A Defense of the Sermon Preached at the Consecration of the Bishop of Bath, Book 4 · Chapter 6
The VI. CHAPTER. Prouing directly, that the Episcopall function is of Diuine institution.
In vvhat sence I hold this assertion that the Episcopall function is of diuine institution.Serm. Sect. 13. pag. 92. I will in the last place directly, yet briefly proue, that the Episcopall function is of diuine institution, &c. to protection of their persons pag. 94.
THe refuter hath more then once charged me, that I maintaine the Episcopall function to be held iure diuino, implying thereby, that it is generally and perpetually necessarie. Wherefore least he should be taken in the manner, as a wilfull deprauer of my assertion, hee leaueth out all that which I hauehave deliuered to explane my meaning, and beginneth this section at the middle of a sentence, vvhere the explication endeth. Such shifts may deceiue the simple for a while,Lib. 1. Epist. 3. sed mendacia diu non fallunt, but lyes will not beguile long, as Cyprian saith. If he had meant to deale truely, hee should hauehave begunne this section at the diuision pag. 91. in the end; where by a distinction of that vvhichwhich might be Ieromes meaning, I take occasion to passe to the direct proofes, that the Episcopall function is of Diuine institution. But because I did foresee, that this my assertion would be vnderstoode, as if I held the function of Diocesan Bishops so to be diuini iuris, as that it is generally, perpetually and immutably necessarie for the being of a Church and that no other forme of gouernment may in no case be any wayes admitted; therefore both in the text, and in the margent I explaned the assertion which I hold, shewing plainely in what sense I maintaine the calling of Diocesan Bishops to be of diuine institution. All which though the refuter passed ouer in silence, yet I thinke it needfull to repeate, that both my sinceritie, and his fraudulent dealing may appeare.
My words in the Sermon were these: If his (that is Ieromes) meaning should be, that the superioritie of Bishops ouer Presbyters, though it be an Apostolicall tradition (as himselfe calleth it) yet notwithstanding is not directly of Diuine institution: although there be small difference betwixt these two (as I vnderstand Diuine institution) because what the Apostles did in the execution of their Apostolicall function they did by direction of the holy Ghost:Acts 15. Acts 20.28. so that they might truely say both of their ordinances, it seemed good to the holy Ghost and vsus, and of the partyes by them ordayned, attend the flocke ouer which the holy Ghost hath made you ouerseers; notwithstanding, for more euidence I will in the last place directly, yet briefely proue, that the Episcopall function is of Diuine institution, or that Bishops were ordained of God.
In the margent also (fearing least my meaning would not plainely enough appeare) to preuent the cauils of those which be aduersaries to the cause vvhichwhich I maintaine, I noted these words. Though in respect of the first institution, there is small difference betweene an Apostolicall and Diuine ordinance, because what was ordained by the Apostles proceeded from GOD (in vvhichwhich sense and no other, I doe hold the Episcopall function to be a Diuine ordinance, I meane in respect of the first institution) yet in respect of perpetuitie, difference by some is made betweene those things which be Diuini, and those which be Apostolici iuris: the former, in their vnderstanding being generally, perpetually and immutably necessarie; the latter, not so. So that the meaning of my defence plainely is, that the Episcopall gouernment hath this commendation aboue other formes of Ecclesiasticall regiment, that in respect of the first institution, it is a Diuine ordinance; but that it should be such a Diuine ordinance, as should be generally, perpetually, immutably, necessarily obserued, so as no other forme of gouernment, may in no case be admitted, I did not take vponupon mee to maintaine. With what conscience therefore the refuter hath laid the maintenance of that assertion to my charge, and omitted the explanation of my defence in this place, the Reader may easily iudge; especially if hee remember that where hee thought any aduantage could be taken out of this explanation of my defence, there hee taketh notice of it, as namely page 90. of his booke; where hee supposing, that I auouch a necessitie of retayning the gouernment of Diocesan Bishops, hee vseth these words. Who would hauehave thought to hauehave heard such a speech from him that acknowledgeth another gouernment good and lawfull. pag. 95. and maketh the calling of Bishops no further of diuine institution, then as being ordayned by the Apostles it proceeded from God, without implying thereby any necessarie perpetuitie thereof? Pag. 92. Thus sincerely their cause of sinceritie, as themselues call it, is maintained.
§ 2. That the BB. were ordained of God. Ad pag. 154.Now that Bishops were ordayned of God, I proue by this argument, as the refuter hath framed it:
If God ordayned Timothie, Archippus, and the Angels of the seauen Churches Bishops, then were Bishops ordained by God.
But God ordained them Bishops:
Therefore Bishops were ordained by God.
As touching Timothie: I argued thus. By whom was he ordained Bishop? By Paul, I confesse, as the instrument; but yet by the holy Ghost as the author and directer of his ordination. For he was made B. by prophecie. 1 Tim. 4.a1 Tim. 4.14. How is that foreign. What is by Prophecie? (saith Chrysostome) by the holy bChrysost. hom. 4. Grac. 5. latin. in 1 Tim. 1.Ghost. Paul stirring him vp, putteth him in minde, who elected and ordained him; as if hee had said, God hath chosen thee, hee hath committed his Church vntounto thee. foreign, thou wert made Bishop not by humane suffrage, but by Prophecie; that is, by Diuine reuelation, saith Theodoret cTheodoret.; that is, spiritu sancto iubente, by the commandement of the holy Ghost, saith Theophilact dTheophil.; foreign, saith Oecumenius eOecum. in 1 Tit. 4., foreign, for by the appointment of the holy Ghost Bishops were made, and not at randome. Whereunto you may adde the testimonie of Caluin fCalu. in 1 Tim. 4.. Per Prophetiam] quomodo? quia scilicet spiritus sanctus oraculo Timotheum destinauerat vt in ordinem pastorum cooptaretur. Neque enim delectus tantuacute;m fuerat hominum iudicio vt fieri solet, sed praecesserat spiritus nuncupatio.
To this argument the refuter answereth nothing, but that, which I hauehave plainely and fully confuted before; that Timothie was not a Bishop, though Caluin as you see, confesseth, that Timothie by the oracle of the holy Ghost was chosen into the order of Pastors. For if hee were a Pastor, it is not to be doubted, but he was a Bishop.
That Archippus was ordayned Bishop of God, I proue thus. Because Col. 4.17. Paul vsing the same exhortation to him vvhichwhich hee gaue to Timothie g2 Tim. 4.5.the Bishop of Ephesus, namely, that hee should fulfill his ministerie, hee addeth, which thou hast receiued in the Lord; and therefore by Gods ordinance, and as it vvere at his hands.
The refuter hauing framed the argument thus,
Hee that receiued his Episcopall ministerie in the Lord, was ordained a B. by the Lord.
Archippus receiued his Episcopall ministerie in the Lord:
Therefore hee was ordained Bishop by the Lord:
He denyeth the proposition; because neither is all Episcopall ministerie proper to a Diocesan Bishop, else the Apostle would not hauehave made a B and Presbyter all one; neither is that office onelyonly in the Lord. Of which reasons, the latter is meerely impertinent, and friuolous. For who euer said, or thought, that the office of a Bishop onelyonly is in the Lord? neither is the former to any purpose, seeing he knoweth, that by Episcopall ministerie I vnderstand the function of a Diocesan Bishop, and therefore should not hauehave denyed the proposition, but hauehave distinguished of the assumption, saying, that hee did not receiue the Episcopall ministerie, meaning the function of a Diocesan Bishop. For proofe whereof, it sufficeth to mee, that Archippus was as Ambrose hin Col. 4.17.noteth, Bishop of Collosae, which was a Citie: seeing I hauehave manifestly proued before, that the Bishops of Cities were Diocesan Bishops.
sect; 3. The Bishops of the seauen Churches had diuine institution. Ad pag. 155. & 156.As touching the Angels I argue thus;
Those who are called by the holy Ghost the Angels of the Church; and were signified by the seauen starres which were in Christs right hand, had Diuine both institution and approbation:
The Diocesan Bishops of the seauen Churches are called by the holy Ghost the Angels of the seauen churches, and were signified by the seauen starres which vvere in Christs right hand.
Therefore the Diocesan Bishops of the seauen Churches had diuine both institution and approbation.
The proposition I proued, because they who are called Angels are authorized and sent of God, and starres vvhose both preheminence of dignitie is noted in this life (for the starres iApoc. 12.1.are the crowne of the Church) and also prerogatiue of glorie which they shall hauehave in the world to come. And finally, they who are signified by the seauen starres in the right hand of Christ, are such as Christ doth both approue and protect.
The assumption I went not about to proue now, because it was proued at large in the former part of the Sermon. And yet all that the refuter answereth to the purpose, is, that they were not Diocesan Bishops. For that which he addeth besides, is but the vttering of his spleene, and emptying his gall against Bishops, to whom he cannot abide (such is his malice) that the titles of Angels and starres, which notwithstanding the holy Ghost giueth to the Bishops of the seauen Churches, and which himselfe acknowledgeth to be titles common to all ministers, should be applyed to Bishops. It is true, that these titles of Angels and stars are common to all ministers, yet foreign (to signifie their preheminence) they be attributed to Bishops. For as I hauehave said before; when in a Church, where are many Ministers, who are all tearmed Angels, the Bishop onelyonly is called the Angel of the Church, this title doth note his singular preheminence. And the same is signified when as there being a great number of ministers in Asia who all were starres, the seauen Bishops onelyonly of those Churches are signified by the seauen starres vvhichwhich Christ held in his right hand. Now if these seauen Bishops were Diocesan Bishops as I hauehave manifestly proued them, and all the Bishops of the auncient Churches to hauehave beene; then must the refuter be content to endure, both that Diocesan Bishops were called the Angels of the Churches, and the starres which Christ held in his right hand; and consequently also, that the function of Diocesan Bishops is of Diuine institution. And thus passing by his rayling, as not worth the mentioning, I proceede to the conclusion of my Sermon.