A Defense of the Sermon Preached at the Consecration of the Bishop of Bath, Title page – Table of contents
A DEFENCE OF THE SERMON Preached at the Consecration of the L. Bishop of Bath and VVelles, against a confutation thereof by a namelesse Author. Diuided into 4 Bookes:
The first, prouing chiefly that the lay or onelyonly-gouerning Elders hauehave no warrant either in the Scriptures or other monuments of Antiquity.
The second, shewing that the primitiue Churches indued with power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment, were not Parishes properly but Dioceses, and consequently that the Angels of the Churches or ancient Bishops were not parishionall but Diocesan Bishops.
The third, defending the superioritie of Bishops aboue other Ministers, and prouing that Bishops alwayes had a prioritie not onelyonly in order, but also in degree, and a maioritie of power both for ordination and iurisdiction.
The fourth, maintayning that the Episcopall function is of Apostolicall and diuine institution.
By GEORGE DOWNAME Doctor of Diuinitie.
LONDON: Printed by Thomas Creed, William Hall, and Thomas Snodham. 1611.
TO THE MOST High and mighty Monarch, Iames by the grace of God King of great Britayne, France and Ireland, defender of the faith, &c. All true happinesse and prosperitie, in this life, and eternall felicitie in the life to come.
THE prudent speech of the politicke Historiographer (most gracious and dread Soueraigne) is in some sort verified of vsus in this Church,Thucydi… foreign, those which be in the middest are slaine or at the least wise assayled on both sides: The Romanists on the one side blaming vsus for departing too farre from the Church of Rome; our innouatours accusing vsus on the other side, for comming too neare the same. Which contrarie accusations of men being in contrarie extreames,Medium beati. are a good euidence for vsus, that wee hold the meane. For neither are wee departed further from the now-Roman church, then it hath swarued by Apostasie from the auncient Church of Christ, to which, in departing from them, wee are returned: neither hauehave wee retayned eyther for the substance of Doctrine, or for the forme of Discipline any thing almost agreeing with them, which with them wee hauehave not receiued, eyther from the doctrine or institution of the Apostles, or from the approued practise of the Primitiue Church. The which, as it is to be acknowledged to the high praise of God, and to the singular commendation of your Maiestie; so also to the contentation and ioy of all your louing subiects. God hauing vouchsafed vntounto vsus this especiall fauour, (for which his name is euer to be praised and magnified among vsus) that there is not a Church vnderunder the Sunne, which both for the substance of Doctrine, and forme of Discipline, doth come so neare the patterne of the Prime and Apostolicall Churches, as these vnderunder your gracious gouernment. Your Maiestie also hauing beene a blessed instrument of God, not onelyonly for the retayning of the truely Catholike and Apostolicke doctrine and religion in all your Dominions; but also for the establishing of the auncient and Apostolicall gouernment, where it was in vse before; and likewise for renewing and restoring the same (though to your great cost and charges) where it was formerly abolished. These vnestimable benefits, if wee in this land doe not acknowledge and professe our selues to hauehave receiued from God by your Maiestie wee must confesse our selues to be not onelyonly vnthankefull, both to God (who is the gracious Authour) and to your Highnesse who are the happie meanes of these benefits) but also vnworthy to enioy them. If we doe (according to our bounden duetie) acknowledge so much: it remayneth, that wee should testifie our thankefulnes to GOD Almightie, as in respect of his true Doctrine and sound religion continued among vsus, by walking worthy our calling,Ephes. 4 Tit. 2.… and by adorning the doctrine of God our Sauiour in all things: so also in regard of the Apostolicall forme of gouernment established among vsus,Phil. 2.… Heb. 13 by a due and respectiue countenancing of it on all hands. For howsoeuer a great number in these dayes hauehave thought so much the better of themselues, by how much they hauehave thought the worse of Bishops: yet is it most certaine, that the contempt of Bishops is the cause, if not of all euill (which notwithstanding Chrysostome seemeth to affirme) yet of very much euill among vsus.In 2 Ti… This contempt therefore is diligently to be preuented and auoided, as by the godly and religious care, both of your Highnes in preferring worthy men to this high and sacred function, and of the reuerend Bishops in shewing themselues worthy of that honour whereof they would, and indeed should be accounted worthy: so also by instructing the people to conceiue a right of this holy and honourable calling. And for as much as the pernicious schisme and diuision, which is among vsus, proceedeth from an erroneous conceipt, eyther that the Presbyterian Discipline is the holy ordinance of Christ, or that the gouernment by Bishops is vnlawfull and Antichristian: I was perswaded (for my part) that I could not performe a seruice, eyther more acceptable vntounto God, or more profitable to his Church; then to publish those arguments for the satisfaction of others, which had perswaded mine owne soule, not onelyonly that the Presbyterian Discipline is a meere humane inuention, and new deuise, hauing no ground eyther in the Scriptures, or other monuments of Antiquitie: but also that the Episcopall function is of Apostolicall and Diuine institution. And whereas my Sermon published in defence of the holy and honourable calling of Bishops, hath been eagerly oppugned by a namelesse refuter; I thought my selfe bound in conscience to deliuer the truth, which I had defended, from his sophisticall cauillations. The which, through Gods good blessing vponupon my labours I hauehave so performed, that there is scarce any one sentence of the Sermon (if any at all) oppugned by the aduersarie, which I hauehave not defended by plaine, euidence of truth. These my labours I hauehave presumed to dedicate to your Maiestie, as the principall Patrone (vnderunder Christ) of that truth which I defend; not onelyonly intreating your Highnes to accept in good part my poore endeauours; but also commending my selfe, and them, to your most gracious Patronage and Royall protection. The King of Kings blesse, prosper, and preserue your excellent Maiestie to his glorie, the good of his Church, and your owne euerlasting comfort. Amen.
Your Maiesties most dutifull and loyall subiect, GEORGE DOVVNAME.
The Contents of this Booke.
The first booke treateth chiefly of Lay-elders.
CHap. 1. Answering the Refuters Preamble, concerning the Authour and matter of the Sermon and the Text.
Chap. 2. Deuiding the Sermon, and defending the first part thereof which he calleth the Preface.
Chap. 3. Defending the two first sections concerning Elders, and prouing that there were no Presbyters in the primitiue Church but Ministers.
Chap. 4. Contayning the first reason why Lay-elders are not proued out of the 1 Tim. 5.17.
Chap. 5. Maintayning the second reason.
Chap. 6. Mayntaining the third reason.
Chap. 7. That Ambrose on 1 Tim. 5.1. doth not giuegive testimonie to Lay-elders, and that their exposition of Ambrose is vntrue.
Chap. 8. The proofe of their exposition of Ambrose disproued, and the reasons why the counsell of the Seniors was neglected, defended.
Chap. 9. Answering the testimonies which the Refuter alleageth to proue Lay-elders.
Chap. 10. Contayning an answere to the same testimonies and some others as they are alleaged by other Disciplinarians.
Chap. 11. Answering the allegations out of the Fathers for Lay-elders.
The second Booke proueth that the Churches which had Bishops were Dioceses, and the Angels or Pastors of them Diocesan Bishops.
CHap. 1. Intreating of the diuers acceptations of the words foreign, Church, Diocese and Paraecia, which is translated parish.
Chap. 2. Prouing by ether arguments that the ancient Churches which had Bishops were not Parishes but Dioceses.
Chap. 3. that the seauen Churches in Asia were Dioceses.
Chap. 4. That Presbyteries were appointed not to Parishes but to Dioceses.
Chap. 5. Answering their obiections who say that in the first 200. yeeres all the Christians in each great city were but one particular congregation, assembling in one place.
Chap. 6. The Arguments for the new found Parish discipline answered
Chap. 7. That the Angels or Bishops of the primitiue Churches were Diocesan Bishops.
The third Booke treateth of the superioritie of Bishops aboue other Ministers.
CHap. 1. Confuteth the Refuters preamble to the fourth point concerning the superiority of Bishops, and defendeth mine entrance thereinto.
Chap. 2. Declareth in generall that Bishops were superiour to other Ministers in degree.
Chap. 3. Sheweth more particularly wherein the superiority of Bishops did and doth consist. And first their singularity of preheminence for terme of life.
Chap. 4. Demonstrateth the superiority of Bishops in power, and first in the power of ordination.
Chap. 5. Proueth the superiority of Bishops in the power of iurisdiction.
Chap. 6. Treateth of the titles of honour giuen to Bishops.
The fourth Booke proueth the Episcopall function to be of Apostolicall and diuine institution.
CHap. 1. That the Ecclesiasticall gouernment by Bishops was generally receiued in the first 300. yeeres after the Apostles.
Chap. 2. That the Episcopall gouernment was vsed in the Apostolicall Churches, in the Apostles times without their dislike.
Chap. 3. That the Apostles themselues ordayned Bishops.
Chap. 4. The places where and the persons whom the Apostles ordayned Bishops, but chiefly that Timothie was Bishop of Ephesus and Titus of Creet.
Chap. 5. Answereth to the allegations out of Ierome.
Chap. 6. Directly proueth the Episcopall function to be of diuine institution.
Chap. 7. Defendeth the conclusion of the Sermon, and sheweth that the chiefe Protestants did not dissallowe the Episcopall gouernment.
FINIS.