A Defense of the Sermon Preached at the Consecration of the Bishop of Bath, Book 4 · Chapter 7
The VII. CHAPTER. Defending the conclusion of the Sermon,Ad pag. 157. and shewing that the chiefe Protestant writers did not disallow the Episcopall gouernment.
The third part of the Serm. Sect. 1. page 94. Thus hauing proued this doctrine arising out of the Text, that the Episcopall function is of Apostolicall and diuine institution: it remaineth, that we should from thence gather some vses to our selues both for the informing of our iudgement, and reforming of our liues, &c. to now let vsus, pag. 97.
THe vse which serueth for rectifying the iudgement is contained in this section, and it is first propounded, and afterwards maintained against two obiections. The vse is this, that as the Episcopall function hath been manifestly proued to be lawfull and good; as being the ordinance of God, so we would all be perswaded to acknowledge it. But the refuter is like the deafe Adder, that stoppeth her eare; he will not be perswaded, though he be conuicted. For though he braggeth, that this answere of his doth manifest that I hauehave not brought any one good proofe in the whole Sermon; yet this defence of mine will make it euident, that he hath not been able to disproue any one of my proofes, which he hath gone about to answere (for the most part) with sound learning, but to elude with shifts and cauillations.
But some will say,Ob. 1. The Episcopall gouernment so held to be of diuine institution as notwithstanding where it may not be had, another forme of gouernment may be admitted. this is not all that you vvould perswade vsus vntounto, that the function of Bishops is lawfull and good; but when you say it is of diuine institution, you seeme to meane, that it is diuini iuris, and consequently that not onelyonly it is lawfull, but that it onelyonly is lawfull, and that all Churches are so perpetually and necessarily tyed vntounto it, as that no other forme of gouernment is warrantable in the Church of God.
My resolution of this doubt I signified before Serm. pag. 92. that I did not hold it so to be diuini iuris, as that necessarily it were to be obserued alwayes and in all places, and so himselfe confesseth pag. 90. of his booke. And therefore when he said my resolution was obscure and doubtfull (for doubling I leaue to him) he was disposed to cauill. I referre indeed the consideration of this inference to our Disciplinarians, who hauing conceipted the Presbyterian platforme to be described in the scriptures; doe therefore vrge the same, as perpetuall and vnchangeable, signifying, that if they will be constant in their iudgement, they must by the same reason acknowledge the Episcopall gouernment, which hath warrant in the word, to be perpetuall and vnchangeable. Which conceipt of theirs hath perhaps beene the cause, vvhy they hauehave giuen out to make my Sermon odious among their followers, that I maintaine the Episcopall function to be diuini iuris, as being commanded of God, and perpetually imposed vponupon all Churches. Neuerthelesse, I plainely declared my resolution to be this, that although we be well assured, that the forme of gouernment by Bishops is the best, as hauing not onelyonly the warrant of scripture for the first institution, but also the perpetuall practise of the Church from the Apostles times to our age, for the continuance of it; notwithstanding vve doubt not, vvhere this may not be had, others may be admitted; neither doe we deny, but that siluer is good, though gold be better, vvhichwhich obiection and answere, I inserted of purpose into the Sermon, to preserue the credit of those reformed Churches, vvhere the Presbyterian discipline is established, and that they might not be exposed, or left naked to the obloquies of the Papists.
§ 2. Contradiction falsly obiected.To which my charitable endeauour the refuter opposeth himselfe, as being alwaies ad oppositum, without regard either of my charitable intent, or of the credit of the reformed Churches, labouring tooth and naile to perswade his reader,Ad pag. 158. that I contradict my selfe, and that in the conclusion of my Sermon I did ouerthrow what before I had builded. But as alwayes hitherto, so now also, he hath shewed his malice to be greater then his strength. For though hee chargeth me, as hauing often and peremptorily auouched the perpetuall necessitie of the gouernment of the Church by Diocesan Bishops: yet neither often, nor once, neither peremptorily, nor at all, neither the perpetuall necessitie, nor any absolute necessitie at all, is vrged in any one of the allegations, which hee so hotly, as it were with fire and towe, obiecteth. The first which is obiected out of pag. 33. hath beene explained before. For when I said, that as the gouernment by Bishops was first ordayned for the preseruation of the Church in vnity, and for the auoiding of schisme; so it is for the same cause to be retained: I did not meane any absolute necessitie of retaining it, but that as at the first it was ordained, as being thought fit, expedient and needfull to auoid schisme; so it is fit, expedient and needfull for the same cause to be retained. Neither doe I see how hee can inferre this perpetuall necessitie which he talketh of out of pag. 72. where I said, the Epistles to Timothie and Titus are the very patternes and Presidents of the Episcopall function, whereby the Apostle informeth them, and in them all Bishops how to exercise their function touching ordination and iurisdiction. For although Paul giueth his directions primarily to Timothie and Titus, and to all such as should hauehave the like function that is to say, Bishops: yet if this forme of gouernment be changed, those which shall exercise the like authority, must follow those directions, as being giuen, though primarily and directly to Bishops, yet secondarily, and by consequence, to those who though they were not Bishops, should hauehave the like authority And to the like purpose is that alleadged out of pag. 74. and that we should not thinke as some doe that these things were spoken to them as to extraordinarie persons (whose authoritie should dye with them) but to them and their successors to the end of the world, he straitly chargeth Timothie, that the commandements and directions which hee gaue him, should be kept inuiolable vntounto the appearing of our Lord Iesus Christ; and therefore by such, as should hauehave the like authority vntounto the end. And presently after, for the authority which was committed to them is perpetually necessary, without which the Church neither can be gouerned (as without iurisdiction) neither yet continued (as without ordination) and therefore not peculiar to extraordinary persons, but by an ordinary deriuation to be continued in those, who are the successors of Timothie and Titus. Here I appeale to the refuters conscience whether he be not perswaded of the truth of both these sentences. Can he deny, the authority which was committed to Timothie and Titus, to be perpetually necessary, which is the summe of the second sentence? or if it be perpetually necessary, that some were to hauehave it to the end of the world, which was affirmed in the former sentence? If he had learned the distinction betwixt potestas, & modus potestatis, whereof I spake before; the power or authority it selfe being the perpetuall ordinance of God, the manner or forme of gouernment wherein that power is exercised being mutable; hee would not so hotly hauehave vrged these allegations.
Yea but that pag. 79. is aboue all shew of exception saith hee where hee saith, the function and authority which Timothie and Titus had was not to end with their persons but to be continued in their successors as being ordinary and perpetually necessary not onelyonly for the well being, but also for the very being of the visible Churches. How this spe…ch is to be vnderstood, I distinctly shewed before, not thinking (I protest) of this obiection made by the Refuter. For when I said, their function and authority was ordinarie and perpetually necessary, I meant, that their function was ordinary as being Pastorall and Episcopall, and that the authority which they had was perpetually necessary, as was said in the former allegations.
If he shall perhaps vrge those words which mention the successors of Timothie and Titus to the end of the world: I answere, it is more then likely, that they shall hauehave successors in the same function in some Churches to the end, that is to say, Bishops; though in some others, that forme of gouernment being altered, the authority may be in those who doe not succeed them in the said function at least in the same forme and manner of gouerning.
§ 3.This being all which he hath gained by these allegations, he might hauehave forborne his triumphing insultations, which bewray his want of iudgement. For where he obiecteth against me this contradiction, as though I held, both that the gouernment by Bishops is necessary for the very being of visible Churches, and also that there may be visible Churches without it; either he doth ignorantly mistake, or wilfully depraue my sayings. For though I said, the authority which Timothie and Titus exercised, was perpetually necessary, both to the being of Churches as the power of ordination, and to the well being as the authority of iurisdiction; yet I neuer said, that this forme of gouernment was necessary to the being of visible Churches. And where hee goeth about to proue, that the Episcopall gouernment is not perpetually necessary, because there be many visible Churches at this day without it; what doth hee else, but fight with his owne shadow, seeing that in fauour onelyonly of those Churches this passage was by me inserted?Whether more reformed Churches are gouerned by the Episcopall or by the Presbyterian discipline.howbeit, hee impudently ouer-reacheth, when he saith almost all visible Churches are without Bishops. For not to mention all other Churches which be in the Christian world, which hauehave alwayes had, and still hauehave Bishops: and to speake onelyonly of the reformed Churches in Europe: is it not euident, that the farre greater part of them is gouerned by Bishops, and which is all one with Bishops; by Superintendents? The refuter, when hee desired to the vttermost pag. 52. to enlarge the number of those Churches which hauehave the Presbyterian Discipline, he reckoned the reformed Churches of Fraunce, the Low-countreyes, Saxony, Heluetia, Bohemia, Zuricke, Berne, Geneua, Sauoy, Palatine, Poland, Hungary, Gernsey, Iersey, Scotland: from which number notwithstanding some Churches are to be substracted, as all in Scotland, and some if not all, in Saxony, neither doe I suppose that their Presbyterian discipline is established in Zuricke, and all the Churches of Heluetia, neither is any one whole kingdome ruled by that discipline. So that I am perswaded there are scarse so many particular Churches or congregations, gouerned by the Presbyterian discipline in all the world, as are gouerned by Bishops in the Kings dominions, in great Britaine and in Ireland. But besides these. I finde alledged by one of great wisdome and iudgement many more which are not gouerned by the Presbyterian discipline,Suru. pag. 362. as the Churches of Denmarke, Sueuia, all the reformed Churches of Germany (sauing in some parts of the Low-countreyes, and of late about Heidelberge, procured in the minority of the Prince) all the Churches in the Duchy of Saxony, the Duchy of Brunswicke and Luneburge, the Duchy of Megalopurge, the Duchy of Wirtemberge, all the Churches within the countreyes of the Marquesse of Brandeburge and the Marquesse of Bade, all the Churches within the gouernment of the Earledome of Henneberge, the Earledome of Swartzenberge, the Earledome of Lenning, the Earledome of Hannaw, the Earledome of Oetinghe, the Earledome of Mansfield, the Earledome of Stalbergh, the Earledome of Glich, the Earledome of Rheinesterne, and the Earledome of Leonstine, and all the Churches in the Barony of Limpurge, the Barony of Schenburge, and the Barony of Wildenfield. Whereunto may be added all the Churches, in foure or fiue and thirty, (at the least) free cities with their territories, the most of them as large and ample as Geneua; in none whereof the Presbyterian discipline is erected. Which enumeration is a good euidence also to iustifie my answere to the next obiection: which is this.
§ 4. Ob. 2. The first and principall Protestants did not disallowe the Episcopall function. Ad pag. 159.Some will say the Protestants which were the blessed instruments of God for the reformation of religion in this last age, are thought to hauehave preferred the other discipline by Presbyteries, before this by Bishops: and therefore in thus magnifying the Bishops; you seeme to ioyne with the Papists against them. Whereunto I answered, that those godly and learned men allowed the Episcopall function, and simply desired the continuance thereof, if with it they might hauehave enioyed the Gospell. For proofe whereof I referred the reader to the Suruey of the pretended discipline cap. 8. pag. 110.111. &c.
In refuting of which answere, the refuter dealeth very absurdly with me, and the reuerend author of the Suruey. For when I referred the reader to a Chapter of that booke, contayning many notable testimonies, to proue that which I said: the refuter dealeth as a man resolued to deny my conclusion, what proofes so euer I should bring against him. And though I referre him to testimonies for number and weight sufficient, either to satisfie, or to conuince him, if he would but hauehave turned to the place; yet he saith, hee cannot possibly see, how I should hauehave any such opinion of those godly and learned men, whose writings (as he saith) doe so often and so vehemently professe the contrary. And that he may not seeme to speake without ground, he desireth me to leaue the Surueyour, and heare what he can say. As if the Surueyour were not worthie to be heard when the learned refuter is to speake. When as indeed our Refuter, for ought I see by him, is not for wisedome, learning and iudgement worthie to be named with that reuerend Author on the same day. But though he would seeme not to vouchsafe an answere to the Suruey, yet the truth is, he durst not acquaint the Reader with those testimonies: which howsoeuer before I did mention for breuity sake, I may not now wholy conceale from the Reader.
And although I might by way of requitall, desire him to lay aside h…s misse-alledged allegations, as vnworthie to be examined, and to giuegive eare to those testimonies cited by the Surueyour; yet I will vouchsafe an answere to his authorities, after I hauehave recited some few testimonies of the chiefe Protestant writers, as I find them cited by the Surueyour, referring the Reader, for the rest, to the Suruey it selfe.
And first I wil begin with the Augustane confession (whervnto the chiefe learned men who first were called Protestants did subscribe,§ 5. Suruey. pag. 110 & 111.112. &c. Caluin soone after being one of the number) and with the Apologie thereof.
We hauehave oft protested (say they aHistor. confess. August. per Chytr. p. 109.) that we doe greatly approue the Ecclesiasticall policy & degrees in the Church, and as much as lyeth in vsus, doe desire to conserue them. We doe not mislike the authority of Bishops so that they would not compell vsus to doe against Gods commandement.
We doe here protest bApol. Confess. August. per Pap. pag 137., and we would hauehave it so recorded, that we would willingly preserue the Ecclesiasticall and Canonicall policy: if the Bishops would cease to tyrannize ouer our Churches. This our minde or desire shall excuse vsus with all posterity, both before God and all Nations, that it may not be imputed vntounto vsus, that the authority of Bishops is ouerthrowne by vsus.
I would to God it lay to me, saith Melancthon cIbid. pag. 305., to restore the gouernment of Bishops, &c.
By what right dMelanct. to Camerar. in histor. Confess. August. per Chytr. p. 389.or law may we dissolue the Ecclesiasticall policy, if the Bishops will grant vsus that which in reason they ought to grant? and though it were lawfull, yet surely it were not expedient. Luther was euer of this opinion; whom many for no other cause I see doe louelove, but for that they thinke they hauehave cast off their Bishops by meanes of him, and hauehave obtayned a liberty, which will not be profitable for our posterity.
Would to God, saith George eConcion. Georg. Princ. Anhalt. fol. 6.Prince Anhall, that those which carry the names & titles of Bishops would shew themselues to be Bishops indeed. I wish they would teach nothing that is disagreeable to the Gospell, but rule their Churches thereby; Oh how willingly and with what ioy of heart would we receiue them for our Bishops; reuerence them, obey them, and yeeld vntounto them their Iurisdiction and Ordination? Which we alwaies, and M. Luther both in words and in his writings very often professed.
If they would bring vntounto vsus such an Hierarchy saith fCalu. to Sadol.Caluin, wherein the Bishops shall so rule, as that they refuse not to submit themselues to Christ, that they so depend vponupon him as their onelyonly head, &c. Then surely if there be any that shall not submit themselues to that Hierarchy reuerently, and with the greatest obedience that may be, I confesse there is no Anathema whereof they are not worthy.
In the articles gArtic. protest. cap. de vnit. Ecclesiae.agreed vponupon by Melancthon, Bucer, Caluin, and other learned men, it is said, for the auoyding of Schismes there was a profitable ordination that a B. should be chosen out of many Priests, who should rule the Church by teaching the Gospell, and by retayning the discipline, and who should gouerne the Priests themselues. Afterwards also there were degrees made of Archbishops & aboue them of Patriarches, &c. These Ordinations, if those that gouerne doe their duety) as preach, ouersee the doctrine and manners of their Churches, correct errours and vice, practise Ecclesiasticall censures, &c. are profitable to preserue the vnity of the Church.
And in their additions to the said hResp. protest.articles: As concerning ordination, we especially approue the ancient custome of the Church▪ &c. This difficult and necessary charge for the Church, it is to be wished (reformation being made) that the Bishops would take vponupon them. And we heare that our learned men hauehave expresly so yeelded ordination to those Bishops, if first there may be a reformation.
In a Treatise made by Bucer iDe Reform. aduers. Eccles. p. 95.with the aduise of the said learned men, and offered to the Emperour, it is thus written: we must endeuour, that that forme and distribution of Ecclesiasticall gouernment, which the Canons doe prescribe to Bishops and Metropolitanes be restored, and kept.
The same kDe vi & vsis ministr. p. 565.Bucer, speaking of Bishops and Metropolitanes, and of their authority ouer the Churches and Ministers within their Dioceses, and Prouinces, he saith, this was agreeable to the law of Christ, &c.
And in another lDe Regno Christi. pag. 67.place. Now by the perpetuall obseruation of all Churches, euen from the Apostles times, we doe see, it seemed good to the holy Ghost, that among Priests to whom the procuration of Churches was chiefly committed, there should be one, that should hauehave the care & charge of diuers Churches, and the whole Ministery committed to him: and by reason of that charge he was aboue the rest, and therefore the name of Bishop was attributed peculiarly vntounto these cheife rulers of Churches.
And againe, mDe cura curat. p. 251.In the Apostles times one of the Priests or Pastors was chosen and ordayned to be the Captaine and Prelate ouer the rest; who went before the rest, and had the care of soules, and the administration of the Episcopall office especially and in the highest degree. And this he proueth by the example of Iames, Act. 1. and after concludeth in this sort. The like ordination hath beene perpetually obserued in other Churches likewise, as we may learne out of the Ecclesiasticall Histories, and the most ancient Fathers, as Tertullian, Cyprian, Irenaeus, Eusebius and others.
It were a most profitable order for the welfare of the Church, saith Iacob nLoc. comm. de Ecclesia. p. 699.Heerbrandus a very learned man if eueryevery particular Prouince had her Bishops and the Bishops their Archbishops.
These few testimonies among many doe sufficiently discouer, with what minde the Refuter desired me to lay them and all the rest a…ide, and to giuegive eare to his allegations, as more worthy to be heard.
Let vsus therefore heare them▪ § 6.and let the Reader iudge with what conscience hee either reiected the former, or alledged these. And first, though he saith hee will passe by an Epistle of one Oram written vnderunder the name of Lucifer to the Pope and his Prelates, yet because he entreateth the Reader to turne to it in the booke of Martyrs, as fitting belike our Bishops, hee is worthy not to passe vnpunished, when hee comes to light For that letter being a meere inuectiue against the horrible enormities of the Popish Prelates, speaking nothing at all of their office, but that they were the successours of the Apostles, in referring the Reader vntounto it, what was his intent, but that he should apply the things spoken of their greiuous enormities to our Bishops? then which, hee could not offer a greater villany to them. I desire the Reader that hath any moderation in him to read that Epistle, and by his intended application thereof to our Bishops, to iudge of our refuters spirit, though he professeth in the last page, how greatly he reuerenceth the Bishops persons.
In the next place, to let you thinke hee hath great store (euen whiles hee quoteth either not Protestants or such as were not of our age, of whom alone the question is) hee saith, he will passe by also that which is written by defensor pacis part. 2. c. 15. and well might hee passe by him; for though he hold, that the Priestly Character is the same in Priests and Bishops, yea in the Pope himselfe, and that they hauehave the same essentiall authority which is the power of order, and likewise in imitation of Ierome holdeth, that Episcopus and Presbyter at the first were one, &c. Notwithstanding, he no more disalloweth the superiority of Bishops; then either some other Papists, who hauehave contended, that for as much as order, in that it is a Sacrament, hath reference to the Sacrament of the Altar which the Priest doth offer, and make his maker, as well as the Pope himselfe, that therefore Bishops and Presbyters be of one order; or then Ierome, who though he saith Episcopus and Presbyter were at the first all one▪ yet professeth, that the safety of the Church dependeth vponupon the dignity of the Bishop, &c.
Iohn Wickliffe.Hauing passed by these two, hee professeth to begin with Wickliffe , whom hee would faine hauehave the Reader beleeue, to hauehave beene a Marprelate, or an oppugner of the superiority of Bishops. But howsoeuer, either Papists through malice, or Protestants for want of information, hauehave in some points qAs in that which the Refuter calleth the twelfth article, and Pighius his question.so conceiued of him (of both which sorts the refuter quoteth some) yet those who hauehave perused his writings rThom. Iames his Apologie for Wickliffe, prouing his conformity with the now Church of England. Epist. dedic. & cap. 8. s. 21.protest, that not onelyonly for doctrine, but also for discipline, hee was wholy conformable to the present Church of England, approuing the gouernment of Archbishops, Bishops, and Archdeacons, &c. And whereas the Rhemists obiect against Wickliffe, that he had renued the heresie of Aerius; D. Fulke sIn Phil. 1.1.answereth thus. It appeareth by many places of Wickliffe his works, and namely in his Homily on Phil. 1. that he acknowledged the distinction of Bishops and Priests for order and gouernment, although for doctrine and administration of the Sacraments, they are all one. Indeed in the booke of Martyrs, where be eighteene articles obiected against Wickliffe (though neither the twelfth article which the Refuter mentioneth, nor that which Pighius obiecteth against him is contayned in that number) the which articles he explaneth. Among which the fifteenth is this, that eueryevery Priest rightly and duely ordered according to the law of grace, hath power according to his vocation, whereby he may minister the Sacraments, and consequently absolue any man confessing his fault, being contrite and penitent for the same. Which article, when he came to expound, hee gaue this reason; because that the order of Priesthood in his owne nature and substance receiueth no such degrees either of more or lesse. Ordo sacerdotalis non suscipit magis & m…nus.And yet notwithstanding the power of inferiour Priests in these dayes be vponupon due consideration restrayned, and sometimes againe in time of extreame necessitie, released. And thus according to the Doctors, a Prelate hath a double power, to wit, the power of order, and the power of Iurisdiction or regiment. And according to the second power, the Prelates are in an higher maiestie and regiment.
Thus hauehave I recited word for word what is set downe in the booke of Martyrs; the words whereof the Refuter depraueth, making Wickliffe to say,Ad pag. 160. the order of Priesthood receiueth no degrees of more or lesse, howsoeuer the Doctors say, that the Prelate hath a double power, &c. Whereby he would make the Reader beleeue, that he differed from those Doctors, with whom he doth agree: affirming (as many others hauehave done, who notwithstanding allowed of the superiority of Bishops) that in the power of order all Priests are equall, though Bishops hauehave also the power of Iurisdiction, wherein they are superiour to other Priests. To the same purpose is alledged his assertion of two orders Priests and Deacons, which the Papists themselues holde, diuiding Priests …nto Maiores which be Bishops, and Minores which be Presbyters.
Bal. Centur. 6.1.Why he quoteth Bales centuries I know not, vnlesse it were to shew his more exquisite reading then other mens, hauing belike read there something concerning this cause, which no man else is able to read or to finde.
But I had almost forgotten his first allegation, which the Refuter pretending such plenty, might well hauehave omitted as impertinent. For though he enuied against the excessiue lordlinesse and tirannicall domination of the Popish Bishops: Yet doth it not proue, that he was an enemie to the superiority of Bishops, or the substance of their calling.
And whereas with Wickliffe hee ioyneth the Waldenses, whose opinion he doth not cite but by the report of Pighius; it is euident by the booke of Martyrs in their story, that they acknowledged these three degrees, Bishops, Priests and Deacons, Artic. 7. And therefore is vntruly layd to their charge by Aeneas Syluius, that they held no difference of degrees among Priests, vnlesse perhaps by Priests, be meant Bishops.
§ 7 Iohn Hus.The next is Iohn Hus, saith the Refuter, who was charged by the Pope and his officers to erre. First, in that he held not, nor allowed, that by the Church was meant the Pope, Cardinals, Archbishops and Clergie vnderneath them, but affirmed that signification uThe words are, & dicit illam significationem extortam à scholaribus.to be drawne out of the Schoole-men. Secondly, that he auouched all Priests to be of like power, and therefore the reseruation of the Bishops casualties order of Bishops, and consecration of Clerks vvThe refuter putteth in Priests.was inuented onelyonly for couetousnesse. Thirdly, that he held, that eueryevery man hath authority to inuest men into the cure of soules.
Whereto I answere, first, that these articles were indeed exhibited against him to the Pope by Michael de Causis, but I doe not read, that either he acknowledged them to be true, or that he was condemned for them. Secondly, in the book of Martyrs, and also in his Story prefixed before his works, it is said, that of the articles which were obiected against him, there were but a few which he acknowledged to be true. This therefore is the refuters argument, Iohn Hus was accused by his malicious aduersaries, who made no conscience of accusing him falsly, that hee held all these articles; therefore all these were his opinions. But if it be sufficient to accuse, as the Emperour said, who can be innocent? the godlyest Martyrs neuer wanted accusers; whom if the refuter should therfore pronounce guilty of those matters whereof they were accused, he should shew himselfe a wise man. But so he dealeth with Iohn Hus: he was accused of these opinions, therefore he held them. Wherfore he must either proue, that Hus did acknowledge them to be true, or else what doth hee but subscribe to the accusations of his malicious accusers against him. But suppose the first of these three were his, what will the refuter inferre thereof? he did not hold nor allowe that by the Church was meant the Pope, Cardinalls, Archbishops and Clergie vnderneath them; therefore hee did not allowe the calling of Orthodoxall Bishops. Michael de Causis his accuser, for this article quoteth his booke de Ecclesia, where I finde this assertion (by the allegation whereof, you may guesse how he was vsed in the rest) that the Pope of Rome xHus. de Eccl. c. 7.with his Cardinalls is not the whole body of the vniuersall Church but a part, and that the Pope is not the head thereof, but Christ.
The which assertion hee opposeth against the sayings of some Doctors, who held, first, that the Romane Church is the Church vniuersall: that of the Church of Rome the Pope is the head, and the colledge of Cardinalls the body. Which assertion, if you shall compare with his aduersaries allegation, and apply to the refuters purpose, you shall perceiue the malice of the one, and folly of the other.
For the second article, his accuser doth not quote any of his bookes, but saith thus, aliqualiter patet iste articulus ex praedictis, this article after a sort may be gathered out of the precedent articles, wherein there is no such matter contayned.
The third he proueth by Husses fact, because in the kingdome of Boheme many by him and his fauourers and abetters hauehave beene thrust into Parish Churches, which they a good while ruled without the institution of the See Apostolicke, and also of the ordinary of the City of Prage. Whether Hus did this or no, it is questionable; but if there had beene Orthodoxall Bishops, by whose authority faithfull Ministers might hauehave beene instituted; without question, he would neuer hauehave attempted any such enterprise. But hee held the Popish Clergy to be Antichristian, and therefore did as he did. Otherwise for the function it selfe of Bishops, he saith plainely more then yDe Eccles. c. 10 & 15.once, that the rest of the Apostles had equall honour and power with Peter, and that when they deceased the Bishops did succeede in their place. And that all Bishops of Christs Church following Christ in manners, are the true Vicars of the Apostles. And out of Ierome, that all Bishops are the Apostles successours. And approueth that saying of Bede zEx Bed. in Luc. 10., as no man doubteth but the twelue Apostles did premonstrate the forme of Bishops: So the seauenty two did beare the figure of the Presbyters and second order of Priests.
Ierome of PrageAnd thus much of Iohn Hus; to whom the refuter ioyneth Ierome of Prage, who iustifieth the doctrine of Wickliffe and Hus against the pompe and state of the Clergie. Which if he had done, he had spoken neuer a word in disallowance of the Episcopall function. But that word state is foisted in by the refuter, who alledgeth almost nothing truely. His words were these aAct. & Mon. in the history of Ierome of Prage., whatsoeuer things M. Iohn Hus and Wickliffe had holden or written specially against the abuse and pompe of the Clergy, he would affirme euen vntounto the death. And againe, that all such articles as Iohn Wickliffe and Iohn Hus had written and put forth against the enormities, pomp and disorder of the Prelates, he would firmely hold and defend. And persisting still in the praise of Iohn Hus, hee added moreouer, that hee neuer maintayned any doctrine against the state of the Church, but onelyonly spake against the abuses of the Clergy, against the pride, pompe and excesse of the Prelates. For it was a greife to that good man, saith he, to see the Patrimonies of Churches mispent and cast away vponupon harlots, great feastings and keeping of horses and dogges, vponupon gorgeous apparrell, and such other things vnbeseeming Christian religion. And againe, I take God to my witnesse, that I doe beleiue and hold all the articles of the faith, as the holy Catholicke Church doth hold and beleiue the same, but for this cause shall I now be condemned, for that I will not consent with you vntounto the condemnation of those most holy and blessed men aforesaid, vvhom you hauehave most wickedly condemned for certaine articles, detesting and abhorring your wicked and abhominable life. Whereby it is apparant, that both hee, and they did not speake against the function or calling of Bishops, but against the personall abuses and enormities of the Popish Bishops, which none but a viperous broode would apply to the persons of our Bishops, and much lesse against their sacred function.
After them ariseth Martin Luther saith the refuter,§ 9. M. Luther. whose sayings hee quoteth in his booke against Popish Bishops, of priuate Masse, and against the Papacie, &c. But for the first of these, Luther himselfe hath giuen vsus this caueat. Let no man thinke that what is spoken against these tyrants, is spoken against the Ecclesiasticall state and true Bishops or good Pastors. Let no man thinke that what is said or done against these sluggish beasts and slowe bellies, is said or done against the heads of the Christian Church. And howsoeuer in the heate of his zeale against these Antichristian Bishops hee vttered some things vvhichwhich seeme preiudiciall to the calling: yet you hauehave heard it testified before cSupr. §. 5.by sufficient vvitnesses,Ad pag. 161. that in his iudgement hee allowed the gouernment of Bishoppes. Whereunto adde the testimony of Camerarius dCamerar. in vita Phil. Melancth., that Melancthon non modò ad stipulatore sed etiam authore ipso Luthero, not onelyonly by the consent, but aduise of Luther perswaded, that if Bishops would grant free vse of the true doctrine, the ordinary power and administration ouer their seuerall Dioceses should be restored vntounto them.
Zuinglius.The like may be said of Zuinglius. For he that professeth as Zuinglius doth in the booke before eEcclesiast.cited, that Iames was B. of Ierusalem, Philippe of Caesarea, Timothie of Ephesus▪ cannot lightly speake against the Episcopall function it selfe. If he speake against the Popish Clergy for arrogating the name Church to themselues; what is that to the purpose? or if he affirme, that eueryevery seuerall congregation according to the phrase of the Scriptures, is a Church who denieth it? or if hee inueigh against the sole and supreme power of Bishops, whom doth this touch, but the Pope?
Oecolampadius.Oecolampadius might be of opinion that the Church was gouerned by onelyonly gouerning-Elders, and perswade the Senate of Basill who had no Bishop, that such may be chosen to assist their Pastor; and yet notwithstanding not disallowe the gouernment of Bishops. Caluin, Zanchius and other learned men hauehave said and done as much, who notwithstanding approued the Episcopall function.
Ph. Melancthon Ad pag. 162.And as Melancthon was of Ieromes iudgement, that Bishop and Presbyter at the first was all one, so with Ierome he doth allowe the superiority of Bishops: and where the Episcopall gouernment was ouerthrowne▪ he sought to restore it, as you hauehave heard before, and did restore it as may appeare by these testimonies. You fHist. August. Confess. pag. 306.will not beleeue saith he writing to Luther, how greatly they of Noricum and some others doe hate me propter restitutam Episcopis iurisdictionem, for restoring the iurisdiction to Bishops. Againe gIbid. pag. 304., some are wonderfully angry with me, because I seeme to restore the dominion of Bishops. Camerarius hIn vita Philippi Melancth.also reporteth▪ how inhumanely some accused Philip for maintaining of Bishops, &c.
Tindall.Where hee alleadgeth Master Tindall, affirming that in the Apostles times an Elder and a Bishop were all one, &c: he doth but play with names, which no man denyeth to hauehave been confounded, & so he saith iPag. 251.all that were called Elders or Priests if they so wel were called BB. also, though they hauehave diuided the names now. Yea but in his booke kPag. 133. & 135.of the obedience of a Christian man, he saith that a B. is the ouerseer but of a parish, and is to preach the word of God vntounto a parish, and for the same to chalenge an honest liuing of the parish.
This allegation the refuter hath notably wrenched. For Tindals words be these: by the authoritie of the Gospell they that preach the word of God in eueryevery parish, and performe other necessary ministeries, hauehave right to chalenge an honest liuing. For Tindall speaketh of such a B. as was but a Presbyter; and saith, that hee which preached the word in eueryevery Parish, should hauehave an honest liuing, the refuter citeth him as saying, that a B. is but an ouerseer of a Parish, &c.
In the next place he citeth Viret, as pleading for a popular state in eueryevery church; wherein, if the allegation be true, he is singular, hauing neither the iudgement of any other sound Diuine, nor practise of any reformed Church that I know of, No not of Geneua it selfe, to second him. For though the common wealth of Geneua be reduced to a popular state, yet the gouernment of the church by their consistorie, is Aristocraticall.
And though he passeth by (as well he might) Caluin and Beza, Bucer, Peter Martyr, Bullinger, Brentius, Musculus, whom he thought good to mention onelyonly as fauourers of the pretended discipline; yet neither any of these, nor any other moderate and iudicious Diuine doth condemne (as our Presbyterians doe) eyther the ancient gouernment by Bishops in the primitiue Church, or the retayning thereof in reformed churches now, as hath been shewed before.
But he is pleased to conclude with some of our own writers and Martyrs. § 10.And first with Francis Lambard, who is alledged as saying, that a B. and preacher, a church and a parish is all one, that eueryevery parish should hauehave right to choose their Pastour, and (which is a very vnaduised speech if it be truely alledged) to depose him if he proue vnworthy, but not as disallowing the gouernment of the church by orthodoxal BB. eyther now, or in the Primitiue church, which was the point to be proued. And the like is to be said of Iohn Lambart, &c.
As for Bradford whom hee citeth as holding that the Scripture knoweth no difference betwixt a B. and a minister, meaning that the names were confounded and that nothing is to be gotten by the succession of Popish BB. as minister not, but Lord it: yet nothing can be alleadged out of him to proue that he disalloweth the gouernment of orthodoxal Bishops.
But it is strange, that he should alleadge B. Hooper, and B. Bale, as disallowing in their iudgement, the superioritie of BB. which they allowed in their practise. But all that is said out of B. Hooper, is eyther that BB. were not till Siluesters or Constantines time,In precept. 8. such as they are now: (which is true in respect of their outward estate, which by the peace and prosperitie of the Church was much increased, but is not to be vnderstood in respect of the substance of their calling) or that excommunication should not be vsed by the B. alone; which is little, or nothing to the present purpose, as if hee must needs disallow the Episcopall function, vvho vvould not hauehave the Bishop to excommunicate alone.
Ad pag. 164.B. Bale vnderstandeth by the names of blasphemie written on the heads of the beast. Apoc. 13. the titles of Popish offices, which he saith are vsurped, and not appointed by the holy Ghost; among which when he reckoneth Metropolitanes, Diocesans, Parsons, Vicars, and Doctors, he cannot be vnderstood as speaking of these offices in the true church, but as they are members of Antichrist. For what is the office of a Parson, but of a Pastour, &c. And that this vvas his meaning, appeareth by the other allegation nIn Apoc. 17.3., wherein besides the titles and offices of the Popish hierarchy (among whom he reckoneth BB. Doctors & Priests) he addeth temporall gouernors also, as Emperours, Kings, Princes, Dukes, Earles, Lords, Iustices, Deputies, Iudges, Lawyers, Mayors, Baylifes, Constables, &c. leauing their owne duetie offices (as to minister rightly) to serue their abhomination.
After these, for want of better proofes, hee alleadgeth the testimonie of the English men which were at Geneua in Queene Maries time, and were the first authors of this contention for the pretended discipline among vsus; to whose testimonie in their owne cause, that they present to vsus the forme of a Church limited within the compasse of Gods word, what should I answere, but that they hauehave often said, but neuer will be able to proue, that their discipline is prescribed in Gods word?
Lastly, he alleadgeth M. Foxe, whose testimonie though in vaine I sought in three seuerall editions; yet his iudgement is apparant, by that which may easily be found. Hee therefore saith, according to the refuters allegation, that in the Primitiue Church there was not then any one mother Church (such as the church of Rome now pretendeth her selfe to be) aboue other Churches, but the whole vniuersall Church was the mother Church, vnderunder which vniuersall Church in generall were comprehended all other particular Churches in speciall (hee meaneth the Churches of seuerall countreyes, and Prouinces) as sister Churches together, not one greater then another but all in like aequalitie. What will hee hence conclude, that therefore there were no BB. nor Archbishops? Not so. But that therefore as the Diocesan churches were equall, so were the BB. and as the Metropolitane churches were equal, so the Archbb. Heare Mr. Foxe oAct. & Mon. pag. 20. edit. 1570.himselfe where he debateth this question.
If they say there must needs be distinction of degrees in the church, and in this distinction of degrees superioritie must necessarily be granted for the outward discipline of the church for directing matters, for quieting of schismes, for setting orders, for cōmencing of Conuocations & Councils as need shal require, &c. Against this superioritie we stand not; and therefore we yeeld to our superiour powers, Kings and Princes our due obedience, and to our lawfull gouernours vnderunder God of both regiments, Ecclesiasticall and Temporall. Also in the Ecclesiasticall state we take not away the distinction of ordinarie degrees, such as by the scripture be appointed, or by the Primitiue Church allowed. As Patriarkes or Archbb. BB. Ministers and Deacons, for of these foure we especially reade, as chiefe. In which foure degrees, as we grant diuersitie of office, so we admit in the same also diuersitie of dignitie: neither denying that which is due to each degree, neither yet maintaining the ambition of any singular person. For as we giuegive to the Minister place aboue the Deacon, to the B aboue the Minister, to the Archbishop aboue the B. so wee see no cause of inequalitie, why one Minister, should be aboue another minister: one Bishop in his degree aboue another B. to deale in his Diocese, or one Archbb. aboue another Archbishop. And this is to keepe an order duely and truely in the church, &c. Here then is the question betweene vsus and the Papists, whether the Metropolitane church of Rome with the Archbb. of the same ought to be preferred before other Metropolitane churches and Archbb through vniuersall Christendome or not?
§ 11.And thus I hauehave examined his testimonies, which if you shall compare with those whereunto in the Sermon I referred the reader▪ you wil acknowledge, that he had little cause, either to accuse my speech of vntruth, or to iustle out the Surueyours testimonies with his own, as though they had not beene worthy to hauehave been heard in comparison of his. Wheras indeed if there had been no more testimonies alleadged, then of the authors of the Augustane con…ession and the subscribers therunto (whom I especialy ment being the men who first were called Protestants) my assertion had been sufficiently confirmed, though the refuter could hauehave alledged the iudgements of more particular men, then he hath done to the contrarie.
But I added in the Sermon, that howsoeuer the first reformers of religion (whom they cal Protestants) did not disallowe the Episcopall gouernment, but simply desired the continuance thereof, (as I hauehave now proued by their owne testimonies) notwithstanding, when together with the Gospell, &c. ad pag. 97. li. a fine 4. In which words, I doe partly excuse the auncient Protestants, who first yeelded to the deposing of Bishops, and partly accuse the innouatours among our selues.
Histor. August. confes per Chytr. Non agitur vt dominatio eripiatur Episcopis, s…d hoc vnumpetitur, vt patiantur Euangelium purè …oceri.The former I excuse, because they desiring chiefely, and aboue all, the instauration of religion & propagation of the gospell, which could not be obtained while the Popish BB. retayned their authoritie, were forced with the losse of the Episcopall gouernment to redeeme the free profession of the gospel.
The refuter as if he were desirous to leaue them without excuse, saith, that is a bad excuse, because it was easier to choose one fit man among them to be their B. then to finde diuers Pastors and Elders meet for the Presbyteries. See the confession of the church of Sueueland. Harm. confes. s. 11. Ad pag. 165. Conc. Afric. c. 22. & Carth. Grac. …55.I deny not, but that among them there were some fit to hauehave been BB. yet the speech of the refuter is vntrue. It being an easier matter as the Fathers of the Affricane council professed, to find many fit men to be Presbyters (especially if the laitie also afford fit men for that purpose) then to finde one fit to be a B. But the refuter doth not consider, first who should hauehave ordained them, secondly, how they should hauehave been maintained, thirdly, and chiefely, whether the assistance of the ciuil Magistrates could hauehave been had for deposing the BB. vnles they had yeelded both to the dissolution of the Bishoprickes, and to the alteration of the forme of gouernment, &c.
Now that the Protestants which subscribed to the Augustane confession did simply desire the continuance of the Episcopal gouernment;§ 12. I proue, because so soon as they could, they procured the restitution thereof though vnderunder other names, because the names of BB. & Archbb. by reason of the corruptions of the Popish prelates, were odious. And because the refuter shall no longer doubt, whether those Superintendents, and generall superintendents placed in Protestant churches, be for the substance of their calling,De relig. obseru. in cap. 25. § 10. & 11. the same with BB. & Archbb. he shall heare the iudgement of Zanchius in this behalfe Who after he had signified his approbation of the auncient forme of gouernment by BB. and Archbb. and had confirmed the same by the testimony of M. Bucer, he addeth for further confirmation the practise of reformed churches, some wheerof both in deed & name hauehave retained BB. & Archbb. and besides saith he, in the churches of Protestants there are re ipsa in very deed BB. and Archbb. whom hauing changed the good Greeke names into bad latin words, they call Superintendents and generall Superintendents.
Heare the history of the Augustane confession.Hist. August. Confes. per Chytr. Ministers may bereduced into 3. orders Deacons, Pastors & superintendents. Deacons we cal yong Ministers who are ioyned to Pastors &c. We call them Pastors, to whom though alone some church is safely cōmitted, not doubting but that they may rule the same without a colleague.Loc. com. pag. 699. Suru. 118. Superintendents we cal these Pastors, who are set ouer other Pastors & Deacons. With vsus saith Heerbrand there are Deacons, Pastors, speciall superintendents, and ouer them generall superintendents.
But why in other churches the learned men hauehave not restored BB. I gaue this reason: for that they could not, eyther because the Popish BB. were still countenanced by the ciuill Magistrate, as in France: or because the forme of ciuill gouernment being after the expulsion of the B. changed into a popular state, could no more endure the gouernment of a B. then Rome after the expulsion of Tarquinius, the regiment of a King. The refuter saith they could , thereby insinuating that they would not. But doth he thinke that the Popish BB. in France countenanced by the state, would endure Antibishops to be set vp against them in their Diocese? And for Geneua, is it not a plaine case, that, that state was so farre from admitting againe the gouernment of BB. that Caluin being out of hope to get a Presbytery established of Ministers alone, was faine to accept of a Presbyterie wherin twelue Citizens are ioyned to sixe Ministers? neither is that to be omitted which Zanchius in the place before cited, doth adde in the next words. But euen in those Churches also where neither the good Greeke names, nor the bad Latine names are vsed, notwithstanding there vse to be some chiefe men, in whose hands all the authoritie almost is. Where therefore these be vpheld and Bishops repelled it may seeme to be but a controuersie concerning the names, but when wee agree of the things, why should we striue about the names? At Geneua, while Caluin liued, he was the perpetuall president of their Ecclesiasticall Senate, differing rather in name, then authoritie from a B. And Beza likewise for the space of ten yeares had the like authoritie, till Danaeus comming thither that course was altered. Since which time▪ Beza finding some inconueniences, which he knew not how to redresse, hath sometimes signified his desire to some (whom I know) wishing with all his heart, that with the reformation of religion the Episcopall gouerment in that church had beene retayned. And I hauehave beene very credibly informed, that the most learned and iudicious Diuines both in France, and Geneua, could well be contented, that the ancient gouernment by BB. were renewed among them. which neede not seeme strange to vsus, seeing in the Church of Scotland, where the Geneua Discipline had for a long time beene practised, notwithstanding, when the matter was referred to voices, of that great number which were assembled to that purpose, there were not aboue fiue which stood for the Presbyterian discipline, as I hauehave beene informed by some that were there.
But there are two things more in the refuters answere to be touched; the one that against sense he chargeth me twice in this place as holding the gouernment by BB. to be so necessary as that there cannot be a visible Church without it. I say, against sense, because in the former part of this section I acknowledged that where this gouernment could not be had, others might be admitted: and in this place, I doe not onelyonly excuse those Diuines which wanting the Episcopall gouernment brought in the Presbyteries, but also commend their fact as wisely performed.
The other is, that out of a desire of contradicting me, hee denyeth the state of Geneua to be popular. But let Bodin vvho could discerne betweene the diuers formes of policie, be iudge betweene vsus.De repub. l 2. c. 6. Anno. 1523. The selfe same yeare saith he, that Andreas Doria did establish the Aristocracie at Geneua, did they of Geneua hauing expelled their B. change the Monarchy into a popular state. And after libertie was restored to the commonweale, although they ordayned a Senate or Councill of two hundred men, yet the people reserued to themselues the right & authoritie of making lawes, of creating the chiefe Magistrates, of making warre and concluding peace, which are the principall prerogatiues of Soueraigntie, called iura Maiestatis.
In the latter part of this Section I did accuse the innouatours among vsus, affirming that as in those places where orthodoxall Bishops could not be had, Presbyteries were wisely brought in: so are they very inconsiderately obtruded on those churches, where Bishops most soundly professing the Gospell of Christ are established; especially, considering that the gouernment by Bishops is not onelyonly simply good, and lawfull, but also in comparison to be preferred before the Presbyterian Discipline, as hauing better warrant. Here the refuter, who was so ready to take away the excuses vvhichwhich I brought for other churches, hath nothing to pretend as an excuse for himselfe and his consorts.
§ 12.Serm. Sect. 2. pag. 97. Let vsus now consider what practicall vses &c. to the end.
The practicall vses concerne, eyther those who liue vnderunder the authoritie of the BB. or the reuerend Fathers themselues. The former, that for as much as the gouernment of Bishops is the ordinaance of God, wee would reuerence their persons, and obey their authoritie.
The latter, that they would from this Text receiue, both comfort and encouragement in good things; and also admonition, that as they are called starres and Angels, so they would endeauour to be answerable to their names.
Ad pag. 166.The latter vse the refuter toucheth not, neither doth hee gainesay the former, but professeth that what they are here exhorted vntounto, they are and hauehave beene carefull to performe, appealing to all men whether they hauehave not alwayes reuerenced the persons and obeyed the authoritie of Bishops. Whereunto, though I could say some thing; yet I will say no more but this; that as I wish it were true in respect of the time past, so I pray to God it may be verified of them for the time to come. Amen.
foreign.
FINIS.