A Defense of the Sermon Preached at the Consecration of the Bishop of Bath, Book 4 · Chapter 5

A Defense of the Sermon Preached at the Consecration of the Bishop of Bath · Book 4 · Chapter 5

p. 114The V. CHAPTER. Answering the allegations out of Ierome.

Serm. Sect. 11. pag. 87. Against all this that hath beene said to proue that the Episcopall function is of Apostolicall institution, the authoritie of Ierome is obiected, &c. to page 89.

AGainst the testimonies of men, saith the refuter, what is fitter to be obiected, then the authority of such a man as of set purpose disputing the question, determineth the contrary to that which was so commonly anouched.

Which speech, if it be duely examined, iust exception may be taken against eueryevery branch thereof. For first hee would insinuate, that nothing hath beene brought to iustifie the calling of Bishops besides the testimonies of men; when besides the testimonies of men, I hauehave brought good euidence of sound reason, and besides that, better proofe out of the scriptures to warrant the Episcopall function, then euer was, or will be brought for the Presbyterian discipline. Againe, it were fitter, and to better purpose, against the testimonies of men (if I had produced no other proofe) to hauehave brought either testimonies of scripture, or sound reasons; or for want of them, the testimonie of so many, and so approued authors, to counterpoise p. 115the weight of their authorities, who hauehave beene alledged on the contrary part. But scriptures failing, reasons wanting, testimonies of other Fathers being to seeke, Ierome alone must be faine to beare the whole burden of this cause. For though some latter writers may be alledged to the like purpose; yet all is but Ierome. Whose not onelyonly iudgement they follow, but reteyne his words. Neither doth Ierome so oft dispute this question, or determine the contrary, as the refuter in his shallow conceipt imagineth. Or if any wheres he doth determine the contrary, against that which was commonly auouched both by himselfe and others; his determination deliuered in heat of disputation ought not to be of so great weight, as what he hath deliuered, not foreign, in heat of contention but foreign or foreign, dogmatically or historically. For Ierome was but a Presbyter; and there were two things in his time, which might prouoke him by way of contention to say more in the behalfe of his degree, then doth exactly agree with the truth. The one was, that the Bishops of those times did too much depresse the Presbyters. For they might not onelyonly in their presence not preach, nor baptize, nor administer the Communion, but also in some places they might not preach at all, nor any where baptize, vnlesse they fetched their Chrisme from the Bishop, against which practises of the Bishops Ierome in some places of his works doth inueigh.Ad Nepotian. & de …. ordin. Eccles.

But that which troubled him most was, that the Deacons in his time, especially at Rome, because they had more wealth (as the fashion of the world is) thought themselues better men then the Presbyters. For the confutation of whom, he seeketh to aduance the Presbyters aboue the Deacons as much as he can; and may seeme to match them, more then truth would permit, with the Bishops. For which, the onelyonly ground which he hath is this, because the name Bishop and Presbyter were for a while in the Apostles times confounded. Which (God knoweth) is a weak ground, and easily out of his owne writings ouerturned.

p. 116§ 2. The first allegation. Hier. in Tit. 1.Titus 1But let vsus examine the particulars. First it is alledged out of Ierome, that vntill factions did arise in the Church, some saying I am of Paul, I am of Apollo, &c. the Churches were gouerned by the common counsell of the Presbyters: but when they began to draw Disciples after them, namely such as themselues had baptised, it was agreed in the whole world, that one being chosen from among the Presbyters, should be set ouer the rest, to whom the whole care of the Church should belong, and that the seede of schismes might be taken away.

Whereunto I answered, first, that this speech in respect of the Church of Ierusalem is vntrue, which was first gouerned by the Apostles in common, and after committed to Iames in particular, before we read of any Presbyters there ordained.

Ad pag. 148.The refuter replieth, that my consequence is naught, for euen whiles the Church was gouerned in common by the Apostles, it was not gouerned without the counsell of the Presbyters of the same Church, much lesse did Iames afterwards take the whole authority into his owne hands, from them. Which exception of his is of no force, because there were no Presbyters ordayned in that Church, when it was gouerned by the common counsell of the Apostles; and I added, which he should hauehave disproued, if he would hauehave said any thing to the purpos…, that Iames was assigned Bishop to that Church, before we read of any Presbyters ordayned in, or to that Church. For if Iames were Bishop of that Church before it had Presbyters, then was not that Church ruled by the common counsell of Presbyters, before they had a Bishop. Iames indeed after he was Bishop, ordayned Presbyters, whose counsell and assistance he did vse in the gouernment and instruction of that Church (as other Bishops vsed to doe in the like case) as wee read Act. 15. and 21.

Yea but the whole multitude saith he, as appeareth by Act. 6.2.5. had the choise of Church-officers. What then? therefore the Church was not gouerned by the common counsell of the Apostles, or was gouerned by the common p. 117counsell of Presbyters? Because the Greekish Iewes (which had their Liturgy and scriptures in the Greeke tongue) were discontented with the Apostles distribution of the Churches stocke, the Apostles therefore to auoid contention and scandall, and to giuegive eueryevery one contentment, departed from their right, and willed the whole multitude to choose seauen, whom wee (say the Apostles) may appoint to this busines. Surely, if where the Presbyters are erected, the people, who doe contribute to the releife of the poore, are permitted to make choise of ouerseers & collectors for the poore; it wer but a simple consequence to inferre hereupon, that therefore the Churches are not gouerned by the common counsell of Presbyters.

And to as little purpose, or rather lesse, is that which followeth. If the Apostles altogether, or Iames alone afterterwards, had by vertue of their extraordinarie calling the power of ordination and iurisdiction in …heir hands, in that, as in all other Churches; yet the Pastors of the Churches afterwards, being no Apostles, had no such vnlimited power; and so Ierome still speaketh truely of the ordinary gouernment of the Church. And so Ierome still spake vntruely, in respect of the Church of Ierusalem. I doe confesse, this was peculiar to the Church of Ierusalem, and differing from the order of other Churches: that the Church of Ierusalem had a Bishop before it had Presbyters of her owne. And therefore though I did not deny his speech to be vntrue in respect of other Churches; yet I proued it to be vntrue, in respect of Ierusalem, by his owne testimony. But before I come to the sifting thereof, there are two other things to be noted in this speech of the refuter. For that which he pratleth of Iames his sole power exercised in the Church of Ierusalem, by vertue of his extraordinarie calling , is altogether impertinent: seeing Ierome, of whom the question is,Catalog. in Iacobo. confesseth, that hee was Bishop, and ruled that Church as the Bishop thereof thirtie yeeres. Neither is it true, that the ordinarie Pastors of that Church had not the like power therein, p. 118which Iames had. For there is no question, but what authority Iames had in the gouernment of that particular Church of Ierusalem, Simon his successor had the same, and all the Bishops of Ierusalem after him.

§ 3. Ieromes speech vntrue in respect of Ierusalem. Catalog. in Iaco.Now, that Ieromes speech was vntrue in respect of Ierusalem, I proued by Ieromes owne testimony; affirming, that Iames straight wayes after the passion of our Lord was by the Apostles ordayned Bishop of Ierusalem. Here the refuter hath found out a quirke, which if it were true, would not yet serue his turne. The quirke is, that Ierome is mistaken by false pointing and reading, for that straight way belongeth not to Iames his being made Bishop: but is brought to shew, that Iohn maketh mention of him, immediately after he hath spoken of our Lords passion. So that Ierome doth not say, that Iames straight wayes after the passion of our Lord was ordayned Bishop of Ierusalem, but that Iohn mentioned him presently after hee had spoken of the passion of our Lord. Let me lay downe the whole sentence, that it may appeare more plainely. Iames saith Ierome, who is called the brother of our Lord, surnamed Iustus: the sonne as many thinke of Ioseph by another wife: as it seemeth to me of Mary the sister of our Lords mother; of whom Iohn in his booke maketh mention, after the passion of our Lord straight wayes, (statim, id est, continenter & immediate vt loquuntur, Iohn 19.25. saith Iunius) who was ordayned Bishop of Ierusalem by the Apostles. And this manner of reading is auouched by Sophronius, that translated that booke of Ierome into Greeke, who maketh the distinction presently after straight wayes, seuering that word from his ordination by the Apostles. Among many other proofes of his learning & iudgement, the refuter giueth this for one. For first, this subtility hee receiued from Iunius as he doth professe, but exceedingly dulled by comming through his fingers. For whereas Iunius referr…th the word of whom to Mary the sister of our Lords mother,Contr. Bellarm. controu. 5. l. 1. c. 15. § 18. of whom Iohn maketh mention straight waies after the passion of our Lord Iohn 19.25. our learned refuter referreth it to Iames, & that twice for failing. But though he might be mistaken in the English of Ieromes cuius, yet me p. 119thinkes so learned a man should hauehave known that foreign, in Sophronius, should hauehave beene referred to her and not to him. But let that passe. To iustifie his correction of this place of Ierom, he saith this manner of reading is auowed by Sophronius, &c. which is neither so, nor so. For between the Greeke and the Latine there is onelyonly this difference (in that edition which I hauehave, being as I suppose the best) that whereas in the Latine, there is a Colon at the word filius, which followeth meminit; in the Greeke, there is but a Comma; but at the word statim in Latin, and foreign in Greeke, no distinction at all. The Latine words are these, vt mihi autem videtur, Mariae sororis matris Domini cuius Ioannes in libro suo memunt, filius: p…st passionem Domini statim ab Apostolis Hierosolymorum Episcopus ordinatus. The Greeke, these, foreign. For the correction it self, I would be loth to contest with Iunius, neither is that subtilty which he hath found out preiudiciall to my assertion, as you shall heare; notwithstanding I must needs say, he was greatly transported with preiudice, when he would referre the aduerbe statim to the verbe meminit, rather then to the participle ordinatus. For though both the Comma and Colon that come betweene them were taken away, yet the word filius comming also betweene, cleane spoileth his conceipt. For can any man of indifferency thinke, that Ierome being an elegant writer, if he had meant that the aduerbe statim should hauehave waited on the verbe meminit, would hauehave disposed it thus, cuius Ioannes meminit filius post passionem Domini statim ab Apostolis Hierosolymorum Episcopus ordinatus? But now weigh the refuters iudgement. Suppose, that this place were read as Iunius would hauehave it, and that Iames were not so presently made Bishop of Ierusalem after Christs passion, as Ieromes words seeme to import, but that after the Apostles he tooke the gouernment of the Church of Ierusalem, as Ierome citeth out of Hegesippus; what is all this, but the same that my selfe set downe in the Sermon p. 120both in this place also pag. 68. in these words, the Apostles first ioyntly ruled the Church at Ierusalem, but being to goe into all the world, and no longer to be accounted members of that particular Church, ordained Iames to be Bishop. And that charge which before they had in common, they now comitted to him in particular. And this is that, which Ierome citeth out of Hegesippus, who saith, Iames the brother of our Lord surnamed Iustus receiued or vndertooke the Church of Ierusalem after the Apostles. And if the refuter will needs expound after the Apostles, to signifie after their departing from Ierusalem, I must intreat him to take with him the words both of Eusebius, Lib. 2. c. 23. Ibid. Eusebius in his Chronicle noteth Iames to hauehave beene made B▪ of Ierusalem, in the same yeere wherin Christ was crucified, that is, according to his computation Anno 33.who sometimes saith, the throne of that Bishopricke was committed to him, foreign, of the Apostles; therefore before their dispersion; & sometimes foreign, with the Apostles: therefore whiles they were present; and also of Ierome, who plainely saith, that he was ordained Bishop of Ierusalem by the Apostles: but chiefly that he will remember, that the words straight wayes after the passion of our Lord, are to be ioyned with the other words, ordayned by the Apostles: then will he acknowledge himselfe satisfied for this point.

§ 4. Secondly I answered in respect of other Churches; that which Ierome saith,In respect of other Churches Ieromes testimonie doth not proue that for which it is alledged. neither proueth that the office of Bishops and Presbyters were confounded, neither doth it hinder, but that the distinct office of Bishops is of Apostolicall institution. Both the parts of this answere I explaned and confirmed. The former thus: it is true, that for a time the Presbyters by common counsell gouerned the Churches, but as vnderunder the Apostles, who kept in their own hands the Episcopall authority; they, I meane the Presbyters, hauing neither the right of ordination, nor the power of outward or publike iurisdiction. This therefore doth not proue, that the offices of BB. & Presbyters wer confounded. The name of B. was confounded with Presbyter, but the office and authority of the B. was as yet in the Apostles; the Presbyters being such then vnderunder the Apostles, as they were afterwards vnderunder the p. 121Bishops. The latter thus: but when the Apostles were to discontinue, from those Churches which they had planted, then were BB. substituted. Whereunto the factious behauiour of the Presbyters (whereof Ierome speaketh) might be some inducement.foreign. Arist. For parity indeed breedeth faction and confusion; for the auoyding whereof when the Apostles should be absent, BB. were instituted: but when, and where, and by whom, and to what end, let Ierome himselfe testifie. The summe is, that although for a time the Churches were gouerned by the common counsell of Presbyters; yet this doth not hinder, but that the Episcopall function is of diuine institution. For after a while the Apostles ordayned BB. as Ierome himselfe doth most plainely and fully testifie, shewing the places where, and the persons whom, and the time when, and the end wherefore, they ordaynd them.

Now let vsus see,Ad pag. 149. what the Refuter can reply against this answer. Forsooth as if he knew, or regarded no lawes of disputation, he thrusts himselfe into the answerers place, and maketh me the opponent, casting my answer into a Syllogisme, and bids me proue eueryevery part and parcell of it, or else all that I say is to little purpose; himselfe in the meane while, who should follow the argument which I answered, and take away my answer, goeth about to proue nothing, but himselfe to be a shifting Sophister. I thinke it was neuer heard in disputation, that the opponent hauing receiued the answere, and reciting the summe thereof, saying, sic respondes, would cast it into a Syllogisme and then bid the answerer proue the parts thereof. But such a disputer am I matched with. And how I pray you doth he reduce my answere into a Syllogisme? that vvhichwhich I brought to cleare the former part of my answer, is made the argument to proue both the parts in a filthy long Syllogisme; and that vvhichwhich I added to proue the latter part, he mentioneth as straggling speches brought in to no purpose. This is his analysing, which whether it be done of vnskilfulnes, or wilfulnes, I refer it to his owne conscience I cannot iudge therof, because I know not the man.

But if my answere must needes be reduced into Syllogismes,§ 5. p. 122I would intreat,The Presbyters gouerning the Church by common counsell, doth not proue that the office of Presbyters and BB. is confounded. that the parts thereof may seuerally be concluded, as they were by me seuerally explicated; and then, that the first Syllogisme may be this; If whiles the Churches were gouerned by the common counsell of Presbyters, the Presbyters did gouerne the same as vnderunder the Apostles, the Episcopall office and authority being not in them but in the Apostles, the Presbyters being such then vnderunder the Apostles as they were afterwards vnderunder the Bishops: then their gouerning of the Church by common counsell doth not proue, that the office of a B. and a Presbyter was confounded. But the antecedent is true in all the parts thereof: Therefore the consequent. The consequence I did illustrate by this distinction, the name of Bishop was confounded with Presbyter, but the office was not, for that was not in the Presbyters, but in the Apostles. The consequence when it was worse for the addition of the second part, the Refuter granted; yet he thought good to gather out of it this worthy obseruation, that if there was a time before there were Bishops. When the Presbyters gouerned the Churches as vnderunder the Apostles; then all that while there were no Diocesan Bishops (the Refuter speaketh sentences) and so no distinction betweene a Bishop and a Presbyter in office. This, and so, could not well be gathered out of the proposition, being repugnant vntounto it; for if there were no distinction betweene the office of a Bishop and a Presbyter, then were the offices confounded. Suppose the common-wealth of Iewry, being a Prouince vnderunder the Emperour of Rome, had beene gouerned by the Synedrion or common counsell of the Seniors for a time, vntill the Emperour had placed a soueraigne King ouer them, as hee did Herod; it might be said, that for a time that commonwealth was gouerned by the common counsell of their Elders, but as vnderunder the Emperour, who kept the regall authority in his owne hands. Hereof it might not be infered, that the office of the Senatours and of a King were confounded. For the soueraignty was in the Emperour, and the p. 123Senatours might hauehave beene the same vnderunder their King, which they had beene vnderunder the Emperour, &c.

As touching the assumption, he saith, it should hauehave beene proued; and I say, if he were able, he should hauehave disproued it. For my part, I was in this place the answerer; and the parts of the assumption be such, as either had beene before cleared, or seemed to neede no proofe. For first, that the Presbyters ruled the Churches as vnderunder the Apostles, it is manifest. That the Episcopall authority consisting specially in the power of Ordination, and publicke Iurisdiction, was not in them but in the Apostles; partly was proued before, to wit, that Presbyters neuer had it; and partly needed no proofe, viz. that the Apostles had it. And surely little need had Paul to hauehave sent Timothie to Ephesus, and Titus to Creet, to exercise the power of Ordination and publicke Iurisdiction in those Churches; if the Presbyters had the same before they came. But still I desire some euidence, whereby the deriuation of this power of Ordination and Iurisdiction, from the Apostles to the Presbyters, or people, may be warranted. Thirdly, that the Presbyters were the same vnderunder the Apostles then, which they were afterwards vnderunder the Bishops, I take for a certaine truth. For if they were the same vnderunder Timothie and Titus, that they were vnderunder the Apostles; then questionlesse they were the same vnderunder the Bishops, who hauehave no other function, nor exercise any other authority, then that which Timothie and Titus had and exercised in Ephesus and Creet. And these I hope are reasons sufficient to approue the former part of my answere, vntill the refuter who is the opponent, be able to disproue it. The second part of my answere may be concluded thus.§ 6. The Presbyters ruling the Church by cō mon counsell for a time, doth not hinder, but that the Episcopall function is of Apostolicall institution.

If after a while, namely when the Apostles were to discontinue from the Churches which they had planted, the Apostles themselues ordayned BB. then the Presbyters ruling of the Churches by common counsell for a time, doth not hinder, but that the Episcopall function is of Apostolicall institution:

But the former is true: Therefore the latter.

p. 124The consequence needeth no proofe: the assumption I proue by Ieromes owne testimony. For if Ierome doe testifie, that the Apostles ordayned BB. and withall doe note the time when, the place where, and the end wherefore, then doth he giuegive plentifull testimony to this truth: But Ierome doth testifie, that the Apostles ordayned BB. and withall noteth the time when, the place where, and the end wherfore. The time and place he noteth:The time in generall when BB. were first ordayned according to Ierome. first generally, the time when Bishops were ordayned was in the Apostles time: the place where, in all the world: Which two if you ioyne together, it will appeare that by Ieromes testimony the function of BB. is of Apostolicall institution. For it is vtterly incredible, that BB. should be ordayned in all parts of the Christian world in the Apostles times, and yet not be of the Apostles ordayning.

That Ierome helde BB. to be ordayned in the Apostles time, I proue out of the place alledged; when factions began to spring in the Church, saith Ierome, some saying I am of Paul, I am of Apollo, I am of Cephas; which was in the Apostles times, 1 Cor. 1. and it were fond to imagine, that factions did not begin till after their time.

Ad pag. 150.This argument the Refuter would discredit, because Sanders vseth the like, and his owne answere he would credit with the name and countenance of certaine learned men; which is one of his ordinary shifts to bleare the eyes of the simple, who many times respect more who speaketh, then what is said. But my argument standeth thus:

When the factions began, whereof Ierome speaketh, BB. were ordayned, as he saith:

In the Apostles times the factions began, whereof Ierome speaketh:

Therefore in the Apostles times Bishops were ordayned, as he saith.

The effect of the answere which hee bringeth is, that Ierome speaking of Schismes which did arise after the Apostles times, alludeth to that speech of the Apostle; not that hee thought Bishops were ordayned in those times, but that hee p. 125might shew, that schisme was the cause of changing the order of Church-gouernment. Which answere might hauehave some shew of probability, if Ierome himselfe did not both in other places, which I cite, most plainely testifie, that Bishops were ordayned in the Apostles times; and also in the place alledged expressely speake of those factions which did arise in Corinth, and other places in the Apostles times. The factions whereof he speaketh, did arise from hence, that vnusquis que eos quos baptizauerat suos putabat esse non Christi, saith Ierome, eueryevery one esteemed those whom he had baptized to be his owne and not Christs. Now it is apparant, that this is the very thing which Paul reproueth in the Corinthians, that eueryevery one sayd they were his who aa1 Cor 1.14.16.1 Cor 1:141 Cor 1:16had baptized them, and therefore thanketh God that he had baptized none of them, but Crispus and Gaius, and the houshold of Stephanas. For by this meanes, as Caluin bbin 1 Cor. 4.14.1 Cor 4:14also obserueth,cc1 Cor. 4.6.1 Cor 4:6 the factious and ambitious teachers (whom he meant vnderunder the name of Paul and Apollos) sought to draw Disciples after them. Yea but Ierome in his Epistle to Evagrius, sheweth that in the Apostles times Bishop and Presbyter was all one; and that afterwards Bishops were first ordayned as a remedy against schisme. To this I hauehave answered before, shewing that Ierome there proueth that the names at the first were confounded, and the same men were called Presbyters and Bishops vntill one out of the Presbyters in eueryevery Church was chosen, and set aboue the rest, and called a Bishop. Which Ierome there confesseth to hauehave bin done euer since St. Markes time, and therefore in the time of the Apostles. For the first Bishops were not chosen out of the Presbytery of the Churches, whereof they were made BB. but were Apostolicall men, I meane either Apostles, or some of their companions and assistants: all which while, the Bishops were called Apostles, as I shewed out of Theodoret: the names Presbyter & Episcopus being as yet confounded. And whereas he saith, that I answered euen now, the course of gouernment was not changed at the first when facti…s began, he doth but threapen p. 126kindnesse on mee: for I said no such thing. If therefore Ierome teacheth that Bishops were ordayned when factions began: and also that in the Apostles time factions did begin; then in Ieromes iudgement Bishops were ordayned in the Apostles times; but Ierome teacheth both the one and the other, as is manifest by that which hath beene said.

§ 7. The place in generall where BB. were ordayned according to Ierome. In Tit. 1.Titus 1As touching the Place; Ierome saith, in toto orbe decretum est, it was decreed in the whole world, that one being chosen from among the Presbyters should be set ouer the rest, to whom the whole care of eueryevery Church should appertaine. From whence I reason thus.

A generall decree in the whole Christian world could not be made in the Apostles times without the authority and consent of the Apostles:

This generall decree was made in the Apostles times:

Therefore not without their authority and consent.

The assumption I proue thus: This generall decree in the whole world was made either in the Apostles times, or neare their times. But not neare their times, for there could no such generall decree be made without a generall Councill. And there was no generall councill before the councill of Nice, before which councill there were not onelyonly Diocesan and Metropolitane Bishops but also Patriarches.

Ad pag. 151.The Refuter answereth, that Ieromes words deceiue mee. For though Ierome saith it was decreed, yet he doth not meane that it was decreed, but that it came from custome, and that paulatim, by little and little. The Refuters answere therefore maketh Ierome to contradict himselfe; whose speeches notwithstanding are thus reconciled. For that which hee there calleth custome, in another place eeAd Euagr.hee termeth an Apostolicall tradition, and the Apostolicall tradition is that vniuersall decree which hee speaketh of. And vvhere Ierome saith, by little and little that the rootes of discension might be plucked vp, the whole care was committed to one: that is to be vnderstood thus; that although it were agreed vponupon at once, and decreed to be put in practise in the vvhole vvorld; yet it vvas not practised at once in the p. 127whole world, but first in one Church, as at Ierusalem, after in Antioch, then in Rome, after in Alexandria, in all which Churches not onelyonly the first Bishops were ordayned in the Apostles times, but their successours also, and that by the testimonie of Ierome himselfe as followeth in the next proofe.

For hauing thus shewed in generall both the time and place out of Ierome, § 8. Ierome testifieth in particular whom, where, when, & wherfore the Apostles ordayned Bishops.when and where Bishops were ordayned, that is to say, in the Apostles times, in the whole world, and consequently that they were ordayned by the Apostles: in the next place I declare more particularly out of Ierome, that by the Apostles Bishops were first ordayned; noting also the persons whom, and the places where, and the time when, they ordayned Bishops. Doth not Ierome plainely testifie that Iames ffCatal. in Iacobo.was by the Apostles ordayned Bishop of Ierusalem, before their departure thence: that when hee had gouerned that Church 30. yeares, Simon ggCatal. in Simone.his brother, or kinsman, succeeded him in the Bishopricke, who liuing vntill he was 120. yeares old was crucified vnderunder Traiane?

Doth not he witnesse that Ignatius hhCatal. in Ign.was the third Bishop of Antioch in the Apostles times? that Marke iiProaem. in Mat.was the first Bishop of Alexandria, and that he dying kkCatal. in Marco.at Alexandria in the eight of Nero (that is foure or fiue yeares before the death of Peter and Paul) Anianus succ…eded him?

Doth he not say, that Cl…mens llCatal. in Clem.was the fourth Bishop of Rome after Peter. For, saith he, Linus was the second, Anacletus the third, all in the Apostles times?

Doth hee not expresly testifie that Polycarpus mmCatal. in Polycarp.was S. Iohns Disciple, and by him ordayned Bishop of Smyrna? and is it not testified in the same Catalogue that Timothie nnCatal. in Timoth. & Tit.was of blessed Paul ordayned B. of the Ephesians, and that Titus was B. of Creet?

Hereunto the Refuter maketh an answere like himselfe, that hee hath often told me, that Iames, Marke and Timothie neither were, nor might be Bishops. And I hauehave often tolde him of his poore shifts, whereof this is one. For the question being here, not whether these men simply were Bishops or p. 128not, but whether Ierome saith so, or no; I hauing alledged plaine testimonies of Ierome auerring that they were Bishops: he, in steed of maintayning his assertion, which was that Ierome testifieth Bishops not to hauehave beene ordayned vntill after the Apostles times, giueth Ierome the lye, but answereth not to the point. For if Ierome testifie, that these men were Bishops in the Apostles times, how is not he ashamed to say, that in Ieromes opinion there were no Bishops in the Apostles times?

And where he saith that Polycarpe (and the like no doubt would say of Linus, and Clemens, and Ignatius &c.) was the ordinarie Pastor of that one congregation at Smyrna, and no Diocesan Bishop: which euasion I hauehave heretofore auoided, I desire this answere may be compared with the next, which he maketh concerning the end.

§ 9. The end of ordayning BB. according to Ierome. Aduers. Lucifer.The end, saith Ierome, was to auoid Schisme, and acknowledgeth that for the same end they are to be retayned; professing, that the safety of the Church dependeth vponupon the dignitie of the Bishop, to whom if a peerelesse power and eminent aboue all be not yeelded, there would be as many Schismes in the Churches as Priests.

The Refuter answereth, that some say, the remedy was almost worse then the disease. But first, what is this to the purpose? that the Refuter had rather there should be a Schisme in eueryevery Parish, then a Bishop of the Diocese? it was Ieromes iudgement, that I opposed to their allegation out of Ierome. And if Ierome testifie, that in the Apostles times Bishops vvere ordayned to auoyd Schisme, and that this was a necessarie remedie, insomuch that he doubteth not to say that the safety of the Church dependeth vponupon it; it was as much as in this place either I intended, or could by the aduersarie be required. Secondly, where Ierome saith, that Bishops were ordayned for auoyding of Schisme, hee meaneth such Schisme as the Presbyters (vvhom hee calleth Sacerdotes, Priests) would make, if there were not one in eueryevery Church set ouer them, to vvhom the care of that vvhole Church should belong. Novv applie the Refuters p. 129answere concerning Polycarpus, which is his ordinarie answere, that the first BB. were but ordinarie Pastors of one congregation, such as wee call Rectors or Pastors of seuerall parishes. Were such ordained to auoide schisme among priests? or were not such the priests, whose schisme was to be auoided by setting one B. in eueryevery diocese ouer them? or could the refuter thinke, that the ordaining of such ordinarie pastors was a remedie worse then the disease? is it not therefore cleare, that the Bishops, whom Ierome acknowledgeth to hauehave beene in the Apostles times, were not ordinarie Pastors of seuerall congregations or parishes, equall to other Presbyters;In excelfjiori gradu ad Euagr. but one in eueryevery diocese set in a superiour degree aboue the rest to preserue them in vnitie and to keepe them from schisme?

Thirdly, where to the iudgement of Ierome he opposeth the testimonie of others, who say the remedie was almost worse then the disease, because this superioritie of BB. did breed the Papacy: this sheweth, that great and sound D…uines sometimes let fall, especiallie when they write foreign, vnsound speeches grounded on weake proofes. For how is it prou… that the superioritie of Bishops did breed the supremacie of the Pope. Because as at the first one Presbyter was before the rest, and made a Bishop, so afterwards one B. was preferred aboue the rest, so this custome bred the Pope and his Monarchy. By which reason, all superioritie should be condemned as the originall of the Popes supremacie. For might not a man as well say, that as one Presbyter in eueryevery parish is superiour to the rest according to their conceipt; so one Pastor which is the Bishop in euerie diocese is superiour to the other Pastors, &c.

But indeed the superioritie of Bishops is so far from breeding the Papacy as the cause or originall,§ 10. That the superioritie of BB. did not breed the Papacy. that it was not so much as any direct occasion thereof. Yea so farre vvas it from breeding the oecumenicall B. of the whole world, that it did not breed the Patriarckeship in the maine parts of the world, nor yet the superioritie of the Metropolitanes in the seuerall prouinces. For the superioritie of Metropolitanes p. 131did arise as Beza supposeth from the very light of nature directing, and force of necessitie vrging men to that course: but as I rather thinke from the institution of the Apostles, after whose times the first originall of them cannot be shewen. For although actually they were not Primates, till in the seuerall dioceses of the prouince Bishops were ordained; yet the euent plainely sheweth it was from the beginning intended that the Bishop of the mother citie should be the chiefe in the prouince. And you hauehave heard before how in the Apostles times Ignatius the B. of Antioch was the Metropolitane B. of Syria, and in the age following Philippe the Metropolitane B of Creet, and Irenaeus the B. of Lyons was the Metropolitane of the churches in France. And although not long after the Patriarches were acknowledged and in the councill of Nice established in a godly policie, as Caluin, Calu. Iust. l. 4. c. 4. § 4. Bez. Confes. c. 5. § 29. Zanch. de relig. obseru. in cap. 25.Beza and Zanchius confesse, yet neither did the superioritie of Bishops breede them; nor they, the Papacy. The true originall of the superioritie of Bishops Metropolitanes, and Patriarches in their circuites was the patterne of ciuill gouernment in the Romane Empire, diuided into certaine precin…ts, which the Church did follow. Whereas therefore to each citie the countrey adioyning was subiect, the Apostles first placed Bishops in the cities, committing to their charge not only the citie but countrey subiect to it, which wee call a Diocese, wherein from the beginning, there was neuer more lawfully then one B. and whereas in eueryevery prouince, wherein were many Cities, there was one Metropolis or mother citie, where the ruler of that prouince was seated; in like manner, so soone as Bishops were placed in the seuerall cities, they acknowledged the B. of their mother citie their primate, and chiefe B. of the Prouince. And as the whole Empire was diuided among certaine gouernours, who were called praefecti praetorio, whereof one was placed in Rome hauing the gouernment of Italy, Affricke and part of Illyricum. A second in Alexandria hauing the rule of Egypt, Lybia, Pentapolis &c. A third at Antioch, ruling Syria and p. 131other countreyes of the East. A fourth in France gouerning France, Germanie, Spaine and Britaine; so the diuers prouinces subiect to the praefecti praetorio, at least the three former, were subiected to the Bishops of the same sees, who afterwards were called Patriarches; whose Patriarchal authoritie was ratified in the Councill of Nice;Con. Nic. c. 6. to wit, that according to the auncient custome the B. of Rome should hauehave the care sub vrbicarum prouinciarum as Ruffinus reporteth that Canon, that is as I suppose, of the prouinces belonging to that pretorian prefecture, that the B. of Alexandria should hauehave the gouernment of Egypt, Lybia and Pentapolis, and the B. of Antioch the regiment of Syria and other countreyes in the East. After Constantinople, was built, and made the seat of the Empire, diuers countreyes were subiect to the prefecture, and consequently to the Bishopricke thereof.

Neither as I said did the superioritie of Patriarches (though perhaps larger, then was absolutely needfull, because the Ecclesiasticall causes of eueryevery prouince might be sufficiently determined in the prouincial Synodes) notwithstanding I say, it did not breede the Popes supremacie. Which did arise from another occasion: which was this. The Bishop of Constantinople, considering that the Churches of Alexandria and Antioch had that prerogatiue which they had, because they were seates of praefecti praetorio; and Rome, because it had beene the seate not onelyonly of the praefectus, but of the Emperour himselfe, (though at that time in respect of ciuill gouernment it were subiect to the Exarch of Rauenna, for which cause the Archbishop of Rauenna contended with the B. of Rome for the superioritie) and with all remembring, that Constantinople vvas the seate of the Empire; contended therefore, that as the Emperour, who had his seate at Constantinople, was the Monarch of the world, so himselfe might be acknowledged the vniuersall B. or oecumenicall Patriarch. The which ambition, though it were condemned by Gregorie the B. of Rome as Antichristian (for there is no vniuersall B. or head p. 132of the whole Church but Christ) yet his successor Boniface the third, did imitate, and exceede. Alledging, that Rome whereof hee was Bishop was the ancient seate of the Empire, and that the Emperour though hee remained at Constantinople, yet hee was the Romane Emperour. At length with much a doe, and contention, obtained of the Emperour Phocas, not only that he should be called an Oecumenicall Patriarch, (for that title the B. of Constantinople hauing once vsurped, enioyed it, as well as hee, and doth retayne it to this day) but that his See should be head of all Churches. And this was the true originall of the Popes supremacie.

§ 11. Ieromes inference vrged.Serm sect. 12. pag. 89. Secondly they vrge Ieromes inference in that place; Presbyters at the first ruled the Church by common counsell, therefore the BB. and they ought to rule the Church in common still.

The refuter denyeth this inference to be Ieromes, or that any hath vrged such an inference from him. When indeed the inference plainely is Ieromes, and is that which among all their obiections, is to best purpose obiected by the Disciplinarians. Ierome had said before, that in the writings of the Apostles Episcopus and Presbyter is all one; and that before factions did arise by the instinct of the Diuell, some saying I am of Paul, &c. the Churches were gouerned by the common counsell of Presbyters, &c. Of those speeches when hee had made a briefe recitall, haecpropterea, &c. he maketh an inference to this effect, that for as much as Episcopus and Presbyter were all one at the first, therefore both Presbyters should know themselues to be subiect to the B. and BB superiour to the Presbyters by the custome of the Church, &c. And for as much as at the first the p. 133churches were gouerned by the common councell of the Presbyters, as vnderunder the Apostles, that therefore the B. being set ouer the Presbyters should not altogether exclude them, but should in communi Ecclesiā regere rule the church in common; imitating Moses, who, when hee had in his power to rule the people of Israel alone, chose seauenty, with whom he might iudge the people.

Which obiection, being better then any the refuter hath made in this booke, I will not let it passe without some answere. For it appeareth that neither the Apostles or Apostolicall men being Bishops, were simply bound to vse the councell of the Presbyters, but that the vse of them was voluntarie, after the example of Moses, as Ierome saith; and the auncient Bishops of the Primitiue Church who vvere of the best disposition, (as Cyprian by name) did follow their example, resoluing to doe nothing of moment, without their counsell and aduise: seeking therein the good and peace of the Church. And this custome was vsed by all godly Bishops, vntill as I said, the Presbyters aduise and assistance, to themselues seeming troublesome, and to the B. by reason of the frequent Synodes and Synodall constitutions needlesse, grew out of vse; whereupon Canons vvere made that their counsell and assistance should be required an had in greater matters, which is not misliked but wished to be more vsed. And so much may suffice to hauehave answered an obiection; which the refuter doth not acknowledge.

I proceede therefore to the third,§ 12. Ad pag. 152. The chiefe obiection that BB. are greater then Presbyters by the custome of the church not by Diuine ordinance. which is as it vvere the shoote-anchor of the Disciplinarians; which fayling their Discipline vvill suffer shipwracke. Presbyters and Bishops were all one; therefore Bishops are to know that they be greater then the Presbyters, rather by the custome of the Church, then by the truth of Diuine disposition.

To this obiection I returned two answeres: the first, that where Ierome saith Episcopus and Presbyter is all one, it may be vndertooke of the names, vvhichwhich hee proueth by many nnPhil. 1.1. Acts 20.17.28. Tit. 1.5.7. 1 Pet. 5.Phil 1:1Acts 20:17Acts 20:28Titus 1:5Titus 1:71 Pet 5testimonies to be confounded in the vvritings of the p. 134Apostles. And in this sense it is true, that whereas now Episcopus is more then Presbyter, it is to be ascribed to the custome of the Church, as before I hauehave noted out of Theodoret. And in the same sense Augustine ooEpist. 19. ad Hier.is to be vnderstood, vvhen hee saith, according to the names of honour in which the vse of the Church hath preuailed Episcopatus, Bishopship is a name of greater honour then Presbyterium.

The refuter comming to examine this answere, saith, I denyed the Antecedent , vvhen as indeed I granting the Antecedent, in that sense vvhichwhich I giuegive in the answere, denyed the consequence. That although the distinction of the names vvas not by diuine disposition, but by the custome of the Church: yet that hindreth not, but the function may be of Apostolicall institution. Seeing they vvhichwhich at the first vvere ordayned by the Apostles to the Episcopal function, though they vvere not called Bishops till they were chosen out of the Presbyters, yet vvere called sometimes the Apostles, sometimes the Angels of the churches. So that when the names were confounded, the offices were not. But the refuter censureth this distinction as an idle conceipt and shift hauing no colour of excuse for it. As though it needed excuse, vvhen I brought iust defence of it, vvhichwhich hee is not able to answere. For how shall Ieromes minde be knowne in that assertion, that Episcopus and Presbyter was all one, but by the proofes vvhichwhich he bringeth for it? but all his proofes are that the names vvere confounded in the vvritings of the Apostles; and that the same men were called Presbiteri & Episcopi, and that was all that Ierome could truely inferre out of those places. For if hee would hauehave concluded out of them that the offices vvere confounded, his consequences would be very weake.

The second defence of my answere vvas this, that Ierome is to be vnderstood eyther of the names or of the offices: But not of the offices, therefore of the names. If you shall vnderstand Ierome, as affirming that the offices were confounded, and denying that the office and superioritie of Bishops was of Diuine disposition, in that sense p. 135that Apostolicall ordinances may be said to be of Diuine Institution, you shall make Ierome, not onelyonly to striue against the streame of all Antiquitie; but also to be contrarie to himselfe; but this latter is absurd; so is the former.

To the former reason the refuter answereth not,§ 13. The refuters reply, that Ierome is not to be vnderstood as speaking of the names. but bringeth a reason or two, such as they be to ouerthrow my distinctions, seeking as we say clauum clauo pellere. Can any man be so sotttish, saith he, as to imagine that the question betwixt Ierome and those Deacons was about names, not offices? or would Ierome reason so simply as to proue the dignitie of the Presbyters aboue Deacons, because the name of Presbyter and Episcopus was all one? it were absurd to spend more time in answering so vnreasonable a distinction. You see how bragge our refuter is, when hee seemeth to hauehave gotten neuer so little aduantage. To his former question I answere, that although the question vvas concerning the office of Presbyters and Deacons vvhether were superiour; yet Ierome might, and indeede did proue the Presbyters to be superiour, because as the Apostles did call themselues Presbyters, so Presbyters vvere called Bishops. Yea but saith he in the second question, Ierome would not reason so simply. Whereto I answere, that not onelyonly learned men, but the holy Ghost also in the ScripturesqqHeb. 1.Heb 1 doth reason to that purpose, prouing their dignitie to be greater vvho hauehave obtained a greater name. For as the Philosophers rrPlat. Arist.say, names are the resemblances and imitations of the things.

Secondly hee obiecteth the authoritie of diuerse new, and I confesse, worthy Diuines,foreign. who thinke that Ierome maketh a Bishop and a Presbyter all one, not in name onelyonly, but in office also. Which is a kinde of arguing frequent with this refuter, but seldome or neuer vsed by any writer of worth. Against his authorities therefore that Ierome was of that iudgement, I feare not to oppose the reasons which I produced, and namely the second. But saith hee we neede not stand in feare of that glittering flourish, whereby wee are p. 136charged to make Ierome striue against the streame of all Antiquitie, and to be contrarie to himselfe, if eyther hee confound the functions or deny it to be an Apostolicall ordinance, that Bishops should be set ouer the Presbyters. What one testimonie of Antiquitie within the first two hundred yeares, eyther hath beene, or can be alledged to that purpose? of as little force are the allegations which M. D. saith, hee hath cited out of Ieromes writings. In both which answeres the refuter sheweth himselfe to be very impudent. For first, that the office or degree of Bishop and Presbyter are distinct; hauehave I not brought forth most plaine and plentiful proofes, out of Ignatius, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, and other auncient writers? that Bishops were ordayned by the Apostles, hauehave I not alledged most pregnant testimonies out of Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hegesippus and Clemens, cited by Eusebius? and can it seeme doubtfull to any, that shall reade vvhat is alledged by mee and the refuter in this controuersie which way the streame of Antiquitie runneth? And as for Ierome, vvhat more plaine testimonies can be desired, then those vvhichwhich I brought to proue, that in his iudgement Bishops vvere ordayned by the Apostles. And that Ierome neuer thought, that the office of Bishop and Presbyter was confounded, it may further appeare by these reasons. For vvhere Paul vvriteth to the Bishops and Deacons at Philippi, here, saith Ierome ssHier. in Phil. 1.Phil 1, by Bishops wee vnderstand Presbyters. For in one Citie there could not be more Bishops then one. Which plainely sheweth, hee thought that although Presbyters had the name, yet they had not the office of Bishops, and that although there might be many in one Citie which had the name, yet there could be but one, that had the office of a Bishop. Againe on 1 Tim. 3. he ttHier. in 1 Tim. 31 Tim 3saith, it is demanded, vvhy the Apostle made no mention there of Presbyters, but comprehended them in the name of Bishops? because, saith he, the degree of Presbyters is the second, and almost the same with that of Bishops.

The second answere.My second answere vvas, if Ierome must be vnderstood, p. 137as speaking of the office, that then wee are to distinguish of those words, Diuine disposition, as including onelyonly those things which be eyther directly and immediately of Diuine institution, or are Diuini iuris, of Diuine right, as being perpetuall and immutable; but not as excluding Apostolicall ordinances. For Ierome, besides that he hath plentifully testified, that Bishops were ordayned by the Apostles, hee doth also expressely call this function Episcopall an uuAd Euagr. Ad pag 153.Apostolicall tradition. But this testimonie the refuter thinketh to elude, because in the writings of the Fathers, the precepts and obseruations of their forefathers though indeede not ordayned by the Apostles are called Apostolicall traditions. Which answere may hauehave place in such traditions, as hauehave no testimonie or proofe, that the Apostles ordayned them; but for this matter in question, vve hauehave had plentifull and pregnant proofes, and euident testimonies, not onelyonly of other authors, but of Ierome himselfe, plainely auouching, that Bishops were ordayned by the Apostles, and particularly relating the persons vvhom, the places where, the time vvhen, the Apostles ordayned them.

If neither of these answeres, will satisfie the refuter, then must he be forced to confesse, that Ierome was inconstant in this question, holding one while that Bishops were of Apostolicall Institution, and another vvhile that they were not. And if Ierome vvere vnconstant vvhichwhich is the worst that can be obiected against this cause, and vvherewith I would be loath to charge him, then let it be considered, whether those testimonies which he hath in more places deliuered dogmatically and historically, for the superioritie of Bishops, himselfe being a Presbyter; are not to ouerweigh those fewer, which hee vttered foreign, in the heate of disputation, as a partie in the cause, maintaining the dignitie of Presbyters, himselfe being a Presbyter, against eyther the indignities offered them by the Bishops or the insolencie of vvvvHier. ad Euagr. August. quaest. ex vet. & nou. test. 101.Deacons vvho sought to ouerpeere them.

p. 138Thus hauehave I proued that the Episcopall function is of Apostolicall, and consequently of Diuine institution.