latter part of the assumption remaineth to be proued,§ 6. The latter part of the assumption, that the Episcopall function was not disallowed by the Apostles. where I said that the Bishops were not contradicted by the Apostles, but approued by them. Hee obiecteth, that this proofe is needlesse , seeing the Bishops were such as he fansieth: but till he can disproue the former part of my Sermon, and of this Treatise; hee must giuegive the Reader leaue to thinke they were such, as they hauehave beene manifestly proued to be: but this needlesse accusation, being commonly vsed by the Refuter against such passages of my Sermon as are most materiall; maketh me conceiue there is somewhat in this point, that hee could wish had beene spared, or at least whereabout he meaneth to spare his answere. That this passage was not needlesse, but very materiall, appeareth hereby. For if I had onelyonly said, that BB. had beene in the Apostles times, and therefore were of their institution, it might hauehave beene obiected, that there were abuses crept into the Churches in the Apostles time, whereof notwithstanding the Apostles were not Authors: wherefore in this place I shew that Bishops not onelyonly were in the Apostles times, but also were approued by them. That they were in respect of their function approued, I proue, by the examples of the 7. Angels approued by S. Iohn, or rather by our Sauiour Christ; of Epaphroditus the Apostle or B. of the Philippians, (who therefore is not mentioned in the inscription of that Epistle, because the Epistle was sent by him) commended by S▪ Paul kPhil. 2.25.29., as his compatner both in his function and in affliction, and the Philippians commanded to hauehave in honour such. Iames lAct. 15. & 21. Gal. 1.19.the Iust, B. of Ierusalem, approued of all. Archippus mCol. 4.17. Philem. 1.the B. of Colossa approued of Paul, Antipas nAp. 2.13.who had beene B. of Pergamus commended by the holy Ghost. To none of these hath the Refuter any thing to say, Ad pag. 130.but to Epaphroditus, whom he would not therefore hauehave thought to hauehave beene a Diocesan B. because Paul calleth him his foreign, fellow work…-man, nor that the Apostle meant to equall him to himselfe in the Apostleship: for Epaphroditus was none, &c. Though that word doth not proue it, neither was it alledged to that end, but as one of the titles of commendation giuen to Epaphroditus; yet the word Apostle, which I alledged, doth proue it; neither should the Refuter hauehave balked that, to lay hold vponupon another, vnlesse it were to deceiue the simple. It is therefore to be noted▪ that as the twelue Patriarches of Christs Church, which were sent into the whole world, some going one way, some another, were called the Apostles of Christ, and not the Apostles of any Church in particular (excepting Iames, who was the Apostle of the Iewes) so those Apostolicall men, who were set ouer particular Churches as the Bishops thereof, were for a time called the Apostles of those Churches. So Paul calleth Epaphroditus the Apostle of the Philippians, and therefore it was malepertly said by the Refuter, that he was not an Apostle. But of this more oChap. 3. § 12.13.14.hereafter.
Before I ended this point, I thought it needfull to meet with that obiection which ordinarily is made out of Ierome, § 7. That Ierome acknowledgeth BB. to hauehave bin in the Apostles time.by them who vnderstand him as if he had said, that Bishops were not ordayned in the Apostles times. But I shew both by the place it selfe which they alledge, and by conference of other places in Ierome, that hee plainely confesseth BB. to hauehave been ordayned in the Apostles times. Ierome pIn Tit. 1.therfore confesseth in the place which is vsually obiected, that when factions began to arise in the Church, some saying I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas (which was in the Apostles times, 1 Cor. 1.) it was decreed in the whole world, and therefore by the Apostles (for who should in the Apostles times make such a generall decree but the Apostles? yea, and Ierome himselfe calleth the Episcopall function a qAd Euagr.tradition Apostolicall) that one being chosen from among the Presbyters, should be set ouer the rest, vntounto whom the care of the whole Church should appertaine. Whereunto I added his confession of the same truth in other places. For he confesseth that Iames rCatalog. script.the Iust, shortly after the Passion of Christ was made Bishop of Ierusalem, and continued B. there thirtie yeares, euen vntill his death. In the same Catalogue it is confessed, that Simon succeeded the said Iames in the Bishopricke, and that Timothie was B. of Eph…sus, and Titus of Creet, and Polycarpe of Smyrna in S. Iohns time; that Linus sIn Clemente., Anacletus and Clemens were BB. of Rome. Hee confesseth also, that at Alexandria tAd Euagr.euer since S. Marke there had beene BB. chosen successiuely: that S. Marke was the uProaem. in Mat.first B. of the Church at Alexandria, and that Anianus wCatalog. in Marco.succeeded him. After whom there were two more Abilius and Cerdo in the Apostles times. It is most plaine therefore, that Ierome acknowledgeth BB. to hauehave beene in the Apostles time.
Now let vsus see, what tricke the Refuter hath to auoide such plaine euidence. Forsooth because these testimonies were as he saith, (not knowing indeed, nor greatly caring what he affirmeth) brought in by me out of order, and some of them come to be handled againe: he will answere generally and briefly, that the Bishops Ierome speaketh of, were not Diocesan Lords; but such as himselfe describeth, where hee sheweth the custome of the Church of Alexandria, &c. Whether they were called Lords, or not, it is not greatly materiall; seeing they were called the Angels, and the Apostles of the Churches, which are titles of greater honour; neither doth it appertaine to the substance of their calling; in regard whereof I defend the ancient Bishops to hauehave beene such as ours are. And such doth Ierome describe them in the place which the Refuter xAd Euagr.meaneth. For hee plainly noteth the Bishop to hauehave beene but one in a whole Church or Diocese, to whom the care yIn Tit. 1.of the whole Church did belong; superiour also to the Presbyters in degree, &c.
§ 8. The refuters argument for the Presbyterian discipline.The Refuter hauing answered my second argument, in such sort as you hauehave heard, taketh his turne to reply and that thus:
That gouernment which euen in the Apostles times was vsed in the Apostolicall Churches, and was not contradicted by them, was of Apostollicall institution.
The gouernment by common consent of Elders was vsed euen in the Apostles times, in the Apostolicall Churches, and not contradicted by them.
Therefore the gouernment by the common consent of Elders was of Apostolicall institution.
The Proposition (saith he) is sure on our side, though it was not of his. See …ee, homo homini quantum praestat, that which is weake in my hand, is strong in this. The truth it selfe belike is so partiall, as that it is true onelyonly in his mouth.
For the strengthening of the assumption (saith hee) besides that which before I answered Sect. 3. (which was besides the testimonie of Cyprian and Ierome before answered, an allegation of some new Writers, who are parties in the cause) I will adde the testimonies of B. Whitgift, D. Bilson, D. Sutcliffe, and D. Downame himselfe, all speaking to the truth thereof.
He should hauehave done well to hauehave cited these testimonies; so would it hauehave appeared, that we spake according to the truth, but not according to his meaning, which is vntrue.
But I answere to his assumption, and first to the former part of it, by distinction. If by Elders, he meaneth the onelyonly gouerning Elders, as well as Ministers (as hee doth, or else he saith little for the pretended discipline) I answere, that the Church was neuer gouerned by the common Counsell of such Aldermen: neither did Cyprian and Ierome testifie it, nor D. Bilson, D. Sutcliffe, or D. Downame confesse it.
If by Elders, he meane onelyonly Ministers, as Ierome did, when he said, at the first the Churches before factions did arise, were gouerned by the common counsell of Elders, two things may be questioned: first, whether this gouernment of theirs were vnsubordinate, according to the new discipline; and secondly, whether the Apostles did intend, that the Churches should be so gouerned still. Whereunto I answere, according to the euident light of truth, that the Presbyters gouerned the Churches, as vnderunder the Apostles, and that but for a time, vntill the Apostles substituted BB. or left them as their successors, committing the gouernment of the seuerall Churches vntounto them.
To the second part of his assumption I answere, that the Apostles contradicted that gouernment (which hee speaketh of, by common counsell of Elders ruling without a B.) not so much by words as by deeds: when ordayning BB. in seuerall Churches, they committed the whole care thereof as Ierome aIn Tit. 1.speaketh, or at least, the chiefe care and authoritie, as Ignatius bAd Trall.testifieth, to them. And so leauing the Refuter to rowle the stone he speaketh of, I proceed to my third argument.