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

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

p. 74The IIII. CHAPTER. Shewing the Places where, and the Persons whom, the Apostles ordayned BB: but chiefly, that Timothie was B. of Ephesus, and Titus of Creet.

Serm. Sect. 7. pag. 72. But we are also to shew the places where, and the persons whom, the Apostles ordayned BB. and first out of the scriptures &c. to all ordayned there, pag. 75.

IN this section and the two next following, I proue that Timothie and Titus were by S. Paul ordayned Bishops: the one of Ephesus, the other of Creet, and maintaine the same assertion against their obiections. Afterwards, I shew out of other the auncientest monuments of antiquitie, that other BB. of other places, were ordayned by the Apostles.

This, saith the Refuter, is the last supply to maintaine the former antecedent, by shewing the places where, and the persons whom the Apostles ordayned Bishops. If this faile he is vndone. As who should say, that all which hitherto hath beene said, hath by him beene very learnedly and sufficiently refuted. When as in truth hee hath not beene able to confute any one sentence or line of the Sermon hitherto, with soundnesse of reason, or euidence of truth. And the like assurance I hauehave of that which followeth.

Now that Timothie and Titus were by the Apostle ordained Bishops: I proue by a two-fold reason, which I ioyned together, & is thus to be dissolued: the former standing thus.

If in the Epistles to Timothie and Titus it be presupposed that Paul had ordayned Timothie and Titus Bishops of Ephesus and Creet, then is it true, that they vvere by him ordayned BB. of those Churches.

p. 75But the antecedent is true: Therefore the consequent.

That the antecedent is true I proue by this reason; because it is presupposed in the Epistles, that the Apostle had committed to them Episcopall authority, both in respect of Ordination, and Iurisdiction, to be exercised in those Churches. Against which consequence this onelyonly thing can be obiected, that the Episcopall authority might be committed to them not as ordinarie Bishops or Pastors of those Churches, but as extraordinarie gouernours or Euangelists, which afterwards is answered.

To this argument the Refuter answereth not.Ad pag. 137. The second he frameth thus:

If the Epistles written to Timothie and Titus be the very patternes and precedents of the Episcopall function, whereby the Apostle enformeth them, and in them all Bishops how to exercise their function, then Timothie and Titus were Bishops.

But the antecedent is true: Therefore the consequent.

First, he taketh exception against the proposition, saying, though it make a goodly shew yet was it confuted long agoe by M. Cartwright. Whose confutation either he thinketh to be insufficient, or else he doth but kill a dead man in seeking with a new on-set to disproue the consequence. First, for the consequence it selfe, I auouch thus much; that from that antecedent, I might not onelyonly hauehave inferred that particular, that therefore these two to whom the Epistles were written were Bishops: but in generall, that the function of Bishops; whose authority and office is described, and the manner of the execution thereof prescribed in the directions giuen to Timothie and Titus in these Epistles, hath warrant in the word of God: and when they can make as good an argument for their lay-elders, out of the Scriptures, I will subscribe to their Presbyterian discipline.

Of T. C. answere to that consequence,§ 2. T. C. answere refuted. I hauehave taken speciall notice heretofore; and did greatly wonder, that hee could satisfie himselfe with such a friuolous answer. And I do no lesse wonder at the Refuters either lacke of iudgement, p. 76who tooke that answere for good payment, or want of consideration and care of T. C. credit in referring vsus to so sleight and friuolous an euasion. For whereas D. Whitgift hhPag. 404.argueth thus, That Timothie was Bishop, the whole course of the Epistles written vntounto him declareth, wherein is contayned the office and dutie of a Bishop, and diuers precepts peculiarly pertayning to that function; T. C. iiLib. 2. part. 1. pag. 312.answereth, that by this reason he might as well proue that Timothie was a deacon, or a widdowe, an olde man or an olde woman, seeing in those Epistles the Apostle wrote of their duties. Yea, rather that hee was a Deacon, considering that there is nothing in the description of a Deacon which agreeth not to him, but in the description of a Bishop that which he requireth of not being giuen to wine, and not being a young Christian, could hauehave no place in Timothies instruction. Not to argue with T. C. but to let him rest in peace; can the Refuter be so ignorant, or without iudgement, as to thinke, that D. Whitgift when hee spoke of the whole course and tenure of the Epistles, did meane onelyonly the description of a B. or Minister set downe in the beginning of the third chapter of the former Epistle? if that had beene his argument, hee had argued thus: Paul directeth Timothie what manner of men to ordayne Bishops or Ministers, and likewise Deacons. Therefore Timothie himselfe was a B. or Minister, or likewise a Deacon. Is it not plaine, that by the whole course hee vnderstandeth all those directions, which are giuen to Timothie throughout the Epistles for the discharge of his office, either in respect of the Ministerie common to all Ministers, or of his Episcopall function, chiefly in regard either of Ordination or Iurisdiction, vntounto which heads the precepts & directions in those Epistles are to be referred? for when he speaketh of the duties of men and women, olde and young, hee directeth Timothie, and in like manner Titus k.k.Tit. 2.1.15.Titus 2:1Titus 2:15what to preach. When hee describeth the qualities of Ministers, and Deacons, and Widowes; he directeth him what manner of Ministers and Deacons to ordayne, and Widowes to admit. And whereas D. Whitgift hauing said, that in those Epistles diuers precepts p. 77pertaine peculiarly to the Episcopall function: T.C. chalengeth him to shew him any one precept in those Epistles which is proper to a B: It is not hard to shew him more then one, as, lay thy hands hastily on no man. Against a Presbyter or Minister receiue not an accusation but vnderunder two or three witnesses, &c. These are perpetuall directions, which were not common, eyther to other Christians, or other Ministers: therefore peculiar to BB. And this was T. C. confutation of the Proposition: Now let vsus heare what the Refuter can say.

The Proposition saith hee, §. 3. The refuters answere to the Proposition confuted.is grounded vponupon a false supposition, and what is that? that the Apostle by describing in these Epistles the rules to be obserued in ordination and iurisdiction, intended to informe Timothie and Titus as BB. and in them all other BB. how to carry themselues in those matters. Is this the Supposition, whereon the Proposition is grounded? Alas good man, you know not llVide supr. l. 2. c. 3.what the Hypothesis or Supposition of an Hipotheticall Proposition is: this which you suppose to be the Supposition of the Proposition, is plainly the Assumption of the Syllogisme, which your selfe framed.

But because the Refuter hath confounded himselfe with his owne hypotheticall or connexiue Proposition, I will propound my Argument in another forme.

Whosoeuer describing vntounto Timothie and Titus their office and authoritie, as they were Gouernours of the Churches of Ephesus and Creet, and prescribing their dutie in the execution thereof, and that as afterwards I shew to be performed by them and their Successours till the comming of Christ, doth plainely describe the office and authoritie, and prescribe the dutie of BB: hee doth presuppose them to be BB; the one of Ephesus, the other of Creet.

But Paul in his Epistles to Timothie and Titus describing vntounto them their office and authoritie as they were Gouernours of the Churches of Ephesus and Creet, and prescribing their dutie in the execution thereof to be p. 78performed by them and their successours vntill the comming of Christ, doth plainly describe the office and authority, and prescribe the duty of BB.

Therefore Paul in his Epistles to Timothie and Titus presupposeth them to be Bishops, the one of Ephesus, the other of Creet.

This Proposition, because I know not what can be obiected against it. T. C. and the Refuter hauing assailed it in vaine, I will once againe take for granted.

The assumption I proue by those particulars, wherein the Episcopall authoritie doth chiefly consist, both in respect of Ordination, Tit. 1.5. 1 Tim. 5.22. and also of Iurisdiction, they being the censurers of other Ministers doctrine. 1 Tim. 1.3. 2 Tim. 2.16. Tit. 1.10.11. and 3.9. and iudges of their persons and conuersation, 1 Tim. 5.19.20.21. Tit. 3.10. to which proofes he answereth nothing. Wherevnto might be added the authority of Gregorie Nazianzene mmIn Encomio Athanas., of Chrysostome nnHom. 10. in 1 Tim., of Oecumenius ooIn 1 Tim. 5.1 Tim 5, and Gregory ppRespons. ad August. ad …., testifying that these Epistles doe teach Bishops how to behaue themselues in the Church of God.

Now because the Refuters supposition is the same in ef…ect with his assumption, I will examine first what he obiecteth against the assumption vnderunder the name of that supposition, and so proceed to his answere which he directed against the assumption.

The summe of that which he obiecteth against the supposition, is this, that though Timothie and Titus were by Paules direction to doe those things, which Bishops arrogate to themselues; yet they were to doe them by an higher power, and therefore not as Bishops. Whereto I answere, that they were to be done by a power vvhichwhich vvas to continue in the Church vntill the end; and therefore not by a higher power then Episcopal. And secondly, that the power Episcopal, whereby Bishops doe these things which Timothie and Titus had in commission, is so much of the Apostolicall power as was to continue in the Church vntounto the end.

§ 4. His answere to the assumption. Ad pag. 138.The assumption it selfe hee denyeth, saying, these Epistles p. 79are not precedents of the Episcopall function, &c. The reason of his deniall is this. What though Bishops hauehave now gotten that power into their hands, yet were not those instructions giuen to Timothie and Titus, as Bishops, (the Apostles dreaming of no such soueraigntie) but particularly to Timothie and Titus as Euangelists, and in generall to the Presbyters, to whom the charge of those affaires belongeth. To the Euangelists, to administer in all the Churches of those Regions, whither the Apostles sent, or where they left them: to the Presbyters, to administer in their seuerall congregations or Churches. Hee said euen now that Timothie and Titus did those things which BB. doe by a higher power, & now he saith he Apostle dreamed not of any such soueraignty, as the BB. hauehave. Where he saith these instructions were not giuen to BB. but particularly to these Euangelists to performe them in all Churches and Regions where he should place them, and generally to Presbyters, &c. both parts are false. For these directions Paul gaue to Timothie and Titus to be obserued of them as they were particularly assigned gouernours of the Churches of Ephesus and Creet, and are such as are to be obserued to the end. Neither are these instructions giuen in generall to Presbyters, neither doth the charge of these affaires belong to them. And that these things belong to the BB. I hauehave sufficiently proued beforerrLib. 3..

To make the matter plaine, he bringeth in an example, which is worth the hearing. Suppose, saith he, a Democraty, where the common-wealth is gouerned by the people; it must needs be that in such a place there are lawes for the choosing and ordering of Officers. What if this gouernment fall into the hands of the Nobilitie, which continue the same lawes, still in the same cases? What if some mightier then the rest, at the last make himselfe sole Gouernour, still obseruing those fundamentall lawes, which were at the first established: is it to be saide, that those lawes are the verie patternes and precedents of the Aristocraticall, or Monarchicall gouernement, whereby the first maker of those lawes would enforme, in the one, the Nobilitie, in the other, the Monarchie, p. 80and in them, all other, how to exercise that function? The administration of Church matters touching ordination and iurisdiction, was first in the seuerall Churches, or congregations; which by their Presbyteries had the menaging of all Church businesse: in processe of time, it came to be restrayned to the Clergie onelyonly, the B. and his Presbyterie of Ministers onelyonly; at last, as things grew worse and worse, the B. like a Monarch got the reynes into his owne hands. Now though the lawes of Ordination and Iurisdiction remaine the same, and the practise also in some sort; yet are they not patternes and presidents either of the second or third kinde of gouernment; neither were they giuen to instruct the Bishop alone, or the Bishop and his Clergie together.

§ 5. Schismaticall nouelties broached by the refuter.Which comparison I desire may be well considered, especially by the vnlearneder sort; for hereby they shall discerne, what manner of guides they hauehave desired to follow. For, not to contend with him about his politicke proposition, not well agreeing with the rules of policy, wherein we are taught, that the appointment of chiefe Officers being reckoned inter iura maiestatis, doth alwayes belong to them who hauehave the soueraigntie; in the whole comparison, but especially, in the reddition, we may behold the trim Idea of discipline, which the fancie of our Refuter and his fellow-challengers hath forged. For he conceiueth, as if he were a Brownist, or an Anabaptist, that the ancient state of the Church was Democraticall; that the right of Ordination and Iurisdiction, was in the whole congregation of eueryevery Parish, which by their Presbyteries (consisting for the greatest part of the laity) had the menaging of all Church-businesse; that the lawes and Canons for Church-gouernment set downe in the Epistles to Timothie and Titus, were first prouided for this popular state of the Church. Howbeit, by the vsurpation of the B. and his Clergie, the popular state was turned into an Aristocraty, the B. and his Presbyterie of Ministers onelyonly menaging the Church affaires. Lastly, in processe of time, this Aristocraty was turned into a Monarchie, the B. like a Monarch hauing got the reynes into his owne hands. Now the lawes concerning Ordination p. 81and iurisdiction are still in force; yet were they not patternes neither for the Monarchicall gouernment of the B. alone, nor for the Aristocraticall gouernment of the Bishop and his Presbytery of ministers, but for the popular and golden state of eueryevery Parish which within it selfe had authoritie immediately deriued from Christ sufficient for the gouernment of it selfe in all causes Ecclesiasticall. This forme is propounded also in the modest and Christian offer of disputation. HaueHave not our forwarder sort of people bin well aduised thinke you, to doate vponupon such leaders as these, who broach such a sort of dreames and dotages, for which they hauehave not so much as the shew of any sound proofe? Our refuter hath often times obiected against me, though most vniustly, that Pythagoras-like, I looke to be creditted vponupon my bare word; but what proofes I pray you doth hee bring for these schismaticall nouelties?

First,§ 6. His nouelties breifly refuted. it is here presupposed, that eueryevery Church indued with power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment, was a Parish, & all Church officers Parishionall. Which dotage I hauehave before refuted. Secondly, that the forme of Church-gouernment was Democraticall, or popular, the cheife authority being in the people. Which hath authority (to be exercised partly by themselues, & partly by their Presbytery) to elect, ordayne, depriue & depose their Pastor or B. for the proofe whereof the cheife burden must lye vponupon Mat. 18. dic Ecclesiae, which hath bin before examined. Beza, making mention of one Morellius, who pleaded in like manner for the popular gouernment, giueth him this stile ttde grad. Ministr. c. 23. pag. 155, Democraticus quidam fanaticus, shewing that these who plead that cause, are lead with a phantasticall & fanaticall spirit. For is it not a phrensy to vrge the peoples supremacy in Church-gouernment? is there any shew in scripture, or in reason, that the sheepe should rule their Shepheard, or the flocke their Pastor?

But for the confutation of them, I referre them to other Disciplinarians, from whom they had their first grounds; seing by this fancy they seeke to ouerturne, as well those Churches where the Geneua discipline is established as ours.

p. 82The third dreame is, that the lawes of Church-gouernment prescribed in the Epistles to Timothie and Titus, were prouided for the democraticall state of the Church. So that when Paul saith lay not thou hands on no man hastily, you must vnderstand the speech directed not to Timothie, to vvhom the Epistle was written, but to the people, that they should not suffer their Lay-elders when their minister is dead, to be hasty in laying hands on a new. And vvhen hee saith doe not thou receiue an accusation, &c. it must be vnderstood of the people and Presbyterie. After two or three admonitions doe thou auoid an hereticke or excommunicate him, that is, thou people. What of Creet? belike the whole Iland of Creet was a Parish too.

The next fancy is, that the popular state of the seuerall Churches did first degenerate into an Aristocraty, and after into a Monarchie. But it is as cleare as the light, that the seuerall Churches were at the first gouerned by the Apostles or Apostolicall men seuerally, and that either perpetually, as by Iames, Marke, &c. or but for a time, as by Peter, Paul, &c. and that when the Apostles left the Churches, they committed them to other Apostolicall men, such as Timothie, Titus, Evodius, Simon the sonne of Cleophas, Linus, Clemens, &c. communicating vntounto them the same authority both for the worke of the ministery, and for the power of ordination and iurisdiction which themselues had in those seuerall Churches: and what authoritie each of them had, their successors in the seuerall Churches had the same. Neither hauehave our BB. at this day, greater authority in menaging Church causes, then Timothie and Titus and other the first Bishops had. Who was to ordaine ministers in Creet and to gouerne that Church? did not Paul commit these things to Titus, without mentioning, either of Presbytery, or people? are not all his precepts for ordination and Church-gouernment directed onelyonly to Titus for Creet, & to Timothie for Ephesus? and doth not this euidently shew, that howsoeuer they might vse either the presence, and consent of the people, or the Counsell and aduise of the p. 83Presbyters in causes of greatest moment, as Princes also doe in common-wealthes: yet the sway of the Ecclesiasticall gouernment was in them?

It is therefore most plaine, that in the Epistles to Timothie and Titus, it is presupposed, that they had Episcopall authority: and that the rules and directions giuen to them are precedents for Bishops and patternes vntounto them for the exercise of their Episcopall function.

And this I proue againe in my Sermon by another argument,§ 7. Another argument prouing that these Epistles are patternes or precedents for Bishops. which the refuter hath framed thus:

Those things which were written to informe not Timothie and Titus alone, as extraordinarie persons, but them and their successors, to the end of the world, were written to informe Diocesan Bishops:

But those Epistles were written to informe not Timothie and Titus alone as extraordinarie persons but them and their successors to the end of the world.

Therefore they were written to informe Diocesan BB.

The assumption (for with that the refuter beginneth) I proued by testimony,His answere to the assumption and by reason. And first, by the testimony of Paul aa1 Tim. 6.13.14.1 Tim 6:131 Tim 6:14, straightly charging Timothie, that the commandements and directions, which he gaue him, should be kept inuiolable vntill the appearing of our Lord Iesus Christ; & therfore by such, as should hauehave the like authority to the end.bbin 1 Tim. 6.14.1 Tim 6:14 Hereof Caluin, saith thus, nomine mandati significat quae hactenus de officio Timothie disseruit. VnderUnder the name of the commandement he signifieth those things whereof hitherto he had discoursed concerning the office of Timothie. And againe, omnino ceriè ad ministerium Timothie refero, I doe wholy referre it to the ministerie of Timothie. For Paul wrot to this end, to giuegive direction to Timothie, how he should behaue cc1 Tim. 3.15.1 Tim 3:15himselfe in the Church, which is the house of the liuing God. Which directions he chargeth him Chap. 6. to obserue inuiolable vntill the comming of Christ: which could not be performed in the person of Timothie, who was not to continue to the end, but in a succession of them, who should hauehave the like authority vntill the p. 84end. T. C. and other Disciplinarians, hauing fancied that the Apostles had giuen direction in that Epistle for onelyonly-gouerning Elders: hereupon conclude ddT.C. l. 1.177. l. 2. part. 2. p. 55., that they are to be continued vntill the comming of Christ, So that they can conclude vponupon that charge the continuance of an office not once mentioned in that Epistle: but they cannot, or will not see, how the continuance of that office, which Timothie did beare, for the execution whereof all these directions are giuen, is concluded vponupon the same ground.

The second testimonie was of Ambrose eeAmbr. in 1. Tim. 6.14.1 Tim 6:14, writing on those vvords of Paul, saying, that Paul is so circumspect; not because he doubted of Timothie his care, but in regard of his successors, that they after the example of Timothie, might continue the well ordering of the Church.

The proofe of the assumption.The reason whereby I proued, that Paul giueth direction not to Timothie and Titus onelyonly as to extraordinary persons, but to them and their successors vntill the end of the world, was, because the authority which was committed to them, for the execution whereof the Apostle giueth his directions, is perpetually necessary; without the which the Church neither can be gouerned (as without iurisdiction) neither yet continued (as without ordination) & therefore not peculiar to extraordinary persons; but by an ordinary deriuation to be continued in those, who are the successors of Timothie and Titus.

His answere to the proofe of the assumption.The effect of the refuters answere is, that he could be content to graunt this assumption, were it not that he is resolued to deny the conclusion, which followeth thereupon. For first, hee granteth Pauls purpose to instruct those that should succeed Timothie and Titus, in the authoritie which they had, but not in their office. And that this authoritie was not, nor was to be, in the hands of any one particular man, but the right of it was in the whole congregation, the execution in the Presbytery. So that the power of ordination and iurisdiction might be continued without Bishops, &c.

p. 85It is sufficient for the truth of the assumption, which the refuter granteth; that what Paul did write to Timothie & Titus, he wrote not to them alone as extraordinarie persons, vvhose authoritie should dye with them, but to those also which should succeed them in the like authoritie vntill the end.

But whether the Bishops were to be their successours, or the whole congregation, or the Presbyterie, belongeth not to the assumption: but rather to the proposition. Howbeit, that which he saith, either in denying the Bishops to be the successours of Timothie and Titus, or affirming the congregation and Presbyterie to hauehave succeeded them in the power of ordination and iurisdiction, is spoken altogether, as against the truth, so without proofe.

I will therefore returne to the proposition,§ 8. The proposition defended. And that the successors of Timothie and Titus were BB. which is grounded on this Hypothesis; that Diocesan Bishops were the successours of Timothie and Titus. For if that be true, then is the proposition necessary, though the refuter flatly denyeth it . Thus therefore I reason:

If the successours of Timothie and Titus were Diocesan Bishops, then those things which were written to informe their successours were vvritten to informe Diocesan Bishops:

But the successors of Timothie & Titus were Diocesan BB.

Therefore those things which were vvritten to informe the successours of Timothie and Titus, vvere vvritten to informe Diocesan Bishops.

Here the refuter, thinking he had as good reason to deny the one part of this syllogisme, as the other, denyeth both. The consequence of the proposition is feeble saith he, vnlesse it were certaine, that the Bishops both de facto were, & de iure ought to hauehave beene their successors. That the Bishops were de facto their successors, & of all other Apostolical men in the gouernment of the Churches, I hauehave already proued, and there vponupon hauehave inferred, that de iure also they were. Because what gouernment was not onelyonly generally receiued in the 300. yeeres after the Apostles, but also was in vse p. 86in the Apostles times, in the Apostolicall Churches, that without doubt was of Apostolicall institution.

The assumption I proue by two arguments: first, by this disiunction.

Either the Bishops were their successours, or the Presbyteries, or (which the refuter would adde) the whole congregation.

But neither the Presbyteries, nor the whole congregation, which had no greater, nor other authority and power vnderunder Bishops, then they had before, vnderunder Timothie and Titus.

Therefore the Bishops were their successors.

Againe, those who succeeded Timothie and Titus in the gouernment of the Churches of Ephesus and Creet, were their successors.

But the Bishops of Ephesus and Creet did succeed Timothie and Titus in the gouernment of those Churches.

Therefore they were their successors.

These reasons the refuter saw not: onelyonly he taketh vponupon him to answere the proofes of this last assumption.BB. of Ephesus the successors of Timothie. And first, for Timothie his successors in Ephesus, it is apparant that not onelyonly the Angell of the Church of Ephesus. Apoc. 2.1. whether it were Onesimus, or any other, was one of his successors, and Policrates aaEuseb. l. 5. c. 25 Ad Pag. 140.the Bishop of Ephesus another: But also that from Timothie vntill the Councill of Chalcedon there was a continued succession of Bishops. For whereas in the Councill of Chalcedon, Stephanus the Bishop of Ephesus being deposed, some question did arise, whether the new Bishop who was to succeed were to be chosen and ordained by the Councill, or by the Prouinciall Synode of Aisa; Leontius bbConc. Chalc. Act. 11.Acts 11the Bishop of Magnesia in the Prouince of Asia, alledged that from St. Timothie to that time there had beene twenty seauen Bishops of Ephesus, all ordained there.

To this he answereth nothing, but that which before hath been refuted; that howsoeuer the latter Bishops of those twenty p. 87seauen might be Diocesan, the former were not . For it is certaine, that both the latter and the former were not onelyonly Diocesan, but also Metropolitan Bishops. And where I number the Angell of Ephesus in this rancke, he saith, that I tediously begge the question. But I appeale to the refuter himselfe, first, whether this Angell was not the B. and gouernour of the Church of Ephesus, secondly whether he did not succeed Timothie in the gouernment of that Church, thirdly, whether he was not one of those twenty seauen Bishops mentioned by Leontius in the Councill of Chalcedon. And the like may be said of Polycrates, who had beene the eight Bishop of his owne kindred, sauing that concerning him there is more euidence, that he being Bishop of Ephesus was the Metropolitane or primate of Asia. For Eusebius cclib. 5. cap. 24.saith, that he foreign, he was the ruler or chiefe of the Bishops of Asia; who ddcap. 25.by his authoritie did assemble a Prouinciall Synode to discusse the question concerning Easter.

As touching Creet,The BB. of Gortyna the successours of Titus. because there is not the like euidence, the refuter taketh vponupon him to deliuer diuers things without booke; as if Titus had successours in the gouernment of Creet, it would be auailable for Arch-bishops which were not bred a great while after, but it maketh nothing for Diocesan Bishops. Whereto I answere, first, though such Archbishops, as were also called Patriarches, were not from the Apostles times: yet such as are Metropolitanes, were. And againe, if Prouinciall Bishops may be proued to hauehave been from the Apostles times, much more may Diocesan. For eueryevery Metropolitane is a Diocesan, but not contrariwise. And although I doe not remember, that I hauehave any where read of the next successour to Titus, yet I read of Gortyna the mother City of Creet, and the Metropolitane Bishops thereof, who were Arch-bishops of Creet, and successors of Titus; though not his immediate successours. For Dionysius of Corinth, who flourished at the same time with Hegesippus eeEuseb. li. 4. c. 21. & 23. & 29, writing an Epistle to the Church of Gortyna, together with the rest of the Churches of Creet, hee commendeth p. 88Philippe foreign, their Bishop, for his renowned vertue. And although he called him the Bishop of the Churches in Creet: yet the Diocesan Churches had their Bishops too, as the Church of Gnossus a City of Creet, had Pinytus at the same time her Bishop, which proueth the other to hauehave beene an Arch-bishop. Theodorus Balsamo saith ^f, antiquius Nomocanonum versaui, &c. I hauehave perused the ancient Code of Councils, and by the subscriptions I finde, that in this Councill held in Trullo, Basil the Bishop of Gortyna (which is the Metropolis of Creet) was present. And where he saith, that Creet hauing many Churches had no one Bishop to gouerne them, after Titus the Euangelist, till Diocesan Bishops had got the sway of Ecclesiasticall matters: I confesse it is true, but he must remember, that euen in the Apostles times there were Diocesan Bishops. And in the very next age after them, Philippe was Archbishop of Creet. But though there were no direct proofe, that Diocesan or Prouinciall Bishops were the successours of Timothie and Titus; yet it might easily be gathered by other Churches, from whose forme of gouernment Ephesus and Creet did not vary. It cannot be denyed, but what authoritie Timothie and Titus had, the one in Ephesus, the other in Creet, the same had Marke at Alexandria, Evodius at Antioch, Linus at Rome, &c. Neither may it be doubted, but that each of these had Bishops to their successours, euen in the Apostles times, as before hath beene shewed: and therefore the refuter should not make it so strange, that Bishops were the successours of Timothie and Titus.

§ 9. Obiection 1. that Timothie and Titus did not continue in Ephesus and Creet.Serm. Sect. 8. pag. 75. Against this, two things are obiected, first that Timothie and Titus may seeme not to hauehave beene appointed BB. of Ephesus and Creet, because they did not continue there, but were remoued to other places, &c. to other in Creet. pag. 78.

p. 89The first obiection is thus framed by the Refuter.

Timothie and Titus did not continue in Ephesus and Creet, but were remoued to other places.

Therefore Timothie and Titus were not ordayned Bishops of Ephesus and Creet.

I answere by distinction. For if by continuing, they vnderstand (as the words seeme to import) a perpetuall residence without remouing or trauelling thence vponupon any occasion; then I denie the consequence, or proposition, which is vnderstood. For by no law, either of God, or man, are Bishops or other Pastors so affixed to their cures, but that vponupon speciall and extraordinarie occasion, they may, either for their owne necessitie, or for the greater, or more publicke good of the Church, trauaile or remoue to other places. It is sufficient that they be ordinarily resident vponupon their charge. If by continuing be meant ordinarie residence, then I denie the antecedent; and doe contrariwise affirme, that although vponupon speciall and extraordinary occasions they were by the Apostle called to other places, as his or the Churches necessity required: yet these were the places of their ordinary residence. And that I proue, because they both liued and died there. That they continued, or had their ordinary abode there in their life time, I proue by testimony of Scripture, and other euidence. For if Paul required Timothie hh1 Tim. 1.3.1 Tim 1:3foreign to continue or abide still in Ephesus, and appointed Titus iiTit. 1.5.Titus 1:5foreign to continue to redresse vvhat vvas vvanting in Creet, then vvere they to continue, or hauehave their ordinarie residence there.

But the antecedent is true in both the parts thereof: Therefore the consequent.

The Refuter denieth the consequence to be of any force, Ad. pag. 141.vnlesse first it could be proued, that foreign signifieth a perpetuall abiding in a place without departing from it all a mans life; vvhichwhich needeth not, seeing ordinarie residence, which is meant by that terme, & which is required in BB. & ordinarie Pastors, may be without such perpetuall abiding. p. 90Secondly, except foreign be vnderstood also for the whole terme of life. But it sufficeth, that it signifieth to continue in redressing, as the Geneua translation also readeth. For thereby is meant, as I said, that hee was not left there for a brunt, but that he should, as things were defectiue, or wanting, foreign, continue to redresse them, and still keepe that Church in reparation.Ad pag. 142. For though the Church were new (as the Refuter obiecteth to signifie that it should not need any reparation) yet were the Bishops and Presbyters subiect to death, and the places of them which dyed were to be supplied, and the Church subiect to personall corruptions, both for doctrine, discipline & manners, which would need reformation.

And whereas their opinion, who imagine that Timothie was required to stay at Ephesus but for a short time, when Paul went into Macedony, Act. 20. is contrary to that former testimony concerning Timothie: I shew, that in all the iourneyes of Paul into Macedony, mentioned in the Acts, Timothie did accompany him. And therefore, that this voyage of Paul was after his first being at Rome, with which the Acts of the Apostles end, not mentioning any of his trauels, and other occurrents, which afterwards happened for the space of nine or tenne yeares.Euseb. l. 2. c. 20. The Acts of which time cannot otherwise be knowne, but by such of his Epistles as were written in that time, and other monuments of antiquity. The which passage, though the Refuter hath passed by in silence, I thought good to put the Reader in minde of, that he may acknowledge many things to hauehave beene done by the Apostles, which are registred in other records of anitquity, though they be not mentioned in the history of the Acts of the Apostles, which endeth vvith those things which happened aboue fourty yeares before the death of S. Iohn. Now the Acts of the Apostles, which were performed after S. Lukes history thereof, were in part recorded by Hegesippus, and Clemens, and other auncient Authors, which testifie that Paul ordayned Timothie B. of Ephesus, and Titus of Creet; and that he, and other Apostles p. 91appointed other Bishops in other places. Whose testimonies whosoeuer doe refuse to beleiue, doe themselues deserue no credit.

To those allegations therefore out of Paul, § 10. That Timothie and Titus liued and died the one at Ephesus, the other in Creet.I added the credible testimony of diuers Authors, viz. Dorotheus in synopsi. Hieron. siue Sophron. in Catalogo in Tito. Isidorus de vita & morte sanctorum. Num. 87. & 88. Vincent. lib. 10. c. 38. Antonius ex Policrate part. 1. tit. 6. c. 28. Niceph. l. 10. c. 11. Who report, that Timothie and Titus, as they liued, so also dyed, the one at Ephesus, the other in Creet. The Refuter answereth, he may well credit the report of these Authors, and yet not grant that therefore they were Diocesan Bishops of those places. Indeed, if I had argued thus, as the Refuter would hauehave the Reader thinke, Timothie and Titus dyed, the one at Ephesus, the other in Creet: Therefore they were BB. there; it had beene a loose consequence. But he wrangleth besides the pupose. It was obiected, that Timothie and Titus were not Bishops of those places, because they did not continue there. I proue, that they held their ordinary residence there, not onelyonly because S. Paul required them both, to continue there; but other Authors also testified, that they both liued and died there. The Refuter answereth, and would hauehave the Reader content himselfe with this answere, that howsoeuer indeed it is true that they continued there, yet hereof it followeth not that they were Diocesan Bishops of those places.

Yea, but saith he, it would be obserued, that M. D. granteth the consequence to be good, namely that they were not Bishops of Ephesus and Creet, if they did not continue there but were remoued to other places. Now that they were remoued himselfe confesseth, &c. If I had confessed, that they were remoued, and also that if they were remoued, they were not Bishops. Then I should hauehave granted both the antecedent of the Enthymeme, (which hee said before that I denyed) and also the consequence. But indeed I denyed the consequence, in that sence which the Refuter conceiueth, and yet granted, that though they were sometimes remoued; yet p. 92they kept ordinary residence, the one at Ephesus, the other in Creet. And therefore their trauelling, or remouing vponupon extraordinary occasions, doth not hinder their being BB. Doe you indeed grant, that sometimes they were remoued? marry that will I proue, saith the Refuter, out of 2 Tim. 4.9. 11.12.21. &c. and therevpon inferre, they were not Bishops. But neither are all his proofes good, neither is his inference sound. He would proue that Timothy was not at Ephesus, when the second Epistle was written to him. For first, thither the Apostle sent Tychicus. As if he had said, whether Paul sent Tychicus, there Timothie was not. Belike there was some such Antipathy betweene them, that one place could-not hold them both. Secondly, because from the place where he was, Paul requireth him to come to him to Rome, & with him to bring the cloake, the books & parchments which he left at Troas. As though Timothie might not as well come from Ephesus to Rome as from some other place, and as though his bidding him to bring the things left at Troas, did not argue, that he was at Ephesus, which is in the same peninsula, rather then else where. But that he was at Ephesus, may be gathered hereby: because the Apostle willeth him, to salute Aquila and Priscilla (whom he left at Ephesus, Act. 18.19.) & the houshold of Onesiphorus, which also was there. 2 Tim. 4.19. with 1.16. Sedulius vnderstandeth Paul, Sedul. in 2 Tim. 4.9.2 Tim 4:9bidding Timothie 2 Tim. 4.9 to come to him quickly, as requiring him to come from Ephesus to Rome.

Now heare his inferences, Titus was sent from Candy to Rome, and from thence he was dispatched into Dalmatia, therfore he was not B. of Candy. Timothie was not at Ephesus when the second Epistle was written to him, therefore hee was not B. there, &c. He stayed with Paul some time in Rome, therefore he was not B. of Ephesus.These are goodly inferences to oppose to the euidence gathered out of the Epistles, and to the generall consent of antiquity, which testifieth that they were Bishops.Ad pag. 143. Whereas therefore he asketh, who dare be so bold or vnreasonable as to imagine that Paul had made them Bishops? I say, it is intollerable boldnesse, and arrogancie, p. 93to auouch the contrarie.And such is that presumptuous speech, that if Timothie and Titus had beene Bishops, it had beene a matter neither of good report for them, nor of good example for the ages following that they should be called to other places. For, so long as ordinarily they were resident, their absence at some times vponupon vrgent and weighty occasions, was neither of ill report, nor bad example. Besides, when the Apostle sent Tychicus to Ephesus, and sent for Timothie from Ephesus, he sent the one to supply the absence of the other, as Caluin also hath obserued.

Serm. Sect. 9 pag. 78.§ 1…. Obiect. 2. That Timothie and Titus were Euangelists and therefore not Bishops. The other thing which they obiect is, that they were Euangelists: but that doth not hinder, &c. to the midst of page 81.

The second obiection saith the Refuter, lyeth thus, Timothie and Titus were Euangelists. Therfore they were not Diocesan BB. of Ephesus and Creet.

This consequence I denied, because their being Euangelists did not hinder, but that when they were assigned to certaine Churches, and furnished with Episcopall power, they became Bishops. Against which answere the Refuter obiecteth two things. First, that their being Euangelists did hinder their assigning to certaine Churches, without which they could not be Bishops. And this hee proueth by two reasons. For first, if the Apostle had assigned them to certaine Churches, then should he hauehave confounded the offices which (as himselfe saith, 1 Cor. 12.28. Eph. 4.11.) God had distinguished. Secondly, hee should hauehave depriued Timothie and Titus of a higher calling, and thrust them as it were out of the Hall into the Kitchin. These are nice points, which none of the Fathers did euer vnderstand: neither did they conceiue, but that Euangelists might, without any disparagement to them, be assigned to seuerall Churches, and so become Bishops. For if they held, that the Apostles themselues being assigned p. 94to certaine Churches, as Iames was to Ierusalem, were BB. much more Euangelists.

What the Euangelisticall function was.But for as much as the whole force of this argument dependeth vponupon the Euangelisticall function which Timothie and Titus are supposed to hauehave had, we will briefly consider, what that Euangelisticall function was, and whether it could hinder them from being Bishops. An Euangelist therefore was he, which taught the Euangell or Gospell of Christ, whether by preaching, or also by writing. In the latter sence, there are foure onelyonly called Euangelists, Matthew, Marke, Luke and Iohn: who though they all preached, yet for the penning of the Gospell are peculiarly called Euangelists. In the former sence the word is taken, either generally,Wee may not think that the 70. after the death of Christ vanished away, but that they were the principall Christians next to the Apostles. And therfore as they were Euangelists, so sometimes are called Apostles. to signifie any one that doth euangelize or preach the Gospell, or specially, signifying the extraordinarie function of those in the primitiue Church, who went vp and downe preaching the Gospell, being not affixed to any certaine place. And these seeme to hauehave beene of two sorts: For either they were immediatly called of Christ, and by him sent to preach the Gospell, as the 72. Disciples; or they were assumed by the Apostles, to be their companions in their iourneyes, and assistants in the Ministery. Of the former sort was Philippe, who after he had performed that temporarie office at Ierusalem, whereunto he and the other sixe were chosen Act. 6. he returned to his Euangelisticall function,Calu. inst. l. 4. c. 4. § 4. fortassis etiā 70. discipuli, quos secundo loco ab Apostolis Christus designabit, fuerunt Euangelistae. Act. 8. and is expresly called an Euangelist. Act. 21.8. Of the latter sort were Timothie and Titus, while they accompanied the Apostle Paul in his trauailes, and were not assigned to any certaine place. That which the Fathers say of the 7…. Disciples, that they had but the degree of the Presbytery, may of this latter sort much more be verified, who were ordayned Ministers of the Gospell by imposition of hands.Idē in 1 Cor. 15.7 per omnes Apostolos intelligit …on solos 12. sed 70. discipulos etiam. Sic Chrysost. et Theodor…t, &c.1 Cor 15:7 Neither did they differ from other Presbyters but in this, that they accompanied the Apostles as their helpers, being not tyed to any one place. For neither had they the power of ordination, neither as Zanchy saith did p. 95they gouerne the Churches,Zanch. in Eph. 4Eph 4 now one, then another, as the other Euangelists and Prophets did.

Wee see what the office of Euangelists was.§ 12. That their being Euangelists did not hinder but that they might be BB. Now let vsus see, whether it hindered men from being Bishops. For had Timothie and Titus beene such Euangelists, as the foure were which preached and wrote the Gospell, or as the 72. who were called and sent by Christ: yet might they, when they ended their trauailes, and betooke them to certaine Churches, hauehave beene Bishops thereof. For Marke the Euangelist, after he had preached in Aegypt and had set vp his rest at Alexandria, became B. thereof: in which Episcopall function Antanus succeeded him, and after him Abilius and Cerdo in the Apostles times; much lesse doth their being of the latter sort. For though the Apostle di… distinctly reckon the functions of the Church 1 Cor. 12. Eph. 4: yet in the former place he doth not so much as mention the office of Euangelists; and in the latter he speaketh of those, who foreign were called Euangelists as the foure Euangelists, and perhaps also the 72; whose functions notwithstanding were not so disioyned, but that as Apostles might be also Euangelists, as we see in Matthew and Iohn; so Euangelists might be Bishops, as we see in Marke. But as for Timothie & Titus, the Greeke aaChrysost. Theophyl. Oecum. in Eph. 4.Eph 4Writers expounding that place, plainely say, they were not Euangelists, but Pastors or Bishops. For they, after they were placed, the one in Ephesus, the other in Creet, did not trauaile vp and downe as in former times, when they accompanied the Apostle; but ordinarily remained with their flockes. The Greeke Scholiast saith thus. Euangelists… that is, those which did write the Gospell: Pastors… foreign, hee meaneth such as had the Churches committed to them, such as Timothie was, such as Titus. And to the same purpose, both Chrysostome, and Theophylact, doe mention them by name.

Neither was it a debasing of Timothie and Titus, when they were made Bishops, but an aduancement. Forwhereas p. 96before, they were but Presbyters (though called Euangelists in a large sence:) they were now made the Apostles of those Churches, and by imposition of hands ordayned Bishops.

In the second place hee taketh exception against those words, where I say, they were furnished with Episcopall power, and denieth that when Timothie & Titus were assigned to Ephesus and Creet, they receiued any new authority which before they had not, or needed any such furnishing. But were to exercise their Euangelesticall function in those places. For so Paul biddeth Timothie after hee had beene at and gone from Ephesus bb…. Tim. 4.5.to doe the worke of an Euangelist. If they receiued no new authority, why did Timothie receiue a new ordination by imposition of hands, whereof the Apostle speaketh in two cc1 Tim. 4.14. 2 Tim. 1.6.1 Tim 4:142 Tim 1:6places, and which the Fathers vnderstand of his ordination to be Bishop? were men admitted to the extraordinarie function of Euangelists, by the ordinarie meanes of imposing hands? or may we thinke, that any but the Apostles (being not assigned as Bishops to seuerall Churches) had that authority wheresoeuer they came, which Timothie had at Ephesus, and Titus in Creet? verily Philippe the Euangelist though hee conuerted ddAct. 8.14.17.Acts 8:14Acts 8:17diuers in Samaria, and baptized them: yet had not authority to impose hands, whereby men might be furnished with graces for the Ministerie; but the Apostles Peter and Iohn were sent thither, to that purpose. And whereas Paul willeth Timothie to doe the worke of an Euangelist, what is that, but foreign, to preach the Gospell diligently, and to fulfill his Ministerie, or to make it fully knowne, the word Euangelist being there taken in the generall sence? Now what his Ministerie was Ierome eeHieronym. & Sedul. in 2 Tim. 4.2 Tim 4& Sedulius declare. Ministerium tuum imple, Episcopatus scilicet, Fulfill thy Ministerie, that is to say, as thou art a Bishop.

Now that their being Euangelists did not hinder them from being Bishops, when ceasing from their trauailing about, they were assigned to these particular Churches, I proued by the testimony of Zuinglius: ffIn Ecclesiaste.who saith, that Philip p. 97the Euangelist, who had beene one of the Deacons, was afterwards Bishop of Caesarea, Iames the Apostle was Bishop of Ierusalem, and diuers of the Apostles (which may much more be verified of the Euangelists) when they ceased from their peregrinations, became Bishops of certaine Churches, as by the ancient histories is manifest. Whereto the refuter answereth two things, first, that Zuinglius speaketh according to the phrase of the histories and writers before him; therefore say I, according to the truth. Or else we must thinke that none of the Fathers, or ancient historiographers knew whom to call Bishops and whom not. But the refuter, and his fellows onelyonly, hauehave this knowledge.Ad pag. 144.Yea but a certaine learned man saith, that when the Fathers call Peter or Iames or any of the Apostles Bishops, they doe not take the name Bishop properly. For Peter I graunt, but of Iames there is another reason, as I hauehave shewed before. And although it were true, that Apostles could not properly be called Bishops: yet what is that to Timothie, and Titus, whom I hauehave proued notwithstanding their supposed Euangelisticall function, to hauehave beene particularly assigned by Paul to the Churches of Ephesus and Creet; where also they liued and dyed?

His other answere is, that howsoeuer Zuinglius speake of their being Bishops, it is manifest by his writings, he neither thought they were (and so belike spake otherwise then he thought) nor any other might be a Diocesan B. as by a testimony hereafter alledged, appeareth, where he saith no such thing. I will therefore adde another testimony of Zuinglius in the same booke:Ecclesiaste. when Paul said to Timothie doe the vvorke of an Euangelist, Timothie was a Bishop, vvherefore it is certaine according to Pauls opinion, the office of an Euangelist and of a Bishop is all one.

After I had thus answered these two obiections,§ 13. Other arguments to proue that Timothie and Titus were Bishops. I brought a new supply of arguments, to proue Timothie and Titus to hauehave beene Bishops of Ephesus and Creet. And first, by occasion of his second obiection I argue thus:

The function and authoritie which Timothie and Titus did exercise in Ephesus and Creet, was either extraordinarie, p. 98and Euangelisticall, as the Disciplinarians teach; or else ordinarie, and Episcopall, as we hold.

But it was not extraordinary and Euangelisticall; Therefore ordinary and Episcopall.

The assumption I proued thus;

The supposed Euangelisticall function of Timothie, and Titus, was to end with their persons, and admitted no succession, being as themselues teach, both extraordinary and temporary;

But the function and authority, which they had, as being assigned to certaine Churches, viz. of Ephesus and Creet, (consisting especially in the power of ordination, and iurisdiction) was not to end with their persons, but to be continued in their successors.

Therefore the function and authority which Timothie and Titus had, as being assigned to Ephesus and Creet, was not extraordinary and Euangelisticall.

Here the refuter would make his reder belieue, that I hauing before denyed the consequence of the second obiection, doe also deny the antecedent, and in this place reason against it. But I doe not deny they were Euangelists, howsoeuer I doe not conceiue their Euangelisticall function to hauehave beene such, and so great, as the refuter and other Disciplinarians suppose, and therefore I call it their supposed Euangelicall function. Now, that I did not intend to deny, or disproue that antecedent, but to bring a new supply of arguments, taking occasion by the last obiection; appeareth by those words, which I premised, as it were an introduction to this argument, hereof we may conclude thus. But let vsus heare what he answereth. Forsooth he flatly denyeth the assumption, wherein though he vntruely say, that I begge the question, that Timothie and Titus were assigned to Ephesus and Creet, as ordinarie Bishop or Pastors of those Churches; for that I doe assume but conclude; yet hath he nothing to disproue it, but a meere begging of the question, and denyall of the conclusion, rather then the assumption; viz. that they had no assignment to those Churches, but onelyonly as euangelists , p. 99which doth not touch the assumption: no more then that which followeth. Neither by that (Euangelisticall) office (saith he) did they take the power of ordination and iurisdiction from the Churches, in which by right it is seated; but with the Churches ordayned ministers, and redressed such things, as were amisse, though perhaps that right of laying on hands might sometimes be performed by them alone, &c. What is all this to the assumption? which if he would deny, and make this denyall good, he should hauehave said, and proued it, that the function and authoritie which they exercised in Ephesus and Creet, was to end with their persons, and admitted no succession, or was not to be continued in their successors. But he roues, and raues, as men vse to doe, which being at a non-plus, would faine seeme to answere somewhat. And that which he answereth, besides that it is impertinent, is partly also vntrue. For when he saith, that Timotie and Titus did not take the power of ordination and iurisdiction from the Churches, &c. First, he would insinuate, that Bishops doe; as though herein there were some difference betweene Bishops and them; vvhen as indeed, neither Bishops, nor they, doe take that authority from the Church; but they, and all other first BB. receiued their authority from the Apostles, and deriued the same to their lawfull successors. Secondly, he saith, that the power of ordination and iurisdiction by right is seated in the whole Church or congregation: which is not true of any particular congregation, but in case of necessity; wherein both the succession of their owne clergy failing, and the help of others vvanting, the right is deuolued to the whole body of the Church. But let this goe among other his Brownisticall, or rather Anabaptistiall nouelties.

I proceed to the proofe of my assumption,§ 14. Ad pag. 145. That their function was ordinary, and their authority perpetually necessary. which hee hath layd forth thus:

That function and authority which is ordinarie, and perpetually necessary, not onelyonly for the well being, but also for the very being of the visible Churches, was not to p. 100end with the persons of Timothie and Titus, but to be continued in their successors.

But the function and authority that they had, as being assigned to certaine Churches, is ordinary and perpetually necessary, not onelyonly for the well being, but also for the very being of the visible Churches:

Therefore the function and authority which they had, as being assigned to certaine Churches, was not to end with the persons of Timothie, and Titus, but to be continued in their successors.

The assumption is thus to be explaned; the function which Timothie, and Titus had, as being assigned to certaine Churches, was ordinary; and the authority, which they did exercise, consisting chiefly in the power of ordination and iurisdiction, was perpetually necessary. This assumption the refuter would seeme to deny, and yet granteth, that the power of ordination and iurisdiction is perpetually necessary; onelyonly he denieth it to be necessary, that there should be in eueryevery Church an Euangelist to exercise that authority. So that of the two points in the assumption, the latter hee granteth, that the authority which they exercised was perpetually necessary; the other, that the function which they had being assigned to those Churches was ordinary, hee toucheth not: but denieth that, which I did not affirme, to wit, that it was necessary there should be an Euangelist alwayes in eueryevery Church to exercise the power of ordination, and iurisdiction: Did I affirme this? or rather did I not teach the contrary, when I said that the function whereby they did exercise that power of ordination, and iurisdiction, was not an extraordinary function, as the Euangelisticall; but ordinary, as the Episcopall? Now that the function which Timothie and Titus had, being assigned to Ephesus and Creet, was an ordinary function, & the very same which the Bishops that succeeded them, and all other BB. both in, and since the Apostles times hauehave p. 101exercised; it is most certaine, for though in them, who cheifly are called Euangelists, there were diuers things extraordinary, besides their limitation to no certaine place, as their immediate calling from Christ, their extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, as of reuelation, and of working miracles, as appeareth by Steuen and Philippe: yet in Timothie, and Titus, and others who were called Euangelists, because they were the companions of the Apostles in their iourneyes, and assistants in their worke of the ministery, there was nothing extraordinarie, but their not limitation to any certaine Churches. For their calling to the ministery was ordinary, and their gifts, though great, yet attayned and increased by ordinary meanes. When as therefore they were assigned to certaine Churches, as the Pastors and gouernours thereof, whereunto they were ordayned by imposition of hands, and by that ordination were furnished with power of ordination and Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction; their function was the same ordinary function, which their successors, and all other Bishops did exercise.

But as the refuter said,§ 15. Whether it be perpetually necessary that the Ecclesiasticall authority shold be in one. it was not necessary, that there should alwayes be an Euangelist in eueryevery Church to exercise the power of ordination, and iurisdiction; so perhaps, some more iudicious will alledge, that though the power of ordination and iurisdiction be perpetually necessary: yet it is not necessary, that this power should alwayes be wholy in some one in eueryevery Church, as it was in Timothie, or Titus. Neither did I say it was, but that the power or authority which they exercised, was perpetually necessary; and the function, whereby they did exercise it, was ordinary, being the very same function, which other Bishops, both then, and euer since, hauehave administred. And therefore the refuter doth greatly wrong me, when hee saith, that I make this Episcopall power, perpetually necessary, and chargeth me with contradicting my selfe in another place, where I acknowledge, that where the Episcopall gouernment may not be had, there others may be admitted.

p. 102For the clearing therefore of the whole controuersie, and plaine manifestation of that which I hold therein; we will make vse of a distinction, which the learned vse concerning matters of gouernment. In all gouernments therefore there are these things to be considered: pot…stas, ordo, formae vel modus, titulus, siue applicatio potestatis ad personam, & vsus. First the power to be exercised in gouernment; then the order, whereby the inferiours both to be gouerned & gouerning are subordinate to the superiours: after, the forme and the manner of gouernment, as, whether it be a Monarchy, where the power is in one, or an Aristocraty, wher it is in few, or a Democraty, where it is in the multitude: and how each gouernment is ordered: the title, as whether the gouernours are put in and intituled to their power and authority, by succession, or by election or institution; and after, how they vse and exercise their authority, &c. Of these, the two first, that there should be power of gouernment, and order therein, & in the people gouerned are essentiall & perpetual, as the immutable ordinances of God. The other, many wayes are accidentall & variable. But yet, if question be made, what forme of gouernment in the commonwealth is the best, & hath the best vvarrant; I vvould say the Monarchy, as hauing diuine, both institution, and approbation. But yet so, as vvhere this cannot so vvell be had, the other formes of gouernment be lawfull. Euen so in the Church of eueryevery country, that there should be a power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment to be exercised, & an order or eutaxy, it is the perpetual & immutable ordinance of God, the Church being by his appointment a well ordered society, & as the wise man saith,Cant. 6.3.9.Song 6:3Song 6:9 tanquam acies ordinata. But whether the sway of spiritual authority shold be in one alone of eueryevery Church, or in more, it seemeth not to be so essentiall; though I must confesse, that both in the Church of the Iewes by the appointment of God it vvas in one, namely the high Priest, and likewise in the primitiue Churches, as hath beene shewed. And as touching the title, that seemeth also to be variable. For the gouernours in the Church of the Iewes came p. 103to their places by succession and lineall descent; but in the Churches of Christ, by free election, after Gods first immediate calling.

Now if we shall enquire,§ 16. What forme of Church-gouenrment to be preferred before others. what forme of Church-gouernment hath the best warrant; hereby we may be resolued. For it is manifest, that our Sauiour Christ committed the power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment cheifly to his Apostles, and that they being seuered into diuers parts of the world did gouerne the particular Churches, which they had collected, seuerally. And howsoeuer there were diuers things extraordinary in the Apostles, and peculiar to their persons; as their immediat calling from Christ; their vnlimited function, hauing authority to exercise their Apostolicall power wheresoeuer they came; their admirable, & extraordinary gifts, of wisedome, of languages, of miracles; their infallible inspiration, & direction of the holy Ghost preseruing them from errour: notwithstanding, there were other things in them, which being perpetually necessary for the being, and well being of the Church, were from them to be communicated, or deriued to others; as the power to preach the Gospell, and to administer the Sacraments; and publicke prayer or liturgy: the power to ordayne ministers, and Pastors; the power of the keyes for gouernment, and exercise of Ecclesiasticall censures. Now the power of preaching the word, and administring the Sacraments, was not from the Apostles communicated to eueryevery Christian, but to such as they ordayned ministers, and by the imposition of their hands communicated that power to them. The power of ordination, and publicke iurisdiction, was not committed by the Apostles, neither to other Christians, nor yet to all ministers whom they ordayned; but after the ordination of Presbyters in each Church, they reserued the power of ordination, and publicke iurisdiction in their owne hands; which after a time they communicated to those whom they set ouer the seuerall Churches to that very purpose: viz. to ordayne Presbyters, and to exercise publicke iurisdiction; which manifestly appeareth by p. 104the Epistles to Timothie and Titus. Thus was Timothie set ouer the Church of Ephesus, Titus of Creet, Linus of Rome, Evodius of Antioch, Simon of Ierusalem, Marke of Alexandria, &c. and what authority was from the Apostles communicated to them, was from them deriued to their successors, not onelyonly since, but euen in the Apostles times. For what authority Evodius had at Antioch, the same after him had Ignatius; and what Linus had at Rome, the same had Anacletus, Clemens, Euaristus; what Marke had at Alexandria, the same after him had Anianus, Abilius and Cerdo, and all these in the Apostles times: and what Timothie had at Ephesus, the same had Gaius, who (if Dorotheus is to be creditted) was his next successor,In synops. in Gai…. Actio. 11 Onesimus after him, and Polycrates, and eueryevery one of those twenty seauen, mentioned in the Councill of Chalcedon, which from Timothie to that time, had beene successiuely the Bishops of Ephesus. These, to my vnderstanding, are plaine euidences to warrant the Episcopall function, and to shew the deriuation of their authority from the Apostles; and to perswade Christians to preferre that forme of gouernment before others. For as I added, and will now repeate a reason, vvhichwhich the refuter might more easily elude vvith a male pert speech, calling it wauing and crauing, then to answere vvith soundnesse of reason, and euidence of truth.

If the Apostles, vvhiles themselues liued, thought it necessary (that is, needfull and behoofefull for the well ordering of the Churches already planted) to substitute therein such as Timothie and Titus furnished with Episcopall power, then much more after their decease hauehave the Churches need of such gouernours:

But the former is euident by the Apostles practise in Ephesus and Creet, and all other Apostolicall Churches.

Therefore the latter may not be denyed.

All which notwithstanding, I doe not deny, but that where the gouernment by Bishops cannot be had, another forme may be vsed; because the modus, or forme of being p. 105in the B. alone, doth not seeme so to be of diuine ordinance, but that it may vponupon necessity be altered. But if any shall reply, that howsoeuer in ciuill gouernment the forme is variable, yet for Church gouernment we are to keepe vsus close to the word of God, and what hath warrant there we are to hold perpetuall and vnchangeable by men, as some of our Disciplinarians vse to argue: I wish them to looke to this inference. For if they doe not leaue that hold, they must needes grant, that the Episcopall function hauing that vvarrant in the Scriptures which I hauehave shewed, is to be holden iure diuine.

And whereas to confute me, or rather to fight with his owne shadow, hee saith, that other reformed Churches hauehave continued many yeares, and may doe more, without Bishops: I confesse they hauehave, and I wish they may continue to the end in the sincere profession of the truth. But where hee saith, that they hauehave continued in more quietnesse, then ours hath done, or is like to doe: for that wee may thanke him, and other vnquiet spirits, who hauehave troubled the peace of Israell, with vrging and obtruding their owne fancies for the ordinances of God.

To these reasons I added the testimonies of antiquity,§ 17. Testimonies of antiquity that Timothie and Titus were BB. Ad pag. 146. which with a generall consent beareth witnesse to this truth, that Timothie was B. of Ephesus, and Titus of Creet. Of all which the Refuter maketh very light. All that remaineth to proue, that Timothie was B. of Ephesus, and Titus of Creet, is no more but this; the subscriptions to the Epistles to Titus, and 2 to Timothie, call them Bishops, as also the generall consent of the ancient Fathers, and histories of the Church, doe. No more (quoth he) but the generall consent of antiquity in a matter of fact, agreeable with the Scriptures? Why, the testimony of some one of the Fathers affirming it, ought to be of more weight with vsus, then the deniall of the same by all the Disciplinarians in the world. But let vsus come to the particulars. First,First, the subscription to 2 Tim. & to Tit. I alledged the subscriptions annexed to the end of the Epistle to Titus, and second to Timothie: wherein the one is said to hauehave beene ordayned the first B. p. 106of the Church of the Ephesians, and the other the first B. of the Church of the Cretians. This is something plaine. But he asketh me, why I seuered them from the consent of the ancient Fathers? was it because I thought them to be of the Canon? I answere, that I did not seuer them, but ioyne them in a copulatiue speech; and if I had beene of opinion, that they were of the Canon, I would not hauehave said as I did, it appeareth not onelyonly by the subscriptions, but also by the generall consent of the Fathers: but contrariwise, not onelyonly by the generall consent of the Fathers, but also by the subscriptions annexed by the Apostle himselfe. But though it were not likely (as he hath alledged out of T. C.) that they were subscribed by the Apostle himselfe; yet is it certaine, that they are of great antiquity, and of better credit, then the Refuter and some other Disciplinarians would make them. Indeed, if any other learned man, that were not a party in this cause, had censured these subscriptions; I would hauehave respected their censures; but the cauillations of Disciplinarians against them (who being parties in this cause, are so plainely confuted by them) are to be reiected. Let vsus therefore heare, what the Refuter obiecteth against them. How little credit those subscriptions deserue, it may appeare by that vnderunder the Epistle to Titus, which is quite contrary to the Epistle it selfe. And why so, I pray you? the subscription saith, the Epistle was written from Nicopolis, and Paul himselfe willeth Titus to come vntounto him to Nicopolis, for I hauehave determined to winter there. But if Paul had beene now at Nicopolis, when he wrote, he would hauehave said, not there, but here. Therefore hee was but a simple fellow, that was the Author of that subscription. So saith this great Criticke. But if you will consider with me, that Paul being, as vsually he was, in peregrination; Titus could not well tell where he was, neither had Paul signified in the Epistle where he then was, therefore wrote being at Nicopolis, as any discreet man would in the like case, come to mee to Nicopolis, for I meane to winter there: whereas if hee had written, as the Refuter would hauehave had him, if hee were at Nicopolis; come hither, for I meane to winter here, or come to p. 107Nicopolis, for I meane to winter here: might not Titus hauehave said, where Paul; as being vncertaine where Paul was, and whether himselfe was to goe. This therefore is too seely a censure, though receiued from T. B. himselfe, to ouerthrow the authority of so ancient a subscription, in which besides the ancient Greeke copies, it is also testified in the Syriack, that this Epistle was written from Nicopolis, Athanasius aaSynops. sacr. script.speaking of that Epistle to Titus, saith, foreign. Hee wrote this Epistle from Nicopolis, for there he wintered. Oecumenius testifieth the same in his argument on that Epistle to Titus. Sedulius bbIn Tit. 1.Titus 1likewise, this Epistle hee wrote from Nicopolis, and Theophylact. argument. in Epist. ad Tit; the Authors of the Centuryes, cent. 1. l. 2. c. 10. in Tito.

To the subscriptions I added the testimonies of these Fathers.§ …8. The testimonies of the Fathers.

First, Eusebius ccEuseb. l. 3. c. 4.reporteth out of the Ecclesiasticall Histories vvhichwhich vvere before his time, that Timothie had first the Bishopricke of the Church at Ephesus, and Titus of the Churches in Creet.

Secondly, the auncient Author of the booke de diuinis nominibus ddDionys. de diuin. nom.dedicating the same to Timothie Bishop of Ephesus, if it be Dionysius Areopagita himselfe, who liued at the same time with Timothie, doth beare an vndeniable witnesse to this truth: or if it be another vsing his name, yet he plainely signifieth, that in his time it was a thing generally receiued, that Timothie was Bishop of Ephesus.

Thirdly, Dorotheus eeIn synops.saith, that Timothie was by Paul ordayned the B. of the Ephesians, & he calleth Titus the B. of the Cretians.

Fourthly, Ambrose ffPrefat. in 1 Tim. 1.1 Tim 1testifieth the same, Paul instructeth Timothie being already created a B. how he ought to order the Church. And againe, ggIn 1 Tim. 1.1 Tim 1he entreateth Timothie his fellow Bishop, &c. Againe, hhIn 1 Tim. 3.1 Tim 3Timothie was a B. Hence it is, that Paul directeth him, how he should ordaine a B. Likewise of Titus iiPrefat. in Epist. ad Tit.he testifieth, that the Apostle consecrated him B.

p. 108Fiftly, Ierome kkHier. in 1 Tim. 1.14.1 Tim 1:14noteth, that Timothie receiued the grace, which Paul exhorteth him not to neglect, when he was ordayned B. And wher Paul willeth him to fulfill his Ministery llin 2 Tim. 4.2 Tim 4, Ierom vnderstandeth it of his Bishopricke. And in the Catalogue of Ecclesiasticall Writers which is in his first Tome, it is testified mmHier. in Catalog., that Timothie was ordayned of blessed Paul the B. of the Ephesians, and that Titus was B. of Creet.

Sixtly Chrisostome nnChrysost. in Phil. 1.Phil 1, writing on those words Phil. 1. Bishops and Deacon…, saith, what meaneth this? were there many Bishops of one City? in no wise; but so he called the Presbyters. For then were the names common, and a Bishop was also called foreign, a Deacon or minister. For which cause writing to Timothie being a Bishop, fulfill foreign, thy ministery. For that he was a Bishop, he saith, doe not hastily impose thy hands vponupon any man, & againe, with the oo1 Tim. 4.14.1 Tim 4:14imposition of the hands of the Presbytery] but Presbyters did not ordaine a Bishop, & in another place ppPrefat. in Epi. 1 ad Tim., hee giueth this reason, why Paul wrote to Timothie and Titus, and not to Syluanus, or Silas, or Clemens, foreign, because he had already committed the Churches to them, but the others he still carryed about with him. And on the fourth to the Ephesians qqin Ephes. 4.Eph 4, hee giueth instance in Timothie and Titus as being Pastors assigned to certaine places.

Seauenthly Epiphanius rr…ares. 75., saith, that Paul 1 Tim. 4. writeth to a Bishop, and that a Presbyter cannot be the same with a Bishop: the diuine speech of the Apostle teacheth who is a Bishop and who a Presbyter, when he saith to Timothie being a Bishop, receiue not hastily an accusation against a Presbyter, &c.

Eightly Primasius ssPrefa…. in 1 Tim.saith, Timothie was a Bishop and Pauls Disciple. That grace ttin 2 Tim. 1.2 Tim 1was the blessing, which Timothie when he was made Bishop, receiued by imposition of hands.

Ninthly Theodoret vvin 1 Tim. 3.1 Tim 3, saith, that Titus was the Apostle, that is, Bishop of the Cretians, and Timothie of the Asians. And out of him Oecumenius vvvvprefat. in Tit.citeth these words: Titus was an admirable Disciple of Paul, foreign and he was by Paul ordayned Bishop of Creet. And in another p. 109place xxPraesat. in 1 Tim., why did Paul hauing other Disciples, as Silas, and Luke, and others, write onelyonly to Timothie and Titus? We answere. Because to these he had committed Churches, but the others he had still with him.

Tenthly, Sedulius yyIn 1 Tim. 1.1 Tim 1, this Timothie was B. in Ephesus, as it is said in the booke of histories. And on these words▪ stirre vp the grace which was giuen thee by the imposition of hands zzIn 2 Tim. 1.6.2 Tim 1:6, that is, iuxta ordinationem tuam in Episcopatum, by thy ordination into the Bishopricke.

11. Gregory aaPastor. cur. part. 2. c. 11.the great; hence it is, that Paul admonisheth his Disciple, praelatum gregi, being the Prelate of a flocke, saying attend reading vntill I come.

12. Isidor saith bbDe vita & morte sanctorum. 87.& 88., that Timothie was Bishop of Ephesus.

13. Polycrates ccApud Antonin. part. 1. tit. 6. c. 28. § 6. & Vincent specul. l. 10. c. 38.saith, that Timothie trauailing with Paul to Ephesus, was made the first B. there by him in the raigne of Nero.

14. Theophylact ddTheophyl. in Eph. 4.Eph 4vnderstandeth by Pastors, and Doctors, Eph. 4. those to whose care the Church was committed, that is to say, BB. such as Timothie and Titus. And for that cause he saith eePraefat. in 1 Tim.that Paul wrote to them two. Againe ffProlog. in Tit., Titus being ordayned Bishop is set ouer the great Island Creet.

15. Oecumenius ggOecum. in 1 Tim. 1.1 Tim 1, on those words, I requested thee to remaine in Ephesus, saith, foreign, here hee had ordayned him B. And againe, in Tim. 5. he speaketh of ordinations, foreign, for he wrote to a B. And of Titus hhIn Tit. 1.Titus 1he saith, that Paul left him to ordaine BB. foreign, hauing first made him a B. And of both, on those iiIn Eph. 4.Eph 4words, Pastors and Doctors he saith, Paul meaneth such, as to whose trust the Churches were committed, foreign BB. foreign, such as Timothie and Titus.

16. Nicephorus kkLib. 2. c. 34.saith, that after Paul was first dismissed from Rome, he wrote his former Epistle to Timothie, whom he had ordayned before B. of Ephesus. And another Epistle hee wrote vntounto Titus, whom, hauing before ordayned B. of Creet, he had left there.

p. 110To these I might adde the testimonies of diuers new writers, but I will mention onelyonly a few, whose iudgements the Disciplinarians will not easily reiect. First therefore Caluin llCalu… in Epist. ad Tim. 1.in diuers places on the Epistles to Timothie, doth note that he was the Pastor of the Church at Ephesus.

The authors of the Centuryes mmCentur. 1. l. 2. c. 10. in Ioan. Euang.say, it is euident, that Paul appointed Timothie the Pastor to the Church of Ephesus.

D. Fulke nnin Tit. 1.5.Titus 1:5saith, among the Clergie, for order and seemely gouernment, there was alwayes one principall, to whom by long vse of the Church the name of B. or superintendent hath beene applyed; which roome Titus exercised in Creta, Timothie in Ephesus, and others in other places, &c.

Finally Beza ooin 1 Tim. 5.19.1 Tim 5:19himselfe noteth, that Timothie was the foreign, as Iustine calleth him, that is, Antistes or President in the Presbytery at Ephesus, that is to say according to Bezaes language, a Bishop.

§ 19. His answere to these testimonies.To the testimonies which I produced, the refuter answereth three things, first, in effect this, that though the Fathers call them BB. yet properly they were not Bishops, which bare denyall of his, if it be weighed with the testimonies of the ancient, which I named, will proue as light as vanity it selfe.

Secondly, that the consent of the Fathers is not so generall as I would make men beleiue, seeing both Ambrose and Ignatius doe make Timothie a Deacon. And for proofe thereof he referreth vsus to T.C. whose words are these ppT.C. l. 2. part. 1.3.14., all ancient writers are not of that iudgement, for not to speak of Ambrose, which calleth Timothie a Deacon, where he opposeth a Deacon to a Bishop: Ignatius qqAd Trall.an ancient writer saith, that hee was a Deacon: & that where diuiding the ministeries of the Church into Bishops and Deacons, &c. doth openly oppose a Deacon to a Bishop. little reason had T.C. to speake of Ambrose, and therefore might well say, not to speake of him. For these are Ambrose rrin Phil. 1.1.Phil 1:1his words: (with the BB. and Deacons) that is, with Paul and Timothie qui vti que Episcopi erant, who verily were Bishops, he also signified the Deacons which ministred vntounto him. For he writeth vntounto the people. For if he had written to the Bishops p. 111and Deacons, he would hauehave written to their persons: and it had beene fit, that he should hauehave written to the Bishop of the place, not to two or three, as hee did to Titus, and to Timothie. Ignatius ssAd Trallian.his words be these: What be the Deacons but the imitators of the Euangelicall powers ministring vntounto him (that is, the Bishop, as the Angels doe to God) a pure and blamelesse ministerie, as holy Steuen to Iames the blessed, and Timothie and Linus to Paul, Anacletus and Clemens to Peter. Distinguish the times, and the answere is easie. Timothie was such an Euangelist, as first ministred to Paul as a Deacon, afterwards was ordayned Presbyter, as Ambrose ttIn 1 Tim. 3. … Timotheum Presbyterum ordinatum significat.1 Tim 3saith, and lastly a Bishop; which is as the same Ambrose vvIn Eph. 4.Eph 4saith, primus Presbyter. But doth his seruing vnderunder Paul as a Deacon, proue that afterwards he was not a Bishop? nay, rather his being a Deacon, and afterwards a Presbyter doth proue he was not such an Euangelist, as the Refuter imagineth. And by as good reason he might proue that neither Linus, nor Anacletus, nor Clemens were Bishops of Rome, because they had serued vnderunder Peter and Paul, as Deacons. Here is all, that our Refuter can, either by himselfe, or with T. C. helpe, obiect out of antiquity against Timothie his being a Bishop.

His third answere is, that the Scripture calleth him an Euangelist, 2 Tim. 4.5. and therefore he was no B. which is the same with the second obiection, already answered.

I hope therefore I may be bold with the Readers consent to conclude, that Timothie and Titus were ordayned BB. by the Apostle Paul; the one, of Ephesus; the other, of Creet.

Serm. sect. 10. pag. 81.§ 20. Examples of other BB. made by the Apostles. To these mentioned in in the Scriptures, we adde others out of other the most auncient records of the Church, wherof some were made BB. by Peter & Paul, some by Iohn the Euangelist and other the Apostles, &c. to pag. 87. l. 1.

p. 112In this section I brought diuers most plaine and pregnant euidences to proue, that the Apostles ordayned BB: noting the Places where, and the Persons whom they ordayned. The which, because the Refuter passeth ouer, as it were in silence, I will breifly recite; that it may appeare to the Reader, that the Refuter had cause to be silent, because the euidence of truth did put him to silence.

First, I shewed out of aaEuseb. Chron. ann. 4 5. hist. l. 3. c. 22.Eusebius, that about the yeare fortie fiue Euodius was made Bishop of Antioch, by the Apostles Peter and Paul, as Ignatius bbAd Antioch.who succeeded him in the Apostles times, doth witnesse.

Secondly, that Peter and Paul ordayned Linus Bishop of Rome, about the yeare 56, whom Anacletus succeeded, and after him Clemens: testified by ccIren. l. 3. c 3.Irenaeus and ddEuseb. l. 5. c. 6. & l. 3. c. 4. et c. 13. & 22.Eusebius.

Thirdly, that by the appointment of Peter, Marke was the first B. of Alexandria, whom Anianus succeeded in that Bishopricke, after him Abilius, and then Cerdo, all in the Apostles times: testified by eeNiceph. l. 14. c. 39. Greg. l. 6. Epist. 37. Euseb. lib. 2. c. 24. Hier proaem. in Matt. & in Catal. in Marco. & ad Euagr. Dor. in synops. Euseb. Chron. an. 65. & 86. & 99.Nicephorus, Gregory, Eusebius, Ierome and Dorotheus.

Fourthly, that after the death of Iames the iust, Simon the sonne of Cleophas was by the Apostles which then were remayning, made Bishop of Ierusalem: testified by ffEuseb. hist. l. 4. c. 22. Chron. an. 63.Hegesippus, and Eusebius.

Fiftly, that Iohn the Apostle ordayned Polycarpe Bishop of Smyrna: testified by ggIren. l. 3. c. 3. Eus. l. 3. c. 35. & l. 4. c. 14. Tertull. de praescript. Hier. in Catal.Irenaeus, Eusebius, Tertullian and Ierome.

Sixtly, that Iohn after his returne from exile, ordayned BB. in diuers places: testified by hhEus. l. 3. c. 23.Clemens Alexandrinus, and Eusebius.

Finally, that the Apostles committed the Church, which is in eueryevery place, to Bishops whom they ordayned, leauing them their successours: testified by iiIren. l. 4. c. 63. l. 3. c. 3. & l. 5. Tertull. de praescrip….Irenaeus, and Tertullian, who saith, that as Smyrna had Polycarpe from S. Iohn, and Rome Clement by the appointment of Peter; so the rest of the Churches can shew quos ab Apostolis in Episcopatum constitutos Apostoli…i seminis traduces habent; what Bishops they hauehave ordayned by the Apostles, the deriuers of the Apostolicall seed.

p. 113To all this he hath nothing to answere, but that which heretofore hath beene fully refuted: that these Bishops were but ordinary Pastors of particular congregations, &c. sa…ing that he taketh also exception against their assertion, who said, that Bishops be the successors of the Apostles. But not onelyonly Irenaeus, and Tertullian hauehave auouched so much, but diuers others of the Fathers, as Cyprian, Ierome and Augustine. Cyprian kkCypr. l. 4. Epi. 9saith, praepositi, that is Bishops, Apostolis vicaria ordinatione succedunt, succeed the Apostles as being ordained in their steed. And Ierome llHier. ad Euagr.saith, omnes Episcopi Apostolorum successores sunt, all Bishops are the successors of the Apostles. And againe he saith mmad Marell. de error. Monta., Episcop…s Apostolis succedere. And Theodoret nnli. 4. c. 18., calleth the gouernment of Bishops foreign. And likewise Basill ooEpist. 55. ad Ambros., foreign, the presidency of Apostles, who hauehave deliuered to Bishops, as Irenaeus ppIre. 3. c. 3.saith, their owne place of gouernment in the seuerall Churches. And this is that, which both Ierome qqAugust. & Hier. in Psa. 44.Ps 44, and Augustine expounding those words of the 45. Psalme pro patribus nati tibi sunt filij, hauehave deliuered; that insteed of the Apostles, Bishops were ordayned gouernours of the Church in all parts of the world. Which point is duely to be considered. For hereby it is manifest, that the Bishops hauehave receiued and deriued their authority from the Apostles, whose successors they are, not onelyonly in respect of doctrine (as all other true ministers) but also in the gouernment of the seuerall Churches. And when the Disciplinarians can shew the like warrant for their Presbyteryes, especially of Lay-elders; or our refuter, and his good friends the Brownists, for the cheife authority of the people, we will harken to them. Once, it is euident, that Christ committed the authority and gouernment of his Church to his Apostles, who were to deriue the same to others. Wherefore who hauehave any ordinary right, they hauehave receiued the same from the Apostles. So Timothie and Titus receiued their authority from Paul, Linus from Peter and Paul, Policarpus from Iohn, &c. And all other the first Bishops from the Apostles, from whom by a perpetuall p. 114succession it hath beene deriued to the Bishops which are at this day. But where is any euidence of the like deriuation from the Apostles of authority to the people of Lay-elders, I know not.

Thus hauehave I made good my former proofes, that the Episcopall function is of Apostolicall institution.