such as are nominated elected and presented to any Church 3. to make and ordeyn rules and canons for order and quietnes for diversities of degrees among Ministers c. And that those orders are to be made by the ministers of the Church with the consent of the people before Christian Prince and after Christian Princes with the authority and consent both of Prince and people Againe we think it convenient that all Bishops and Preachers shall instrust the people comitted to their spirituall charge that wheras certeyn men doe imagine and affirme that Christ should give unto the Bishop of Rome power and authority over all Bishops and Preists in Christs Church c. that it is utterly false and untrue Againe it is out of all doubt that there is no mencion made neyther in the scripture nor in the wrytings of any authentical Doctor or author in the Church being within the times of the Apostles that Christ did ever make or institute any distinction or difference to be in the preheminence of power order or jurisdiction between the Apostles themselves or betwene the Bishops themselves but they were equall in power order authority and iurisdiction And that there is now since the time of the Apostles any such diversity or difference among the Bishops it was divised among the auncient Fathers of the primitive Church for the conservation of good order and vnity of the Catholike church and that eyther by the consent and authority or els 〈◊〉 least by the permissiâ—â— sufferance of the Princes and civill powers for the time rulinge For the sayd Fathers considering the great and infinite multitude of Christian men so largely increased through the world and taking examples of the old testament thought it expedient to make an order of degrees amonge Bishops and spirituall governors This it seemed the D. marked not of the Church so ordeyned some to be Patriarches some to be Primates some to be Metropolitanes some to be Archbishops some Bishops And to them limited not onely several Dioceses or Provinces where they should exercise their power and not exceed the same but also certayne bounds and limitts of their iurisdiction and power In so much that whereas in the time of the Apostles it was lawfull for all Bishops certeyne of them assembling togither to constitute and consecrate other Bishops the sayd Fathers restreyned the sayd power reserved the same in such wise that without the consent and authority of the Metropolitane or Archbishop no Bishop could be consecrate in any Province likewise in other cases their powers were also restreyned for such causes as were then thought vnto them conventent Which differences the sayd holy Fathers thought necessary to enact establish by their decrees and constitutions not for that any such differences were prescribed or established in the Gospel or mencioned in any canonicall writings of the Apostles or testified by any ecclesiastical wryter within the dayes of the Apostles but to the intent that thereby coÌ„tention variance schismes divisions should be avoyded and the Church preserved in good order and concord Loe here their words now obâ—erve we among other things 1. that they joyne togither Bishops and 1. That they make Preists or Bishops all one Preists not onely in the duty of instructing but also in the power of the keyes of bearing the spirituall charge of the people coÌ„mitted to them 2. And in setting downe that headship of the Pope which they disclaime they joyne the Priests with the Bps. of Christs Church affirme his power of claime authoritie froÌ„ Christ over both to be alike false and vntrue 3. they saye that the Fathers devised an order of degrees among the Bishops spiritual governours of the Church which last words spiritual governors must needs include all Preachers that have spiritual charge as is before noted 4. And as among those degrees ordeyned by them they reckoÌ„ Bishops aswel as Archbishops c. so they ascribe vnto the devise of the Fathers the limitatioÌ„ of several Dioceses aswel as of Provinces yea the limitatioÌ„ of the power of Bishops aswel as of Archbishops which cannot be thought they would ever have done if they had held theÌ„ jure divino 5. And ail this was after that Christians were increased to an infinite multitude throughout the world and in an imitation of the example of like degrees in the old testament not for that any such were established in the newe c. wherfore if the D. had well perused their words with an indifferent eye looked to the scope and drift of their pleading he mought have found that whatsoever they speak of the equalitie or superiority of Bps. amonge themselves affirming the one and denying the other to be instituted by Christ the same is to be understood not of such Bishops as had that name proper to them after the Fathers had established sundry differences of degrees but of all apostolike Bishops or spiritual governours preists or preachers which had the spiritual charge of any people coÌ„mitted to them by the Apostles Which appeareth yet more clearely as by that other booke called Reformatio leguÌ„ ecclesiasticaruÌ„ compiled by them wherein it shall appeare anone they make the Bishops in quaestion to be of no other institution then the rest of that ranck of Archbishops ArchdeacoÌ„s Deanes c. so also by that which Bishop Tonstall Stokesley two others of them and therefore fittest to interprete their own meaning writt in their letters to Cardinal Poole S. Ierom say they aswell in his CoÌ„mentary on the Epistle to Titus as in his Epistle to Euagrius sheweth that those primacyes long after Christs ascension were made by the device of men where as before by the coÌ„mon agreement consent of the Clergie every of the Churches were governed yea the Patriarchall Churches The words of S. Ierom are these sciant ergo episcopi se magis ex consuetudine quam dispensationis Dominicae veritate Praesbyteris esse majores And in the margin this note is sett Difference betwixt Bishops Preists how it came in What caÌ„ be more plaine then this to shewe that those Bishops did acknowledge as the ref saith the disparity of Ministers the primacie of Bishops aswel as of Archbishops c. was but a politik divise of the Fathers and not any ordinance of Christ Iesus This shall suffice for that testimony before we come to the next it shall not be amisse to speak a word or two coÌ„cerning the D. confession touching the parity of Bishops among themselves but yet restreyning it to the power of order for feare of offending cutting off his Archbishops head But so it falleth out that when men are affraid to what is truth for offending one side they often speak to the offeÌ„ce of the other that so farre as we see the D. here cutteth off the whole argument of the Bishops against the papall authoritie whiles he denieth what they affirme
same is it not all one to succeed them in the government of those Churches and to be their successors in the like authoritie Perhaps he meaneth now to conclude though before he sayd it was needlesse that DiocesaÌ„ Bishops were their successors in office if so then hath he somewhat more to doe then he expecteth he must prove his propositioÌ„ which he beggeth Meane while till his meaning herein be knowne I flatly deny his assumption and am ready once againe to listen to his proofes of this proposition that diocesan Bishops succeeded Timothy and Titus in the like power of government over the Churches of Ephesus Creete First touching Timothies successors in Ephesus whereas he alleadgeth Sect. 13. ad pag. 86. 87. that the Angel of the Church of Ephesus Apoc. 2. 1. was one of Timothies next successours he was answered that he doth but tediously begge the question in assuming that the same Angell was a Diocesan Bishop and now overpassing this point as The D. beggeth if he sawe it not he appealeth to his Refuters conscience whether that Angel was not the Bishop or governour of the Church of Ephesus and succeeded Timothy in the government c. Wherein if he should gratifye him with the graunt of as much as he desireth scz that the Angel was one singular person a Bishop yea and a successour unto Timothy and one of those 27 Bishops mentioned by Leontius in the Councell of Calcedon yet the Doctor isnever the neer it will not follow that he was a diocesan Bishop for that other braunch of the Refuters answer unto Leontius testimony standeth yet unremoved viz. that howsoever the later of these 27 Bishops might be DiocesaÌ„s yet the former were not The Doctor sayth It is certayne that both the later and the former were not onely Diocesan but also Metropolitan Bishops but I answer he is much deceived if he think we will take his bare affirmation It is certeine for a sufficient confirmation of the matter in question And if Timothies iÌ„mediate successours were for certeinty Metropolitan Bishops why is the Doctor so fearfull as he seemeth to be lib. 2. pag. 114. lib. 4. pag. 131. to ascribe their originall also to the Apostles institution And why doth he by consequence contradict it in saying It is evident and cannot be denyed but that there were diocesan Bishops such as ours before there were any Metropolitans lib. 3. pag. 20. lib. 4. pag. 7. for me thinks he should blush to affirme that Timothy and Titus were bare Diocesans if their iÌ„mediate successors were Metropolitans As touching Creet and succession to Titus in the government thereof the Doctor confesseth that he hath not any where read of his next successor The first that he findeth to haue that ample government was Philip mencioned by Dionysius of Corinth apud Euseb lib. 4. Cap. 21. 23. Yet betweene him and Titus there is an apparant difference for Philip had the speciall charge of the Church of Gortyna whereas Titus was equally trusted by the Apostle with the oversight of all the Churches in the whole Iland He addeth though there were no direct proofe that Diocesan or Provincial Bishops were the successors of Timothy and Titus yet it might easily be gathered by other Churches from whose forme of government Ephesus and Creet varied not After having sayd that Mark at Alexandria Evodius at Antioche Linus at Rome had the same authoritie that Timothy and Titus had he argueth demonstratively in this manner It may not be doubted but that each of these had Bishops he should have sayd Diocesan Bishops to their successors in the Apostles times Therefore the Refuter should not make it so strange that Diocesan Bishops were successors of Timothy and Titus Whereto I answer It seemeth then the Refuter is not to be blamed for esteeming the later a strange point if the former may be doubted and why should he not make a doubt of it seing the D. hath no better testimony or reason to confirme it then his owne naked affirmation It cannot be denyed Thus we have seene the Do. best defence for that episcopall function which he giveth to Timothy Titus his next labour is to remove the objections made against his assertion Chap. 9. Concerning the first obiection against the Bishopricks of Timothy and Titus handled by the Doctor lib. 4. cap. 4. sect 9. and 10. pag. 89-92 THe first objection he layeth downe in these wordes That Timothy Sect. 1. ad sect 9. p. â—9 and Titus may seeme not to have bin appointed Bishops of Ephesus and Creet because they did not continue there but were removed to other places Wherein although the Doctor hath omitted the maine point that should give strength to the consequence viz. that they continued there by the band of their office as being affixed to the perpetuall charge of those Churches yet as if the Refuter had made choise of his owne wordes contrived it for his best advantage he telleth the reader it is an objection of his owne framing But it is usuall with him when he would seem to remove our objections to fit them to his owne strength that his answer may seeme to carry the victory with it Otherwise since himselfe assenteth pag. 94 to this difference between the function of Evangelists and Bishops that the former were not tied to any one place as the later are he might and in upright dealing onght to haue framed to himselfe at the first this objection viz. that Timothy and Titus were not tied or bound to attend during life on the charge of those Churches in Ephesus Creet and therefore they were not by Paul ordeyned Bishops of those Churches But then his distinction of perpetuall and ordinarie residence would not have reached to impugne eyther the antecedent or the consequence of the argument For the consequence implyeth this proposition that all whom the Apostles ordeyned Bishops of particular Churches were affixed or bound to the perpetuall charge of those Churches This if the Doctor deny it may easily be proved by the lawe of God and man and by the testimony of the best writers in all ages but I will spare this labour seing the D himselfe cannot impugne it as I suppose without contradiction to himselfe For how can Bishops enjoy by the prerogative of their function 〈◊〉 singularity of preheminence during life if their assignment to the charge of the Church which they holde bindeth theÌ„ not to attend on the feeding and oversight thereof as long as they live I graunt that Bishops may upon speciall and extraordinarie occasion not onely traveile to other places but also be removed unto other Churches but in their absence they remaine bound to the charge of the Church first coÌ„mitted to them till by a lawfull calling they be removed to the setled oversight of an other church Wherefore an ordinary residence in Ephesus and Creet is not sufficient to prove that they were Bishops of those Churches
Pastors Teachers the Deacons into treasurers for the poore and those which are Presbyters or Elders viz. Orderers or moderators of discipline Nicholaus Laurentius a late Superintendent in Denmark in his treatise of excommunication published Anno 1610. hath these asserrions That the right of excommunication is not in the power of any one man eyther Bishop or Pastor but in the power of the Pastors that company which Paul calleth the Presbyterie p. 62. That excoÌ„municatioÌ„ is eyther of the whole Church meaning the people or of certayn grave meÌ„ which are in stead of the whole Church so that the Pastor doe publikely in the name of the whole Church pronounce the sentence p. 64 That where there is no such Senate or Presbyterie except the Magistrate shall otherwise decree and provide the Pastor choose two or three godly and discreet men of his parish and the Superintendent and two of the Pastors in that Province wherein he dwelleth and bring the matter before them all c. ibid Many moe might be brought for this purpose if it were fitting for this place but these are enough to justify the refuters assertion and to shewe the Doct. weaknes in so overreaching as to charge that unjustly vpon his refuter which he himself is justly guilty of Chap. 3. Wherein the Refuter is freed from the first of foure other notorious untruthes charged upon him by the Doctor Sect. 1. pag. 4. of the ref and pag of the D. 4. 5. In the D. next section he chargeth his refuter to add to his former overreaching foure notorious vntruthes concerning our owne land because he said his doctrine was against 1. the doctrine of our Martyrs 2. contrarie to the profissed judgement of all our worthy wryters 3. contrariant to the lawes of our land 4. contrarying the doctrine of the Church of England A foul fault if true and no great credit for the D if not his refut in his sayings but himself in so saying hath vttered 4. notorious vntruthes let us therefore examine them and in this chapter the first of them The refuters words out of which the D. would extract the first of them are these that the Do. sermon is against the doctrine of our immediate forefathers some of whome were worthy Martyrs who in their submission to King Henry the 8. at the abolishing the Popes authority out of England acknowledge with subscription that the disparity of Ministers and Lordly primacie of Bishops was but a politick devise of the fathers not any ordinance of Christ and that the government by the Minister and Seniors or Elders in every parish was the ancient discipline These be his words for his proofe he referreth us to three bookes the booke of Martyrs the booke called the Bishops booke and the booke called Reformatio legum ecclesiasticarum Consider we now how the D. convinceth this to be a notorious vntruth The witnesses saith he which the Ref. queteth were Archbishop Cranmer and other Bishops allowing the episcopall function both in iudgement and practise it is almost incredible that any testimonies can from them be soundly alledged against the same Incâ—edible in deed if they had been cast into the mould in which our nowe Bishops have been formed otherwise it is credible enongh that they may as I stil affirme that they doe testifye something against such a calling of Bishops as the D. mainteyneth and yet hold the function practise thereof lawfull Was it never heard of that some of our later Bishops that worthy Iewel and others allowed the episcopall function both in judgement and practise yet denied the tenure thereof to be jure divino which is the point in quaestion though the D. here would not see it And why may not they allowe of the Lordly primacie of Bishops jure bumano disclayme it jure divino aswell as allowe them to exercise civill authority and yet disclaime it as being lawful iure divino as may appeare they did in the places cited But 2. the D. goeth on and as if he had already said enough to prove his refuter to be as unconscionable as may be saith that he wondreth greatly at his large conscience in this behalf who throughout the book taketh wonderful liberty in citing authours alleadging as their testimonies his owne conceits which he brought not from their writings but to them A heavie charge if true but here it the comfort that upon due examination it wil be found to prove otherwise It is no newe thing that they who are themselves the most egregious wresters of testimonies should be the readiest as the D. here is to laye the charge on others Let us novv trie out the whole in the particulars First concerning the testimony taken from the booke of Martyrs and the Bishops booke or booke intituled The institution of a Christian man the Doctor telleth us that he hath perused it and findeth nothing at all concerning the superiority of of Bishops over other Ministers that which is said concerneth the superiority of Bishops among themselves all whom with the ancient fathers I confesse sayth he in respect of the power of order to be equal as were the Apostles whose successors they are If it be but so as the Doct. here coÌ„fesseth they say enough to shewe and he hath subscribed it that the function of Archbishops is jure humano But if he had perused with purpose to find out what is there to be found he mought easily The D. caâ—â—â—niâ—â—eth have found full as much as the Refuter citeth it for For it speaketh not of Bishops severed from other Preists and Preachers but promiscuously of all Bishops Preists Preists and Preachers as appeareth by diverse passages of that part of the book there sett downe to witt the chap of the Sacrament of orders amongst which consider we 1. that there should be continually in the Church militant ministers or officers to have speciall power vnder Christ to preach the word administer the Sacramentes ioose and binde by excommunication and order consecrate others in the same roome and office whereto they be called that their power was limited and office ordeyned of God Ephes 4 coÌ„mitted and given by Christ his Apostles to certeyn persons onely viz. Preists and Bishops That albeit the holy-Fathers of the Church succeeding did institute inferior orders and degrees c. yet the truth is that in the new Testament there is no mencion made of any degrees or distinction in orders but onely of Deacons or Ministers That the power and authority belonging to Preists and Bishops is of 2. parts potestas ordinis and potestas iurisdictionis to the first wherof alwayes good consent hath bene about the second some disagrement and therefore they think it meet that the Bishops and preachers instruct the people that the iurisdiction committed to Preists and Bishops by authority of Gods lawe consisteth in three speciall points 1. in admonition excommunication and absolution 2. in approving and admitting
be called to the knowledge of their sinne publikely to be punished that the Church by their wholesome correction may be kept in order Moreover the Minister going aside with some of the Seniors shall take counsell how others whose maâ—ners are sayd to be naught and whose life is found out to be wicked first may be talked withall in brotherly charity according to Christs precept in the Gospell by sober and honest men by whose admonitions if they shall reforme themselves thanks is duely to be given to God but if they shall goe on in their wickednes they are to receive such sharp punishment as we see in the Gospell provided against their contumacy In the 11. Chap. they sett downe in case that they judge any for contumacy worthy to be excoÌ„municated how to proceed in the exercise and denouncinge of that sentence 1. the Bishop is to be gone unto and his sentence to be known who if he shal consâ—â—t and putt to his authority the sentence is to be denounced before the whole congregation that therein so much as may be we may bringe in the auncient disciplyne Here are their words now what sayth M. D. to prove that these words notwithstanding the refuter is an egregious falsifyer and that the reader may be these words thus transcribed discerne the allegations to be forged of this last he hath never a word concerning the first he telleth us that though they mention Seniors and auncient discipliâ—e yet they meant nothinge lâ—sse then to bring in lâ—y-Elders or to establish the pretended parish discipline or to acknowledge that it was the ancient discipline of the Church And what of all this what if they did mean none of these yet shall that which the refuter affirmeth of them remayne true still What they meant and acknowledge we shall see by and by when we have seene the D. proofs that they meant not so He telleth vs he wil out of the book it selfe make it manifest and I wil tell him he will not but I will the contrary rather To make his word good if he could he sayth The whole goverment and discipline of our Church by Archbishops Bishops Archdeacons Rurall Deanes c. is established in that book and to make good mine I saie it mattereth not they had no commission from the K. to remove it and bring in that ancient discipline which by their wordes they acknowledge was not then in use but diverse from that established their coÌ„mission stretched no further then to examine the lawes reforme abuses letting the offices to remaine still yea and therein to proceed no further then would stand with those offices the lawes of the land Will the D. saye that they in all the booke have any one word to shewe that they held that government and discipline of our Church by Archbishops Bishops ArchdeacoÌ„s rurall Deanes c. to be jure divino Nay as divers of them in their submission to King H. the 8. professe the contrary so throughout this book they have no one word tending to prove the Bishops authority over other Ministers to be any more jure divino then Archbishops Archdeacons Rurall Deanes c but as they are birds of a feather so they stand and fall togither by one and the same ecclesiastical lawe or humane ordinance But let vs heare what the Doctor can make the book speake concerning the Bishops authoritie he sendeth us to the 12. chap. where he saith it is decreed that the Bishop is at fâ—â— seasons to give holy orders c. to remove unfit men c. to correct by ecclesiastical censures vices corrupt manners to prescribe orders for amendement of life to excoÌ„municate those which wilfully obstinately refist to receive into grace those that be penitent c. and finally to take care of all things which ex Dei prescripto by the ordinance of God belong to them and which our ecclesiasticall lawes have coÌ„mitted to their knowledge and judgements Very wel and what doth the D. inferre of all this just nothing I will help him by and by But first who seeth not that those fathers vnderstoode two parts of that episcopall function one divine the care of those things which are prescribed them by God and coÌ„mon to all Bishops or Ministers of the word one principall member whereof to witt the diligent and syncere preaching of the word they mention as the first duty in the first words of that Chapter which the D. left ouâ— perhaps because divers of our Bishops have left it of as no part or the least part of their duety the other humane viz the exercise of that ecclesiasticall jurisdiction which was committed to them by the K. in his ecclesiasticall lawes Now 2. to help the D. a little he should have inferred vpon the wordes sett downe by him That therefore the authority of doing all those things mentioned was in the judgement of those Fathers in the hands of the Bishops alone the which if he durst not doe he should have brought forth some other chapter to shewe it else certeynely he can saye nothing to the purpose And that it may appeare he cannot doe it I will nowe make it manifest out of the booke that they were of a contrary judgement and laboured so farre as their coÌ„mission would suffer them to bring in that auncient discipline before spoken of concerning the ruling and guiding of the particular flocks by the Mâ—nister and Seniors of the same and so farre brought it in by the order prescribed in that booke that it cutteth the windpipe of the D. sermon concerning his sole ruling Bishops so in sunder as it will never breath from their decrees nor ever have affinity with the auncient discipline they speake of We have already seene concerning discipline and excoÌ„munication what they decree cap. 10. 11 that being remembred add we to it that in the 6. cap. de excommunicat thus they further order 1. that if possibly it may be it being a thinge much to be desired the consent of the whole Church or Congregation should be had before excommunication be decreed or denounced against any 2. that no one man Archbishop Bishop or other shall have the power of excommunication in his handes And therefore 3 that neyther Archbishop Bishop or any ecclesiasticall Iudge sholl so much as decree excoÌ„munication without the consent of one Iustice of peace of the Minister of the Congregation where the delinquent dwelleth or in his absence of his deputy Curate or assistant and of 2. or 3. other Ministers both learned and of good life in whose presencâ— the whole matter busynes shal be heard debated pondered decreed In like sort for the receiving agayne of the excommunicate person into the Church vpon his repentance in the 14. chap they likewise order 1. that it shall not be by any Iudge before his repentance be approved and certificate therof made to the Bishop by the Minister and Syndicks or some of the cheife
drawne by him to justify that jurisdiction of Bishops for which he pleadeth Who seeth not that these his highnes wordes do evidently shewe that he giveth no other jurisdiction to Bishops over Presbyters by apostolicall institution then vnto Archbishops over Bishops and to Patriarches over Archbishops And the same is not any sole power of rule but for order sake such a principallity as three of the Apostles had over the rest and Peter had above the eleven as is further to be observed out of page 48. where we may easily discerne that it cannot be the Kings meaning to give vnto Peter such jurisdictiō over the Apostles as our Bishops have over Presbyters nor yet to clippe the wings of his own supremacie which he must needs doe if that superiority of order which he giveth to Patriaches above Archbishops shall drawe with it that power of rule which our Archbishops and Bishops have and exercise in their Courts Thus much may suffice to free the Refuter from the third vntruth falsely fathered on him by the Doct. The rest of his speaches may well be passed over as impertinent for however he sayth he herein cōmeth to the point yet as he therin toucheth not the point in question so he discovereth his owne vnsaying what he sayd before in his sermon touching the perpetuity of the episcopal function The D. vnsaieth in his Def. what he said in his sermon And were it fitt to followe him in his wandring frō the point in hand it were no hard matter to shewe that himselfe and others of his side have their hands cheife in the trespasse which he closely chargeth his Refut and the men of his side with For none in the Land have set their tongues penns so earnestly to abridge Kings and Princes of that libertie his Majesty speaketh of then the favourers of the episcopall government now in question To let passe Archbishop Whitgifte in his Defence against T. C. page 171. and 181. and wishing the Reader onely to compare it with T. C. secōd Reply part 1. page 227. and 614. with diverse moe observe we what one M. D. Dove saith in his defence of Church-government The Church must be ordered saith he page 3. according to the precepts and examples of holy writt Bishops saith he p. 34. ought to be Lordes and ecclesiasticall persons ought to vse civil authority quoniam ab initio fuit sic from Adam to Moses it was so frō Moses to Christ and the Apostles it was so with thē it was so frō thē hath so continued vntil this time excepting onely the times of persecutiō c. which he thus salveth a litle after where he saith Our question is not what was then of fact but what ought to have bene of right But as for this Doctor it may be the Doctor will say litle more then that he mought have bene wiser What defence trowe we will he make for that his reverend father that gave him so good satisfaction concerning the episcopall function who discovereth his judgement by the title of his booke The perpetuall goverment of Christs Church And if we advisedly weigh what he affirmeth in the treatise it selfe page 3. lin 9 -12 and compare togither p. 106. lin 32. c. page 2 3. lin 12. with page 245. lin 4. 9. 247. lin 32-35 we may easily discern that he placeth a maine necessity in the reteyning of the episcopall function Yea and so doth the D. also as his words already sett downe doe shewe Neither can he with all his shifting avoid the force of the objection which from those wordes his Refuter inforceth as shal be shewed more at large in a place more fit for the purpose For the present I onely wish the reader to observe that how ever he seemeth to assent vnto the Kings speach which his refuter mentioneth himselfe setteth downe yet for feare of offending his good Lords the Bishops and Archbishops he dareth not openly professe the outward forme of ecclesiasticall regiment to be lefte to the libertie of Princes and Cōmon wealthes as the King affirmeth viz. that they may prescribe to their subjects what seemeth vnto them fittest to to agree with the civil government And yet in a matter of farre lesse moment to witt the maintenance of our Clergie by tithes and other temporalities he feareth not to taxe the King and the Lawes of our land underhand and by consequence of sacriledge in alienating deteyning from the Clergie the tithes or any thing else once dedicated to holy vses See his sermon of the dignitie and dutie of the Ministers page 82. But whither am I run in this digression I come now to the fourth notorious vntruth wherewith the Sect. 3. and Ref. pag. 5. D. pag. 9. 10. Refuter is charged by the Doct. because he saith that the doctrine of his sermon is contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England professed even by the Bishops themselves till of late dayes when as men weary to hold any longer in capite of the K. they began to change their tenure into soccage and disired to be free even from Knightes service For proofe of some part whereof he referreth the reader in his margin to Bishop Iewels defence of the Apologie and Archbishop Whitgift against Mr Cartw. See we now how the D. proveth a notorious vntruth in them First The D. to colour his 4. slander addeth to the Refu◠wordes besides his meaninge he addeth these words of his owne to them Therefore vtterly false and so maketh an Enthimeme of them as if the Ref should holde all for true that the Church of Engl holdeth concerning the government of the Church and the contrary therevnto for false Whereas the Refuter neyther so saith nor meaneth Might the D. be this once asked what he meant by adding that his last sentence and making an enthymeme of this last speach of the Refuter not of any the rest Was he at a nonplus that he must needs make himself work quite besides the point in question yea besides the refuters words and meaninge Wherefore to let passe the work he hath upon that his Enthimeme made to himself in his next page beginning at his Lastly I wil touch upon the point which the D. here calleth the Antecedent viz. that the doctrine of his sermon is contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England professed by the Bishops He telleth vs he giveth no credite to it though Bishop Iewell and Archbishop Whit. be cited at random But will his not giving creditt to it prove it to be a notorious vntruth I trowe not by that tyme we have heard thē speak Are they cited at randō their bookes are named and divers of their testimonies not unknowne to the D if he had but read his ref answere pag. 34. 124. let us heare them speak againe And first of Archb. Whitg concerning the Elders in question I knowe saith he answ to the admon p.
161 162. that in the primitive Ch they had in every Church certeyne Seniors to whom the govermeÌ„t of the coÌ„gregatioÌ„ was coÌ„mitted but that was before there was any Chr. Pr. or Magistrate Both the names and offices of Seniors were extinguished before Ambrose his time as himself testifyeth wryting upon 1. Tim. 5. And knoweth not the Doct that the Archbishop in his defence of that his answere page 161. vpon his second thoughts three times confesseth asmuch almost in the same words I confesse sayth he that there was Seniors and I alleadged Ambrose partly for that purpose and partly to shewe that both their names and offices were exstinguished before his time And knoweth not the Doctor also that he spendeth two pages at the least 656. 658 to shewe the inconveniences that would as he conceiveth folowe vpon the reteyning of that government vnder ChristiaÌ„ Princes especially in the Church of England Secondly concerning the whole discipline or government of the Church doth he not in his answere to the AdmonitioÌ„ page 162 affirme that the diversity of time and state of the Church requireth diversity of government in the same that it cannot be governed in tyme of prosperity as it is in the time of persecution c. Doth he not in his defence page 658. 660. spend a whole Chapter tending as the title sheweth to prove that there is no one certeyne kind of government in the Church which must of necessity be perpetually observed After which discourse knitteth he not vp the matter with these 3. knotts 1. that it is well knowne how the manner and forme of government used in the Apostles times and expressed in the scriptures neyther is now nor can nor ought to be observed eyther touching the persons or the functions 2. that it is playne that any one certayne forme or kind of government perpetually to be observed is no where in scripture prescribed to the Church but the charge thereof left to the Christian Magistrate c. 3. that wee must admitt another forme nowe of governing the Church then was in the Apostles times or els we must seclude the Christian Magistrate from all authority in ecclesiasticall matters Lastly concerning the tenure of their episcopal authoritie doth he not acknowledge page 680. all jurisdiction that any Court in England hath or doth exercise be it civil or ecclesiasticall to be then executed in the Queens Maiesties name and right and to come from her as supreme Governour And speaking page 747 of the Colledge of Presbyters which Ierom calleth Senatum ecclesiae togither with the Bishop had the deciding of all controversies in doctrine or ceremonies saith he not that that kinde of government which those Churches Cathedral he meaneth had it transferred to the civil Magistrate to whom it is due and to such as by him are appointedâ— If the Doct. hath read him he knoweth all this to be true Thus much breifly for the testimony and judgment of that Archbishop the which how farre it differeth from the Doctors sermon whatsoever he sayth now by exchange in his defence and whether it casteth not the governmeÌ„t by Archbishops and Bishops out of the Apostles times let the reader comparatis comparandis judge Come we now to Bishop Iewels judgement set downe at large in his defence of the Apologie out of which the Doctor saith that Confession of the English Church was collected whose testimony I might well coÌ„mend in regard the booke out of which it is taken is commanded to be in all our Churches but that the Doctor wil againe as before cry a mountaine banck but I will barely lay it downe and let it commend it self First concerning the power of the keies he hath in his apolog chap. 7. divis 5. these words Seing one manner of word is given to all and one onely keâ—e belongeth to all we say speaking in the name of the Church of England there is but one onely power of all Ministers as concerninge openninge and shutting And in his defence of that Apology speaking of the authority of the Preist or Minister of the congregation for so he meaneth he saith parte 2. page 140. that as a Iudge togither with the Elders of the congregation he hath authority both to condemne and to absolve And page 152. that in the primitive Church eyther the whole people or the Elders of the Congregation had authoritie herein and that the direction and judgment rested evermore in the Preest And affirming that though those orders for the greatest part were now outof use yet he shewing out of Beatus Rhenanus howe they were vsed in old time saith That the excoÌ„municated person when he began first to repent came first to the Bishop and Preists as vnto the mouthes of the Church and opened to them the whole burthen of his hart by whom he was brought into the congregation to make open confession and satisfaction which done duely and humbly he was restored againe openly into the Church by laying on of the handes of the priests and Elders Againe concerning the authoritie of Bishops over other Ministers cap. 3. divis 5. page 109. he mainteyneth the testimony which in his Apologie he had alleadged out of Ierom ad Evagriu making all Bishops to be of like preheminence and preisthood against the cavills of Harding as the refuter will I doubt not against the shifts of the D. And thus he saith What S. Ierom meant hereby Erasmus a man of great learninge and judgement expoundeth thâ—â— Ierom seemeth to match all Bishops together as if they were all equally the Apostles successors And he thmketh not any Bishop to be lesse then other for that he is poorer or greater then other for that he is richer For he maketh the Bishop of Eugubium a poore towne equall with the Bishop of Rome And further he thinketh that a Bishop is no better then any Preist save that he hath authority to order Ministers Againe pag. 111. that whereas Primates had authority over other Inferior Bishops they had it by agreement and custome but neyther by Christ nor by Peter nor Paul nor by any right of Gods word And to shewe that it was not his judgment alone he produceth Ierom and Austin Ierom upon Titus 1. sayinge Lett Bishops vnderstand that they are above the Preists rather of custome then of any truth or right of Christes institution And that they ought to rule the Church altogither And that a Preist and a Bishop are all one c. Austin epist 19. saying The office of a Bishop is above the office of a Preist not by the authority of the scriptures saith Bishop Iewel in a perenthesis but after the names of honour which by the custome of the Church have now obteyned Againe chap. 9. divis 1. pag. 198. What ment Mr. Harding saith he here to come in with the difference betwixt Preists and Bishops thinketh he that Preists and Bishops holde onely by tradition or is it so horrible an heresy as he
meere cavill joyned with an evident vntruth The D. jâ—ineth a cavill and an vntruth togither to say as the D. doth that the proposition sett downe by the Refuter is not his but stretched beyonde not onely his meaninge but also his wordes 4. But it was the D. cunninge to take advantage of the word seeminge here vsed but elsewhere omitted so to perswade if he could that his Resuter had no colour from his wordes to coclude that he did sett vp but onely that he did seeme to sett vp absolute poplinges for which cause also in meeting with the places where the Refuter reneweth this objection which yet is no oftener then his owne wordes gave occasion by his renewinge of his calumniation against the favourites of the government by presbyters he sendeth back his reader to this place saying that thâ—se objections though repeated in other wordes answering to his owne termes are answered before and that to their shame see lib. 1. pa. 194. lib. 3. pag. 142. But will he nill he we have gained the propositio so that if his answere to the assumptio be not the better the shame will light vpon his owne pate To come therefore to the assumption First lett it be remembred Sect. 8. that the Refuter propounded it not as his owne assertion which he ment to prove by the constitution of our Churches or the practise of our Bishops but as a pointe which the D. vndertaketh to prove in his sermon 2. He is likewise to be so vnderstood as ofte as he objecteth against our Bishops that having sole and supreme authority they rule as Popes or Popelinge wherefore the assumption which the D. rejecteth as false and foolish or frivolous is this in effecte That all diocesan Bishops have or ought to have in the D. opinion not onely supreme but also sâ—le-sâ—le-authority in matters ecclesiasticall within their diocesse Or thus The D. giveth and alloweth to diâ—cesan Bishops such supreme and sole authority c. Wherefore to make way for the proofe of this Assumption the Refuter first layde downe the state of the question into which the Doctor is nowe entred viz. whither the Churches should be governed by Pastors and Elders or by Diocesan Bishops and then addeth that where they say by Pastors and Elders adioyning the Elders to the Pastors and making them both subuct to the congregation so farr off are they from giving sole and supreme authoritie to the Pastors alone c. Mr Doct. taketh all from them all and putteth the reâ—â—â— into the bandes of his Diocesans alone c. From which words to conclude the former assumption and in the contriving of the argument to keep as neere as may be to the tenour of the syllogisme proposed by the Doctor to himself to confute thus I argue Whosoever giveth to the Diocesan Bishop alone that power which is taken from the severall Pastors with their Elders and parishes he giveth to the Diocesan Bishop supreme and sole authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall But the Doctor giveth to the Diocesan Bishop alone that power which is taken from their several Pastors with their Elders and Parishes Therefore the Doctor giveth to the Diocesan Bishop both supreme and sole authoritie in causes ecclesiastical I take the proposition which the Doct. himself setteth downe sect 11. pag. 43. and adjoyne such an assumption as best fitteth with it And I nothing doubt but the Refuter will easily be discharged from all the untruthes the Doctor chargeth upon him and it be made to appeare that the Doct. himself is the man that climbeth that ladder of vntruthes to put his The D. not the Ref. climbeth the ladder of vntruthes Bishops out of that seate of papacie wherein by his owne rules they were quietly seated And first I will confirme the partes of this argument then blowe awaye the smoke of those untruthes which rose from out of the Doctor as sparkes flye vpward The proposition I thus prove Whosoever giveth vnto one Diocesan Bishop alone for his Diocese such a power of government as would be found both supreme and sole if it were invested wholly in the person of any one pastor for the government of one parishe he giveth to the Diocesan Bishop alone for his Diocese both supreme and sole authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall But that power of government which the D. taketh from the severall Pastors with their Elders and Parishes is such a power as would be found to be both supreme and sole authority in causes ecelâ—sticall if it were wholly invested into the person of any one Pastor for the government of one Parishe Therefore whosoever giveth vnto one diocesan Bishop alone for his Diocese that power of government which the D. taketh from the severall Pastors with their Elders and parishes he giveth vnto the diocesan Bishop alone for his diocese both supreme and sole authority in causes ecclesiasticall Of this prosyllogisme the proposition is cleare enough of it self and the assumption is drawne from the D. words both in his sermon and this defense of it when he saith againe and againe that the authority which he denieth vnto parishes with their Pastors and Elders in this controversy is an immediate and independent or supreme authority sufficient for ecclesiasticall government And that the Pastors should have Pope-like authority viz. supreme and sole authority in causes ecclesiasticall if there were not a consistory of Elders adjoyned to him Wherefore if it can be proved that the D. giveth to diocesa Bishops that power of ecclesiastical goverment which he denieth vnto Pastors with their parishes and Elders it will inevitably folow that he alloweth vnto every diocesaÌ„ Bishop supreme and sole authority in causes ecclesiasticall To proceed therefore to the proofe of this pointe which is the assumption of the first prosyllogisme thus I argue In debating this question whither the Churches are to be governed severally by Pastors and Elders in every parishe or by Bishops sett over the Pastors and people in a whole diocese whosoever impugneth the former and mainteineth the later he giveth vnto every Bishop in his diocese that power of goverment which he denâ—eth to the severall Pastors with their Elders and parishes But in debating the question before mentioned the D. impugneth the former branch of the question and maintaineth the later Therefore he giveth to every Bishop in his diocese that power of goverment which he denied vnto the severall pastors with their Elders and parishes Here the Assumption is in it self evident if the question debated be such as is before noted which none of his freinds need to doubt of since the D. himself excepteth not against it but intreateth the reader to take notice of the state of the question for future use pag. 41. and when he repeateth it cap. 3. pag. 61. he acknowledgeth it to be rightly sett downe in respect of the partes of the disfunction Whence it followeth also that the proposition of the prosyllogisme standeth firme For
in this question to use his owne words cap. 3. pag. 60. 61. he must confesse vnlesse he will confesse himself to be ignorant in logicke that this disjunction is implyed The Churches of Christe are to be governed either by a presbytery in every parishe or by one Bishop set over an whole diocese And this disjunction as it is ex hypothesi necessarie it being agreed vpon on both sides that either the one or the other forme of goverment is to be imbraced and that one and but one of these assertions is true or false so it doth necessarily import both that they which affirme the former doo give vnto every parishe Church and her presbytery for the government of it self the same power which they take from diocesan Churches and their Bishops And that they which pleade for the government of Bishops doe allowe vnto every Bishop in his diocese the same power and authority which they denie to the severall parishes and their presbyteries For as it were a foolish question if both partes of the disjunction were true soo it were no lesse foolish if both partes were vntrue or false as it must be if that power of government be not lawfull for the one which is denied vnto the other Now to come to the vntruthes which the D. chargeth vpon his Sect. 9. ad Sect. 10. pag. 41. 42. Refuter he findeth in his assumption these two 1. that all authority is by the Drs. taken from the Pastors Elders and people in every parishe 2. That all is given to the Bishop alone To prove the first an vntruth he first granteth one parte of it true saying the Elders in deed I reject as a new devise 2. As for the parishioners though for our credit sake as he saith he leaveth out that dotage of their cheife authoritie as if we held it and so maketh vs beholding to him for leaving that out which wee never put in for where did he ever read that we give them the chiefe authority in government in them he acknowledgeth some authoritie in chusing or consinting to the choise of some Church officers And 3. as touching the Pastors of the Parishes he leaveth them that Pastorall power which ever was granted to them since the first distinguishing of Parishes to witt their power of order as they are all Ministers and a power of spiritual or inward iurisdiction to rule their flock after a private manner and as it were in the Court of conscience The Elders indeed have little cause to thanke him but see how much the people and their Pastors are beholding to him he is content the people shall have some authority he had once sayde to choose but that was too much and therefore recallinge it he sayth to consent to the choise of some Church officers but they must stand to his curtesy hereafter to vnderstand at his pleasure who are those some Church-officers to whose choise they have authoritie to consent and who are those other some to whose choise they have no authoritie so much as to asâ—ent whether by the former he meane their Pastors and perhaps the Church-wardens and Parish clerks and by the later the Bishops Deanes Prebends Archdeacons c. yea or no. In like manner he alloweth to the Pastors of parishes a pastorall power both of order and jurisdiction but their Pastorall authority is not in foro externo but in fore consâ—ientiae and whatsoever it be it is delegated and coÌ„mitted to them by the Bishops serm pag. 45. to whom the care of the whole Church beloÌ„geth so that the authority is not theirs they are but as servaÌ„ts to the Bps so rule under theÌ„ as they are rued by theÌ„ as at large he assayeth to prove serm p. 45. 46. 47. 51. Yea in this defence p. 42. he leaveth to them that pastorall power onely which ever was granted vnto them since the first distinguishing of parishes and allotting of severall Presbyters to them as if their power and function were not of divine or apostolicall but rather of humane papall institution Thus we see how deeply indebted the Pastors and people are to the Doctor for his allowance towards them 2. But how will these parts of power or authority thus allowed them by the D. prove an vntruth in the Refuter when he said that the question being as he said whether the Church should be governed by Pastors and Elders with the people or by Diocesan Bishops the Doctor taketh all from them all c. Must not that all which is said to be taken away be limitted to the question before proposed q. d. all that power of government which is controverted whether it belongeth to the Pastors with the elders people of every parish or to the Bishop in his whole Diocese all this I say the Doctor taketh from the Pastors Elders people and putteth the same not all simply into the hands of his Diocesan Bishop alone And in this sense which is the true sense though the Doct. shifteth out of it the refuters words are true as before is shewed The Doct. shifteth the sense Neyther can the Doctor without shame deny it seing that externall power of government which standeth cheefly in ordeyning censuring and absolving c. is the thing controverted in the quaestion before expressed which the Doctor holdeth to be the Diocesan Bishops right and unlawfully given to the parish-Bishop his Elders Wherefore the first vntruth falleth back upon the Doctors owne head when he falsly sayth that his Refuter affirmeth of him that he taketh all manner of authoritie from the Pastors Elders people And so also doth that second vntruth inasmuch as himself well vnderstandeth and elsewhere rightly interpreteth the refuters The D. chargeth the refuter with 2. vntruthes but they both fall back vpon his owne heade meaning in the proposition set downe page 41. to be of giving to the Bishop that power which is taken from the severall Pastors c. and not all power simply As for that he objecteth to prove that he giveth not all authority to the Bishop alone because others are in the ecclesiasticall government ioyned with him some vnder him as Deanes Archdeacons c. some above him as Archbishops and provinciall Synodes c. It shal be answered cap. 4. sect 8. where it is nothing to the purpose but an other shift from the question which is not defactâ— and of the time present viz what order of government now standeth in our Churches by our present lawes and constitutions but de â—â—re what forme of Church-government ought to be or at least lawfully The D. shifteth the question may be as being of divine or Apostolicall institution Or if dâ— facto yet it is for the time past for the first 200. yeares after Christ as the Positions which himself proposed to oppugne serm pag. 4. doe declare Wherefore if the Doctor will discharge himselfe from giving all the power of government in question to one Bishop
alone in his Diocese and so be guiltlesse of the vntruth he chargeth on the Refuter he must both affirme and prove that the Archdeacons and Deanes rurall and cathedrall togither with the Chauncelors and officialls which now rule vnder the Bishop and the Archbishop with his courts which are above him be of divine institution or at least were in vse in the time of the Apostles and so derived to succeeding ages And yet if he could and should performo this hereafter it shall nothing weaken the Refuters assertion who examining the tenor of his sermon and finding therein no intimation eyther of any assistants to restreyne his Diocesan Bishop or any superior court to rule over him did therefore truely Sect. 10. ad Section 11. page 43. Two other vntruths charged on the Ref. by the D. returne back into his owne bosome affirme that the Doctor put the reynes of the government coÌ„troverted into the hands of his Diocesan alone As for those two vntruthes which he sought and professeth to finde in the proposition they doe even as the former two returne home into his owne bosome For since he cannot deny but that the power which he taketh from the several Pastors with their Elders and parishes is in his opinion a supreme authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall and such as wil be both supreme and sole in the Pastor yea more then Popelike if they had not a consistorie of elders joyned to him it is no vntruth to affirme but an vntruth to deny that he giveth both sole and supreme authoritie to the Diocesan Bishop whosoever he be that giveth to him alone that power of government which the Doctor taketh from every several Pastor with the Elders and people of every parish For whereas he objecteth that because he acknowledgeth a superior authoritie both in the Archbishop and his courts and in the provinciall Synods c. it is apparant that although he did take all authority from parish Bishops and their Elders yet it would not follow that he giveth the whole authoritye ecclesiasticall to the Diocesan alone it is but an idle repetition of what he before objected is before answered and here altogither impertinent because to wâ—â—ken the refuters proposition he must shewe that he giveth not supreme and sole authoritie to the Bishop in his Diocese although he give to him alone all the power that he taketh from the severall Pastors with their Elders and parishes But whereas he falleth backe to the assumption againe addeth touching his refuters speach in saying that he ascribeth supreme authority in causes ecclesiasticall to the Diocesan Bishops that it is the supreme and lowdest lye and maketh the Assumption of his cheefâ—syllogisme evidently false it is a supreme and lowd lye in the Doctor if The D. maketh a loud lye I may returne him his owne words 1. to reckon this for one vntruth implied in the proposition when himselfe acknowledgeth it to be the assumptioÌ„ of his cheife syllogisme 2. to deny it for what could be spoken with a supremer lowder crye by him then that the Diocesan Bishop hath supreme authority in causes ecclesiastical and that not in this defense onely but in the 4. point of those 5. in his sermon where he offreth to prove it by divers testimonies To what end else citeth he pag. 30. Ignatius ad Smyrn and pag. 31. 34. 36. 46. Ignatius ad Trallens shewing that all must be subject to the Bishop who holdeth and menageth the whole power authority over all yea such a power as admitteth no partner much lesse a superior Yea what else meaneth his conclusion pag. 52. where he saith thus you haue heard that the Angels or Bishops of the primitive Church were for the substance of their calling such as ours are having a peerelesse power both of ordination and iurisdiction If this be not to give supreme authority to the Diocesan Bishop let the reader especially when he hath read the 7. section of the next chapter judge As yet therefore neyther the lowest nor the lowdest lies which the Doctor chargeth upon his Refuter doe belong to him they must goe home and rest with their owne Father for ought is yet done As for all that which followeth pag. 44. 45. eyther to Sect. 11. ad pag. 44. 45. sect 12. 46. 47. Def. free himselfe from giving popelike authoritie to Bishops or to prove his accusation against the Presbyterians that they make the Pastor of every parish a petty pope Well may it argue his wps good affection to the one and evill will which never said well to the other but it can neyther cleare him nor condemne them in his conscience who indifferently examineth the cause on both sides For neyther is the Doctors cause releived by that subjection which he affirmeth and the Refuter acknowledgeth of our Diocesan Bishops to their Archbishops c Neyther is their cause made the worse by the height or impudencie of that ecclesiasticall authoritie which they give to the Pastor or people of every parish For the question is not as the Doctor shifteth The Doct. shifteth the questioÌ„ it Whether by our Church constitutions Dioccsan Bishops doe lie subject to any higher authoritie or whether men may appeale from them c. but whether the Doctor doth not indeavour in his sermon to convey vnto every Bishop in his Diocese as his right by divine institution an authoritie and power of government in causes ecclesiasticall no lesse sole and supreme then the power which every Pastor should haue in his parish by the doctrine of the later disciplinarians as he calleth them if he had no consistorie of Elders to assist and restreine him And towching the parishbishop the question is this whether he should be or at least seeme to be an absolute Popeling as having sole and supreme authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall if he had not a consistory of Elders adjoyned vnto him If therefore the Doctor will leave his shifting and slaundering and syllogistically conclude eyther from his owne sermon the Negative in the former question or from their writings whom he impugneth the assirmative in the later he shall I doubt not have good and honest audience In the meane time seing he hath not as yet affirmed much lesse proved that Diocesan Bishops are by divine or apostolicall institution subject to the jurisdiction eyther of the Archbishop or of the provinciall synode it may suffice to close vp the former questio with his owne words p. 43. What hath he gained by all his owne triumphing outcries but the manifestation of his owne manifest vntruthes And for the later question since it is evident by their protestatio touching the K. supremacy that they doe subject their Pastor aswel as the meanest of the people togither with the whole congregatio to the Kinges authority to all his Majesties civill officers ecclesiasticall lawes and seing also it appeareth not onely by the same Tract art 26. but also by
those 16. positions by the Refuters words whereof he tooke notice pag. 38. 41. that they subject their Pastor and every of their ecclesiasticall officers to the body of the congregation and their censure if there be juste cause he doth wittingly add vnto his former vntruthes these 2. false and shamelesse positions viz. That their Pastor is a pettye Pope The D. addeth to his former vntruthes 2. false and shamelesse positions in regard of that supremacy which they ascribe vnto him and that were it not that he had a consistorie of Elders joyned to him as the Pope hath of Cardinals he would be more then a Pope True it is they say that the Pastor of a particular congregation is the highest ordinary ecclesiasticall officer in every true constituted visible Church of Christ But they speake onely of such Churches and Church-officers as were specially instituted in the new-Testament And if the D. judgement be demaunded which is the highest ordinary Church-officer in such a Church let him thinke with himselfe whether he must not be inforced to affirm asmuch of his diocesan Bishop or at least of his Archbishop For if all the visible Churches planted by the Apostles and indowed with power of ecclesiasticall government were dioceses properly as he confidently saith and if he dare not resolutely affirme and for a certeine truth as he dareth not but thinketh onely lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 114. that Metropolitans were I say not instituted but intended by the Apostles why may it not be concluded that in his opinion the diocesan Bishop is he highest ordinarie officer ecclesiasticall in every true visible Church instituted in the new testamet Wherefore since it is apparant by the tenor of his sermon specially by pag. 44. 45. 90. that he giveth to the Bishop a peerelesse power of rule aswell over the presbyters as the people of his diocese that maie be truly affirmed of his diocesan Bishop which he falsly saith of the parish Bishop that he is a petty Pope in regard of that supremacie which he ascribeth vnto him If he had rather bestowe this honor vpon his Metropolitan Bishop because to prove that no Church in the world is more agreable to the forme and government of the most ancient and Apostolicall Churches then this of England he saith in that 114. pag. lib. 2. that at the first Metropolitans were autokephaloi heades by themselves of their provinces and not subordinate to any other superiour Bishops as it must needes be granted him that the title doth beseeme him much better because the supremacie of his jurisdiction is farr larger so it The D. falleth into another vn truth in denying any of our Bishops to be the supreme ecclesiasticall officer in his Church To say as he doth pag. 45. that our Bishops are guidded by lawes which by their superiors are imposed on them maketh no more for them then the like subjection in the parish Bishop But why say I the like Since it is farr greater he being subject not onely to the King his ecclesiasticall lawes and the meanest of his civil officers but also to the censures of his fellow-elders and the congregation whereof he is a member But that which is further added touching the Pastours with their elders and people viz. that they have as the Pope saith he hath a supreme immediate and independent authority sufficient for the government of their Churches in all causes ecclesiasticall and therefore for mâ—king of lawes ecclesiasticall c. and that as the Pope doth not acknowledge the superiority of a synode to impose lawes on him no more doe they I yet see not with what windelace he can drawe from thence that which he intendeth viz. that the title of absolute popelings agreeth better to their parish Bishops then to his Diocesan Bishops For is not that power of government which the Doctor giveth to every Diocesan Church by divine and Apostolicall institution as immediate independent and sufficient for it self as that which they give to every parish Else why doth he for the confuting and supressing of their parishonal government set downe this assertion namely that the visible churches such as he speaketh of indowed with power of ecclesiasticall government were Dioceses properly and not parishes The comparison therefore standeth much better betweene the Pope and the Diocesan Bishop in this manner As Papists say their Pope hath an independent and immediate authority from Christ over all the Pastors and people within his charge which is the Catholike Church or vniversal societie of Christians throughout the world a power sufficient for the ecclesiasticall government of all Churches every where so siath the Doctor and his associates that every Diocesan Bishop hath an immediate and independent authority from Christ over all the people of his Diocese which is his charge and sufficient for the ecclesiasticall government of all Churches within his jurisdiction see pag. 14. of his answere to the preface serm pag. 52. As for Synodes if they be lawfully called well ordered and their constitutions by royall authority ratified the Doctor can give neyther more honour nor obedience to them then they doe as their protestation sheweth Art 8 12. 13. 14. If they want regall authoritie to assemble or to ratify them they thinke that by divine or apostolicall ordinance their decrees or canons ought not to be imposed on any Churches without their particular and free consents See H. I. in his reasons for reform pag. 31. And if this also be a papall priveledge how will he exempt his Diocesan Bishop from being like herein to the Pope when he had nether Archbishop not provinciall Synode to impose any lawes on him Or the Archbishop and primate of all England who at this day acknowledgeth no superiority of any synode to impose lawes vpon him Thus much shall suffice to be spoken in defense of those later disciplinarians from whom although in some thinges I confesse I dissent yet I cannot cosent to the D. taking away of their innocency Wherein we see how the more he striveth to remove the title of popelings from the diocesan or provinciall Bishop the more he inwrappeth either the one or the other vnder a just and due title therevnto And since it is and shal be proved that he giveth both The D. getteth nothing by striving let him take home his plaine lye sole and supreme authority to Bishops in their Churches he must will he nill he take home to himself that same plaine-lye which he giveth his Refuter in the next section pag. 47. because he saith that his wordes doe there imply and afterwards plainely affirme a sovereigntie and supremacie in Bishops over other Ministers for in the Refuters vnderstanding sovereigntie is nothing but sole and supreme authority What more there is the Refuter is content to saye as the D. in the section following willeth him to say in another case ou manthano ad sect 12. pag. 47. I understand
or by the nature of their office might not continue longer And the Doctor might aswel say that these two worthies doâ— make the office of the Pastor which is perpetual aÌ„nual for the case may so fall out that it may doth last but a yeare with some such is their demeanour therein And to conclude the very lawes of Geneva which conteyne the order of that Church whereunto the D. appealeth saying pag. 9. That in the end of the yeare the Elders shal be presented to the Seniory to know if they be worthy to continue in their office or to be discharged because it is not expedient that they be changed without a cause shal be Iudge However it be it resteth still an untruth vpon the Doctors owne head neither shall he ever be able to remove it in that he faith They hold the Presbyters of those Churches mentioned in his text which were not Ministers to be annuall or lay-Presbyters Asmuch may be sayd concerning the third point viz. that they The Doct. standeth out in an untruth make those angels nothing else but Presidents of the Presbyteries then which the Doctor saith nothing is more plaine I say nothing is lesse plaine or true then that it is plaine they say so For 1. neyther Calvin nor Beza nor T. C. nor the Author of the ecclesiasticall discipline do confound those ancient Bishops the D. speaketh of with these Angels as he doth He produceth them all 4. as if he would strike it dead and they all agree in one yet never The Doct. 4. authors agree in one but never a one with him some of them against him a one with him Three of them speake neyther of these angels nor of the times wherein they lived but of other persons times very sweetly therefore doth the D. from them conclude for these Angels and their times Beza in deed Annot in Apoc. 2. 1. speaketh of these Angels but it is cleare he maketh them such Proestoâ—es praesidents of the assemblies to moderate the meetinges of the rest of the Ministers as that also they were Ministers of particular Churches or congregations with whom the rest of the Ministers were equall in authority after the end of that assemblie over which they were for order sake chosen sett yea he directly disclaymeth both in that Annotation and in his answere to Saravia those presidents or Bishops which were nothing else but presidentes of such Assemblies having no particular Churches vpon which they did reside and over which they watched not togither with the rest of the Ministers of equall authority with them 2. It is also evident by the writings both of Calvin and Beza for as for the other noted in his Margine I know not to what ende he should send the reader to them vnlesse for his discredit in quoting them idlely Instit lib. 4. ca. 4. sec 3. and De gradib Minist ca. 22. pa. 133. that even those ancient Bishops which lived after the time of these Angels for of them onely they speak which moderated the assemblies of the reste of the Pastors and presbyters in any Towne or Citie were themselves by their office Pastors et suae pareciae preerant and governed their owne parishe yea they laboured no lesse much more rather then other presbyters in the dispensation of the Word and Sacraments ill favouredly therefore doth the D. conclude from them for the Apostles times But to help at a dead lifte and to colour the falsehood which he could The D. to colour his vntruth foysteth in a sentence which yet doth him no good not but see of that his assertion he now in this defence foysteth in these words in respect of their superiority and telleth us that they make the Angels of the Churches in respect of their superiority onely presidents of the presbyteries And so reasoneth very profoundly in this manner They make the Angels of the Churches in respect of their superiority above other presbyters onely praesidents of the presbyters Ergo they make those Angels nothing else but presidentes or moderaters of the assemblies As if a man mought by rules of logick conclude Mr. Downam to be nothing else but a Doctor in divinitie because by degres in schooles he is a D. in divinity though he be also Pastor of great Which is his best stile if he were so well advised as to take his degree of honor from the word of God c. As for the fourth since the Ref. acknowledgeth answer pag. 7. Sect. 13. ad sect 17. p. 52. 53. that those wise and learned divines doe judge that their presidencie in classicall or Synodall meetings was but of a short continuance as occasion required the D. might have spared his labour in proving this point If he would directly have contradicted him he should have proved from their writings that they are of opinion that the president might not by the nature of his office continue longer then for a weâ—ke or a moneth this was it which the Refuter denied but herein he justifieth him rather For in the very places quoted by him pag. 141. 153. though Beza saith that the presidentes of the presbyters were at first by course of short continuance yet he affirmeth that that order was not essentiall or immutable but accidentall and variable and that it was afterwards thought fit to settle it constantly vpon one But whereas the D. lib. 2. pa. 141. telleth us that as there cannot be one instance given but that alwaise the president of the presbyterie in the primitive Church was perpetuall so it was in Calvins time and Beza misliketh it not but sometimes wisheth it were restored what else doth he but justifie his Refuter in that The D. justifieth his Refuter in that where in he would coÌ„demn him must take home his 4. untruthes wherein he would condemne him Wherefore let the D. be intreated to take these 4. vntruthes to himself again their own home where for ought I know they were bredd and borne and there let them rest till he can bring which wil be ad graecas calendas a better discharge from their writings to justify those particulars Now touching those calumniations of vnmannerly ignorance cuÌ„â—ing rudenes wrangling c. which he objected against his Refuter I overpasse them as vnworthy any answere it was the best he could doe to outface and salve his credit but ill will it doe it with them that are wise judicious But whereas he twice affirmeth pag. 47 53. that the Refuter craftily concealeth or cunningly seeketh to conceale the division which is among our selves it is a slaunder not of ignorance The D. wittingly slandereth but against his owne knowledge for he could not but see that he sayd pag. 5. of his answere that all men are not resolved of the truth of every of them yet the division is not so great as he would perswade the world nether are the pointes so newe or so generally contradicted
Holy-Ghost who guided the Apostles in the execution of their function doth as strongly conclude every jus apostolicum to be jus divinum Sect. 7. as it doth everie ordinance apostolicall to be a divine ordinance and the perpetuitie of divine ordinances or precepts dependeth not on the authoritie of the person from whom they proceed immediately whether from God or holy men authorized from God but vpon the perpetuity of the causes or grounds that give strength therevnto seinge the Doctor acknowledgeth the superiority and function of Bishops to be not onely a divine ordinance in regard of the first institution but also such an ordinance as is necessary to be reteyned for the same cause viz. the avoydinge of schismes for which it was first instituted yea such an ordinance as on which the vnity perpetuity and eutaxy of every Church dependeth seing also he affirmeth that the perpetuall directions and commandementes given to Timothy and Titus for ordination and jurisdiction are not common to other Ministers or Presbyters but peculiar to Bishops as being their successors not onely de facto but also de jure and that the Churches of succeeding ages have much more need of men furnished with episcopall authority to governe them then those Churches that were first planted by the Apostles And seing he doth so farre grace our owne Bishops that he sayth they are authorized to the exercise of their jurisdictioÌ„ jure Apostolico urgeth the conscience of his hearers both to acknowledge their function and to obey their authority as an holy ordinance of God Lastly seing he did in his serm avouch though now he disclaimeth it in the dâ—fâ—se thereof the episcopall function to be perpetually necessary even for the very beinge and not for the well-ordering onely of the visible Ch he stil mainteineth their functioÌ„ to be no lesse necessary for the ordeyning of Ministers theÌ„ the office of Ministers is for the baptizing of other ChristiaÌ„ disciples seing I say these things are so evident apparant truth that none of them can be denied it is no lesse apparant that the D. stryveth in vaine to quench the light that shineth to his coÌ„science when he indeavoureth to perswade that he mainteineth not the episcopall function to be such a divine ordinance as is juris divini or of generall perpetuall use for the churches of Christ For the reader may easely perceyve that it were easy for us by sundry syllogismes that would carry good consequence and cleare evidence of truth with them to confirme even froÌ„ his owne words that which I now affirme to be the state of the question but I will content my self to use one or two at this time onely and thus I reason The episcopall function such as ours is at this day in their opinion which hold it to be of divine institution must needs be reputed â—yther such an extraordinary and temporarie office as that of the Apostles Prophets and Evangelistes specially appointed for the first planting and establishing of the Churches or such an ordinary and perpetuall function as that of Teaching Elders or Ministers of the Word and Sacraments fitted for the generall use of all Churches to the wordes end or at least such an office as was â—f necessary use onely for the times of persecution and in want of a Christian Mâ—gistraâ—e as some have estemed the governinge Elders to be But in the Doctors opinioÌ„ who holdeth the episcopall function such as ours 〈◊〉 at this â—â—y to be of divine institution it was neyther so extraordinarie or temporarie aâ— that of the Apostles Prophets and Evangelists specially appointed for the first planting establishing of the Churches neyther of necessary vse onely for the time of persecution and in want of a Christian Magistrate 〈◊〉 some have esteemed the governing Elders to be Therefore the episcopall function such as ours is at this day in the D. opinion who holdeth it to be of divine institution is such an ordinarie perpetuall function as is the functioÌ„ of teaching Elders or Ministers of the word sacrameÌ„ts fiâ—ted for the generall use of all Churches to the worlds end Or thus Whatsoever function was once of divine institution and still remeineth lawfull and good the same is eyther arbytrary and at the pleasure of Church Magistrate to receive or refuse or else is generally perpetually and immutably necessary But the episcopall function in the D. opinion was once of divine institution and still remayneth lawfull and good and noâ— arbitrary and at the pleasure of Church and Magistrate to receive or refuse Therefore in the Doctors opinion it is generally perpetually and immutably necessarie And consequently the maine doctrine of the Doct. sermon which he raiseth from his text and set downe in these words The episcopall function is of apostolicall and divine institution or thus The function of Bps. is lawful and good as having divine both institutioÌ„ approbatioÌ„ must thus be understood q. d. the functioÌ„ of Bishops such as ours are at this day viz. DiocesaÌ„ sole ruling Bb. is such an apostolical or divine ordinance as may be called divinum jus Gods lawe as being of generall and perpetuall use for the Churches of Christ Notwithstanding because we differ in judgement from the D. Sect. not onely touching the perpetuitie of this office but also touching the first originall thereof esteeming it to be of humane and not of divine institution yea seing we deny the function not onely of sole-ruling Bishops but also of Dâ—ocesan Provincial Bishops lifted up in degree of office and ministery above other Ministers to be of divine or Apostolicall institution I will therefore joyne issue with the Doctor in his owne termes and as respondent in this question stande to mainteine the contrary assertions scz that the function of Bishops such as ours are viz. as himself explaineth his owne meaninge serm pag. 52. Diocesan and provinciall Bishops superiour in degree to other Ministers having a singularity of preheminence for terme of life and a pâ—â—relesse power both of ordination and jurisdiction is neyther of apostolicall nor of divine institution And first because he boasteth that he hath proved his assertion from the text which he handled I will take liberty to follow him in his rovings at random and to drawe togither into one continued tract whatsoever he hath in any parte of his sermon or defense thereof that carrieth any colour of argumeÌ„t to justify the doctrine which he pretendeth to have drawne from the true and naturall explication of his text that his Refuters censure may appeare to be true when he saith answ pag. 4. that his text yeildeth nothing to prove his kinde of Bishops nor to shewe any such quality of their function as he imagineth The which being done I wil in the second parte 1. Examine all other testimonies or arguments which he draweth from the Scriptures to justify his assertion that all men may see it cannot be a divine ordinance since
of his consequence viz. that though it were granted that those 7. were great and ample Cities and the Countries adjoyninge yet their might be diverse other as that of Cenchrea Rom. 16. which were small and bounded within the walleâ— of some small Towne See you not saith the D. how he secketh about for starting holes what if there were other small Churches what is that to this consequence If thâ—se Ch conteined each of them not onely the City but the Country adjoyning then they were not parishes properly but Dioceses his answere if it be well weighed is an exception against the conclusion c. I answere â— if he grant there were other small Churches he then justifyeth his Ref ceÌ„sure both in denying that to agree to all other Churches which he affirmeth of those 7. viz. that they were great and ample cities c. and in rejecting the consequence of his first Enthymem which in concluding all Churches to be Dioceses because those 7. were great and ample cities did presuppose as himself acknowledgeth that what he affirmed of those 7. is verified of all the rest 2. And therefore he slaundereth his refuter in charging him to seek about for starting holes and his answere to be an exception The Doct. slaundreth his Refuter against the conclusion For his answere is a strong engine to bâ—tter the consequence of his argumentation and ferriteth him out of that starting hole which himselfe crept into for safe harbor when he saith that what is verified of those 7. Churches the same may be truly affirmed of all others 3. Moreover he much forgetteth himselfe in affirming both here and pag. 44. that his argument concludeth nothing else then this that the 7. Churches were Dioceses For as the conclusion which he proposeth in his sermon pag. 17. to be proved was more generall of all Churches in the Apostles times and the age following so he doth expresly affirme pag. 45. of this defense that in this argument now controverted he concludeth A flat contradiction in the D. from those 7. churches to all others As for his conclusion or closing up of this point wherin he calleth his Refuter a froward adversary because here he findeth fault that he concludeth what these Churches were and yet in other places accused him for not concluding what they or the angels of them were it argueth the D. himselfe to be a froward adversary and a false witnes His falshood appeareth in this that as he cannot alleadge one word to prove The Doct. not the Refuter is a froward ad versary a false witnes his accusation so he himselfe acquiteth him thereof when he saith pag. 45. that he is here blamed for concluding from these 7. Churches to all others And since he knoweth the fault which his Refuter findeth to be a naughty consequence which falsly presupposeth all Churches to be such as he saith those 7. were to wit great and ample â—ities c. what is it else but frowardnes in him that will rather justify a lye then acknowledge a truth which he knoweth But since he will nowe restreyne his argument to the 7. Churches Sect. 5. to conclude them Dioceses I will change the conclusion of his Enthymem before set downe sect 3. in fine and set it thus as followeth The 7. Churches whose Bishops are called Angels Apoc. 1. 20. were great and ample cities and not the cities alone but also the countries adioyning Therefore those 7. Churches were Dioceses properly and not Parishes yea Dioceses such as ours are For unlesse their Churches were such as our Diocesan Churches are he cannot strongly conclude their Bishops to be in the large extent of their authoritie like to our Diocesans Now if I might presume to give the Doctor any directioÌ„ for the reducing of his Enthymem into a simple syllogism I would advise him to remember that the Medius terminus which never entreth into the conclusion must needes be here the predicatum in the antecedent to wit great and ample cities c. and to make up the proposition which is wanting there must be joyned to it the predicatum of the consequent to witt Dioceses c. because it hath no place in the antecedent Wherefore the proposition to be supplyed must be this Great and ample cities togâ—ther with their countries adioyning are Dioceses properly and not parishes yea Dioceses like to ours Then follow the partes of his Enthymem in order as they lie But the 7. Churches whoâ—e Bishops are called Angels Apoc. 1. 20. were great and ample cities togither with their countries adioyning Therefore those 7. Churches were Dioceses properly c. In the assumption of A double vntruth in the D. assumption this Syllogisme or antecedent of the former Enthymem there is a double untruth which the Doctor in his second thoughts discerned for himselfe pag. 45. restreyneth the name of great and ample cities to 5. onely of those 7. and that which he graunteth of Ephesus pag. 62. must be acknowledged also of all the rest viz. that the whole citie was not the Church vntil it was wholly coÌ„verted to the profeâ—sion of Christianity Wherefore to free his argument from both these vntruthes first he quite shuâ—teth out this clâ—use great and ample cities secondly whereas before he had said that the 7. Churches whose Bishops are in his text called angels were not onely the cities but also the countries adioyning now he saith his meaning was that those Churches conteined in their circuite not onely the Cities but the Cuntries adjoyninge Wherfore he contriveth his argument in this forme pag. 42. 44. Churches whose circuite conteyned both Cities and countryes adjoyning were Dioceses The circuite of the 7. Churches conteyned the Cities and Countries adjoyninge Therefore the 7. Churches were dioceses The assumption he hath made good as he supposeth with necessary proofe And the proposition which he tooke for granted will stand as he saith pag. 43. vnmoveable when the foundation of our discipline will be razed But the issue will shew I doubt not that the foundatioÌ„ of our discipline will abide firme when his proposition is shaken into shivers and that his assumption hath not so much as one probable argument to support it To make his meaninge a little more plaine in both the premisses as himself doth explaine his assumption thus that the Circuite of every one of those Churches conteyned both the City the Country adjoyninge so to holde proportion therewith his proposition must cary this sense that every Church whose circuite conteineth a City and the Country adjoyninge is a Diocese And because he must conclude as we have before observed that every one of those 7. Churches was properly a diocese such as are the dioceses subjected to our Bishops his proposition must affirme every Church conteyninge one City and the Country adjoyning to be such a diocese as these are which we beholde at this day in the Church of England But admit a truth
have neerer affinity with an Aristocracy such as other reformed Churches have restored then with a Monarchy which our diocesans holde The D. argumeÌ„t therefore may be thus retorted against him The Presidents of the auncient Apostolâ—k Presbyteries were no diocesan Byshops such as ours The Angels of the 7. Churches were the presidents of such Presbyteries Therefore they were no diocesan Byshops such as ours Or thus Diocesan Byshops such as ours are not presidents of such presbyteries as â—he ancient apostolick Churches enjoyed But the Angels of the 7. Churches were the presiaeÌ„ts of such Presbyteries Therfore they were no diocesan Byshops The assumption of both is the same that the D. maketh use of for a contrary conclusion The proposition of the former if it be denied wil be thus confirmed Diocesan Byshops such as ours doe governe monarchically by their sole authoritie and without the advice and assistance of such a Presbyterie as the ancient aposâ—olike Churches enjoyed But the presidents of those ancient Presbyteries did not governe monarchically or by their sole authoritie and without the advice and assistance of theire Presbytery Those presidents therefore were no diocesan Bps such as ours Both parts of this argument are acknowledged by the D. for the assumption appeareth by that which he affirmeth in particular of Iames his presidencie lib. 4. pag. 116. and generally of all Byshops in former ages sâ—rm pag. 15. and dâ—f lib. 1. pag. 191. where he saith that in Churches causes nothing almost was done without the advice of the Presbyters and that their was great necessitie that the Byshop should use their advice and counsell because otherwise his will would have seemed to stand up for a lawe c. And touching the proposition as he intimateth serm pag. 97. and def lib. 4. pag. 102. the government of our Byshops to be monarchicall so he confesseth that Byshops now have not that assistance of Presbyters which the ancient Byshops had lib. 1. pag. 190. And this confirmeth also the truth of that other proposition of the later argument For if diocesan Byshops such as ours have not any such Presbyterie associated to them for advice and assistance in government then they are not presidents of such Presbyteries as the ancient apostolick Churches enjoyed But the former is an apparant truth and confâ—ssed by him serm pag. 16. 17. def lib. 1. pag. 190. where he saith that the assistance of those Seniours that directed the ancient Byshops is long since growne out of use Moreover if our Prebendaries of Cathedrall Churches be a resemblaÌ„ce of the Presbyteries that were in Ambrose his time as he affirmeth lib. 1. pag. 189. since they have another president then called Archi-presbyter now Deane how can the Byshops of our daâ—es be their presidents vnlesse he will make them a monstrous body that hath two heads But let us see the D. owne defence of his proposition before contradicted If sayth he the Refuter wil be pleased to take notice of that Sect. 3. which he hath elsewhere proved that there was but one Presbytery for an whole diocese the proposition wil be manifest vz. that the presidents of the Presbyters provided for whole dioceses whoÌ„ the Fathers call Byshops were diocesan Byshops The argument is thus digested by himselfe in a connexive sylogisme pag. 122. If the Presbyteries were aloâ—ted to whole diocesâ—s and not to severall parishes theÌ„ the Bps. who were presideÌ„ts of those Presbyteries were not parâ—â—â—onal but D. But the first is true Therefore also the second The assumption whose proofe is laide downe viz. chap. 4. I reserve to be handled hereafter now I refuse his conclusions for the weaknes that I find in the proposition if he speak as he ought of diocesan Byshops such as ours for a Presbytery so allotted to a diocesaÌ„ as he supposeth the Apostolick Presbyteries were viz. to worke out their conversion cannot make the whole diocese to be a Church therefore cannot argue their president to be properly a diocesan Byshop Nay rather if it may appeare that the flock already converted was but one onely congregation of christians howsoever the Presbytery might be set to indeavour the conversioÌ„ of the rest of the diocese yet to speak properly there was a parishonall Byshop and not a diocesaÌ„ because the flock or congregatioÌ„ already converted was more like to a parish then to a diocese Yea say he coulde prove that the Presbyteries were appointed for dioceses that is for many particular congregations in each diocesâ— why might not their president be a parishionall Byshop in regard of his particular Church which he fedde with the word and Sacraments although his presidency reached over all the Pastors of the rest of the parishes For it is cleare that Mr. Beza of whose consent with him in the question of dioceses and diocesan Byshops he boasteth lib. 1. pag. 51. and lib. 2. pag. 127. doth hold it as necessary that the president of the pastors of a diocese should have as the rest his particular parish to attende vpon as it is esteemed fit that a provinciall Byshop should be more specially interessed in the oversight of one diocese De Minist grad cap. 20. pag. 123. and cap. 4. pag 168. And such were in deed the first diocesan Byshops after parishes were multiplyed and Presbyters assigned to them the pastorall charge of the mother-Church the cheife Presbyter or Bishop reteyned to himselfe when his compresbyters had other titles or daughter Churches allotted to theÌ„ Neyther might he remove his seate from it to any other Church though within his own Diocese Concil Carthag 5. can 5. 3. If the D. shall here tell us as he doth lib. 2. p. 117. that the cathedrall Churches which were the Bishops seas Mother churches to the whole Diocese were never Parishes nor the meetings there parishionall but panigyricall it wil be but a frivolous exception in this place for there will still remayne a difference of that moment betwixt the ancient Bishops or Presidents of the Presbyteries our diocesans that will inable us to hold fast our former assertion that those presidents were not diocesan Byshops of that kind that ours are For besides the forenoted disagrement that ours are not in deed presidents of any such Presbyterie to advise and assiste them in the Church government it is wel knowen that ours are not tied by vertue of their calling as they were by the D. owne confession the truth therevnto inforcing him lib. 1. pag. 157. and 158. to preach the word to administer the â—acraments in the Cathedral Church of their Byshoprick By this time therefore I hope the reader may see that although we should graunt the Apostolick Presbyteries to be allotted vnto whole dioceses yet that will not warrant him to conclude their presidents to be diocesan Byshops such as ours and consequently though we should yeeld the angels of the 7. Churches to be the presidents of such Presbyteries he cannot necessarily inferre that they were diocesan Byshops like
Ministers and thus he layeth it downe Those who eyther are commended for examining and not suffering such in their Church as called themselves Apostles and were not or were reproved for sufferinge false Teachers had a corrective power over other Ministers The Angel of the Church of Ephesus is commended for the former Apoc. 2. 2. The angel of the Church of Thyatira is reproved for the lâ—tter Apo. 2. 20. Therefore these Angels which before I proved to be Byshops had a corrective power over other Miniâ—ters The conclusion which the D. first aymed at serm pag. 49. when he laid downe the parts of this assumption as appeareth by pag. 46. and 48. was this that Byshops had authoritie to censure and correct even those Presbyters which assisted them as parts of theire Presbyterie in the government of the Diocese Wherfore the Refuters answer pag. 101. knitt the parts of his reasoning togither in this connexive proposition If our Sav. Christ commended the Angel of the Church of Ephesâ—s for examining and not suffering them that sayd they were Apostles were not And reproved the Angel of the Church of Thyatyra for suffering the Teachers of the Nicholaitan hâ—riâ—y then Byshops â—ad majoritie of rule for correction over diocesan Presbyters And to shew how loosely the consequent is tied to the Antecedent he saith that neyther were these Angels diocesan Byshops nor those persons with whom they dealt Diocesan Presbyters To this the D. replyeth The D. reply is â—rivolous false and slandâ—â—â—us that the answer is frivolous because he hath before proved the former his Refuter devised the word diocesan Presbyters for a shiâ—â— Wherevnto my rejoynder is that the first part of his reply is frivolous or rather false and the second a maâ—â—â—cious slaunder 1. For to say he hath proved and not to shewe where is meere trifling And if he have not eyther in his sermon or any part of his defence before-going any one â—yllogisme or Enthymem to conclude the point which he faith he hath before proved what truth can there be in his saying 2. Touching the word Diocesan Presbyters since the Doctor confesseth pag. 124. the word to be used in some Councels graunting the word may be used in a sense and urged by the Refuter in the arguments which he frameth before and after as may be seene page 99. 100. 102. 104. of his answere is it not a malliâ—ious slaunder to say he devised it aâ—d that for a shift espetially seing in the rest of his answere to this argument he maketh no advantage of the word Diocesan But the Doct. saith pag. 124. that he neyther vsed the worde at all neyther if he had would he have used it in The D. understaÌ„deth not his owne testimony that sense scz for those Presbyters that assisted the Bishop in his Diocesan government for in his vnderstanding the country Ministers are called Diocaesani Concâ—l Agath cap. 22. Tolet. 3. cap. 20. and the Presbyters which in the citie assisted the Bishop were called Civitatenses But to our understanding it seemeth that the Praesbyters called Diocesani Concil Tolet. 3. cap. 20. being opposed to another sort there termed Locales were not country Ministers affixed to particular places but rather members of that Colledge or Presbyterâ—e which assisted the Bishop in the government of the Diocese The words of the Councell are these Hâ— verò clerici tam locales quam Diocefani qui se ab episcopo gravati cognoverint querelas suas ad Metropolitanum deferre non differant Neyther doth the Councill of Agatha cap. 22. distinguish them from the citie Presbyters as the Doctor would perswade but rather giveth both names to the same persons Id statuinus quod omnes jubent ut CivitateÌ„ses sive Diocesani Presbyteri vel Clerici salvo jure ecclesie rem ecclesiae sicut permiserunt episcopi teneant â—t vendere aut donare penitus non presumant But to leave this quarrell about words and to come to the matter seing it is cleare that the Do first intended by this argument to prove that Bishops had corrective power over those Presbyters which assisted them in they re Diocesan charge is not the Refuters answere very direct and pertinent to shewe the loosenes of the D. reasoning when he telleth him That the Teachers against whom those angels eyther did or shoulde have sâ—t themselves were not such Presbyters Wherefore if the Doct. hath neyther yeelded any such reason of his owne to prove that they were such Presbyters nor removed the presumptions which the Refut alleadged for his denyall doth not the blame of a weak consequenceâ—ly still heavy upon his shoulders Let the indifferent reader weigh the answere of the one and the defense of the other and then give upright sentence First touching those whom the Angel of Ephesus examined the Refuter asketh pag. 102. Is it not against sense that the Praesbyters Sect. 2. which were subiect to the Bishop should call themselves Apostles And addeth any mans reason will give him that these false Apostles were men who coÌ„ming froÌ„ some other place would have thrist theÌ„selves into the Church there to have taught with authoritie and by right of Apostleship And touching those that taught the Nicholaitan haeresy in the Church at Thyatira he saith that they also might be such intruders or it may be they were some that tooke upon them to teach having no calling thereto but however it no way appeareth that they were Ministers and members of the presbytâ—â—â—e assisting the Angel of that Church Now what saith the Doct Doth he make the contrarie appeare viz. that they were Ministers and members of the Presbyterie No for he will not determine whether they were Presbyters or in a higher degree whether of the Bishops Presbyterie or not and whether of the Diocese originally or come from other places Onely he saith it is playne they were Teachers that being in their Diocese the Bishop had authoritie eyther to suffer them to preach or to inhibit them c. Wherein observe we 1. that he acknowledgeth a truth in the maine point of the Refuters answere scz that it no way appeareth that they were members of the Presbyterie of that Church wherein they conversed 2. And whereas he saith It is playne they were Teachers if his meaning be that they were lawfully called to the function of teachers it is more then he can prove his bare avouching that it is plaine doth not plainely coÌ„vince it yet will it nothing advantage him nor disadvantage his Refut to grant it 3. Moreover in saying that the Bishops or Angels had authority eyther to suffer them to preach or to inhibit them c. eyther it is frivolous if he speake of no other permission or prohibition then is common to every Pastor or Minister in his owne charge since the Refuter in that sense graunteth they had good cause and sufficient right to forbidd such companions or else it is a begging of The D.
are of a different nature For Angels and starres are glorious creatures of heaven and have some fit resemblance of the Ministers office but Lord Lordship and Grace are termes of civill honour not so well be sitting the Ministers of Iesus Christ Hereto the D. replyeth I confesse they doe not so well befit them because they come short of the honour and excellencie which in the name of angels the Holy Ghost ascribeth to them as if the honour of the episcopall function were much abased not increased as the world judgeth by those titles of civill honour given vnto Byshops for what else can he meane in sayinge they doe not so well befitt them because they come short c. And why then are ye so vnwise ô ye Princes and Nobles as to give vnto Byshops for the honouring of their those titles that doe debase them Be wise and instructed from henceforth to deny them these base termes of Lordship and Grace to give them those titles of honour which are peculiar to Christ and not common with them to any other creature viz. Pastors of soules the light of the world and saviour of their brethren see the D. serm of the dignitie of the Ministers pag 62. 64. But why maketh the D. a shew of removing his Refuters answere The D maketh shew of removing his Ref. answ but doth not once touch it and yet leaveth it altogether vntouched For he cannot give his argument a discharge from the inconsequence objected against it till he shew eyther that the titles which he coÌ„pareth are not of an other nature or that the termes of civil honor coÌ„troverted doe wel beseeme those whose calling is adorned with titles of greater honour in another kind to witt in regard of a spirituall and celestiall dignitie To attempt the former were to quench the light of coÌ„mon reason and to indeavour the latter is to conveye the controverted titles of civill honour by an equall right vnto every Minister seing the titles of greatest spirituall dignitie doe equally belong to all the Ministers of the word as is before observed The D. therefore as one that wittingly will not see the weaknes of his consequence spendeth all his strength in fortifying the AntecdeÌ„t viz. that the names of Lords c. given to Byshops by earthly Princes is a title of lesse honour then that which the Holy Ghost giveth them in calling them the Angels of the Churches I wil not now urge him a fresh to give us some better reason then any he hath yet proposed for the proofe of that which he taketh here for graunted sz that the Holy Ghost appropriateth vnto Byshops such as ours the name of the Angels of the Churches I will onely examin how well he hath proved that this is a more honourable title then the name of Lords They are called saith he not onely Angels that is messengers and Ambassadors of God as all Ministers are in respect of their Ministerie but each Sect. 3. of them also is called the Angel of the Church whereof he is Byshop in respect of his government and guardianship of the Church as the holy angels are said to be their angels over whom they are appointed governours guardians therfore the name Lord giveÌ„ to them in respect of their governmeÌ„t authority is a title of lesse honor theÌ„ that which in the same respect is giveÌ„ theÌ„ by Christ Here also I must passe by a double error in his words before discovered namely that Byshops onely and not any other Ministers have right vnto this title the Angels of the Churches and that more 〈◊〉 As if it were more honour to be the knight of a shire in ParliameÌ„t then to be the Kings â—eutenant honour is implyed in this latter then in the name of the Lords Angels or Embassadors which he acknowledgeth to be coÌ„mon to all Ministers see for that these points the answ to his 7. sect lib. 1. cap. 2. The weight and worth of his reasoning is now to be examined which standeth in this Enthymem Everie Byshop is called the Angels of the Church whereof he is Byshop in respect of his government and guardianship of the Church like as the holy angels are sayd to be their angels over whom they are appointed Therefore the name Lord given to them in respect of their government is a title of lesse honour then the other that is given in the same respect Why if both titles be given to Byshops in one and the same respect doth it not rather follow by good probabilitie that equall honour is implyed in both should not then the D. have done better to have fortified the consequence of his argument then to leave it naked as he doth And why neyther in this nor in the former Enthymem supplieth he not the consequence or proposition which according to his owne rules lib. 2. pag. 44. might make a perfect syllogism at least why doth he not fill up his comparison and tell us from whose governmeÌ„t the name of Lord given vnto Byshops is borrowed Perhaps because he saith in the next clause of his defence that Bishops have that title of Lords common to them with the Lords temporall he would have us to conceive that it is for that cause a title of lesse honour then that other which Bishops have common to them with the holy Angels of God If this be his meaning as â—â—gesse it is for I know not what better colour he can preteÌ„d for the justifying of the coÌ„sequeÌ„ce of his reasoning we are then to inquire whether he be not deceived eyther in laying downe the reason of the name Lord given vnto Bishops or in making that the cause of a lesse honour included in the name His own words are the occasion of drawing the former into question when he saith They are not therefore civil Lords because they have the title of Lords coÌ„mon to them with the Lords temporall for who knoweth not the distinction betwene the Lords spirituall and temporal We are not ignorant of the distinction so often mentioned in the actes of parliament but the D. seemeth not to know the right meaning and use thereof For if the Bishops be not civill Lords nor their Lordship a civill honour because they are distinguished from the nobles of the laytie by the name of Lords spirituall then it followeth that theire Lordship and honour annexed thereunto is meerely spirituall But it is so well knowne to all the world that Bishops doe partake with temporall Lords in all the appurtenances of civil Lordship and civill honour that to deny it were delirare cum insanis to plaie the madd man The reason therefore of the distinction retained in our lawes is rather to shew the different condition of the persons then the diversity of their Lordship because the one are spirituall persons or clergie-men and the other temporall men or lay-persons Or â—f the D. will needs have theire verie Lorpships to be distinguished by those
the ancient â—â—nons of the Apostles Can. 39. or rather 40. in the 2. epistle of Ignatius ad Trallian the text is appropriated vnto Bishops like as also is the name Prepositi in the Latin Fathers First to answer him in his own terms in stead of appropriated he would or at least should have sayd communicated unto Bishops for I know no maÌ„ so foolish as to appropriate eyther that text Heb. 13. 17 or the name Prepositis to such Bishops as ours Ierome was so farre from appropriating this text to Bishops that he doth rather appropriate it to Presbyters which at the first governed the Church as he saith on Tit. cap. 1. communi consilio Aequaliter inter plures ecclesie curam dividit Heb. 13. 17. Parete inquiens principibus egoumenois vestris c. Augustin a principall latin Father often vnderstandeth vnder the name Praepositi all the Ministers of the word Tract 46. in Iohan Habet ovile domini praepositos et filios mercenarios Praepositi qui fili sunt pastores sunt Et sunt quidem ecclesiae praepositi de quibus Paulus dicit Sua quaerentes c. And de civitate deilib 1. cap. 9. Ad hoc Speculatores hoâ—est populorum praepositi c. And epistola 166. ad finem Quod usqâ—adeo celestis Magister cavendum premonuit ut etiam de praepositis malis plebem securaÌ„ faceret ne propter illos doctrinae salutaris cathedra desereretur c. neque enim sua sunt quae dicunt sed Dei c. 2. But if the canons fasly called the Apostles haue rightly appropriated the text unto Bishops it will follow that both by the scripture and by their judgment that first framed afterwards approved them the Pastors care of soules and consequently the dispensation of the Word and Sacramentes is proper to the function of Bishops And if it be so it will then also followe and that inevitablie that those presbyters whose office is divers from the function of Bishops in their judgment aswel as of the author of that Epistle to the Hebrewes were no teaching Elders or Ministers of the word Which to affirme directly contradicteth the Doctors assertion peremptorily mainteyned by him lib. 1. cap. 3. viz. that there were no other Presbyters in the prim Church but Ministers and that the word Presbyter noting an ecclesiasticall person doth evermore in the scriptures councels and faibers signify a Minister 3. If to avoyde this disadvantage the D. shall choose rather to Sect. 4. ad sect 12. of the Doct. pag. 65. graunt that the text is to be vndetstood of Ministers in generall as he once understood it serm of the dignity of the Ministers theÌ„ can his diocelaÌ„ Bishops find no sure footing in this text as is already shewed All his hope and help therefore must lye in the last title which he supposeth is given to Bishops to wit th' Apostles of the Churches And to make this good he telleth us that he rendred a reason why they are so called viz. because they succeaded the Apostles in the government of the particular Churches and that there of he gave an instance Philip. 2. 25 where Epapbroditus who was the Bishop or Pastor of Philippi is therefore called their Apastle He should rather have produced some reason to demonstrate to ei esti that Bishops such as ours are so called then to shewe to diati why they are so entitled espetially seing he taketh notice of his Refuters quelition viz. by what authoritie that title is appropriated vnto Bishops Not with standing if his meaning be as it seemeth it is by the instance which he mentioneth to fortify the reason which he rendreth I wil desire no other demonstration then a cleare proofe of those premisses which must inferr this conclusion viz. that Bishops such as ours are in the Apostles writings called the Apostles of the Churches because they succeeded the Apostles in the government of the particular Churches The which to conclude from the former instance given by him he must thus argue Epaphroditus is called the Philippians Apostle Phil. 2. 25. because be succeeded the Apostles in the government of that particular Church But Epaphraditus was the Bishop or Pastor of Philippi in function like to one of our Bishops Ergo Bishops such as ours were called in the Apostles writings the Apostles of the Churches because they succeeded the Apostles in the government of the particular Churches Both the parts of this argument are contradicted by the Refut and yet the Doct. harh nothing that can give sufficient confirmation to the one or other Some testimonies he hath that may serve to uphold as farr as their strength wil stretch the one half of each proposition viz. that Epaphroditus is called the Apostle of Philippians and that he was their Bishop or pastor but he hath no shadowe of any testimony or reason to cover the nakednes eyther of the first which saith he was so called because he succeeded the Apostles in the government of that Church or of the secoÌ„d which affirmeth him to be a Bishop in function like to one of ours All his labour teÌ„deth to make good against his Refut answer an other point something differing from the former viz. that he was therfore called the Apostle of the Philippians because he was their Bishop or Pastor Which might be granted and his purpose there-by at all nothing furthered For it is a weak consequence and sophirticall thus to argue The office of a Bishop or Pastor is noted in Epaphroditus when he is called the Philippians Apostle Ergo Diocesan Bishops such as ours are in the scriptures called the Apostles of the Churches But let us see by what authoritie he is swayed to imbrace that coÌ„structioÌ„ which he giveth to the words of the Apostle Phil. 2. 25. humoon apostolon first in translating theÌ„ their Apostle and then in saying he was therefore called their Apostle because he was their Bishop or Pastor First touching the translation however the word Apostolos be Sect. 5. usually in the newe testament appropriated unto such as we call Apostles men immediately called of Christ to an universall vnlimitted Ministerie yet is it well knowne both that Epaphroditus was none of them and that the word in his most naturall signification is of as large use as our English word Messenger And in this large fense it is used by Christ Iohn 13 16. oude Apostolos c. Neyther is the messenger greater then he that sent him Wherefore as the name of a Deacon though derived from the Greek word diaconos cannot sitly be given to all those that are in the scripture called diakonoi for I suppose the Doctor would not allowe the word to be so translated in these and such like places Mat. 20. 26. and 23 11. He that wil be or is greatest among you let him be humoon diakonos your Deacon Rom. 13. 4. for he is theou diaconos Gods DeacoÌ„ for thy good Col. 1. 25. The
to cure when he thus reasoneth Those two that accōpanied Titus were sent by Paul who had vndertaken to procure some releif for the poore brethrē in Iudea Ergo they were not sent by the Churches whose contribution they carried He falsly conceiveth that Paul was as high-minded as some Bishops now are who scorn to associate any others with them in the choise of such as they send abroad For we learn from Pauls owne mouth that he was of an other mind he saith expressly that one of those two whom he sent was chosen by the Churches to be his fellow-traveiler to convey their benevolence 2. Cor. 8. 19. and his foredealing with the Corinthes sheweth 1. Cor. 16. 3. that he meant not to send any other with theire contribution then such as they should choose and approve by letters The Refuters first reason being thus recovered out of the Doct. handes and mainteyned against all his exceptions his interpretation Sect. 9 ad sect 14. pa. 69. will stand firme enough as having both the circumstances of the text it self and the use of the like phrase also here to justifie it although his 2. reason should be found too weake Notwithstanding I doubt not but to make it good if the Refuter may have that favour which reason alloweth to every one I meane to interprete his owne meaning so as the wordes may well beare without wresting or contradiction to any parte of his writing The reason is this Is standeth not so well with the propertie of the word apostolos which signifieth a Messenger to entitle any man in regard of his ministeriall function their Apostle to Whome as his from whom he is sent Against this the Doctor directly opposeth not for though he say that in the Scripture the word is used with reference aswell to the parties to whome as to the partie from whom the Apostle is sent yet the truth thereof argueth not the Refuters assertion to be false For he shall bewray his own ignorance or want of judgment if he presse this for a good cōsequence The word is used with reference aswell to the one as to the other Therefore both phrases of speach doe equally and alike agree with the proper signification of the word For if both phrases have a like agremēt with the proper signisicatiō of the word then in both the word may be with a like fitnes translated Messenger but that were absurd for though wee may fitly lay of Paul or any other called the Apostle of Christ 1. Cor. 1. 1. 1. Pet. 1. 1. Iude verse 17. that he was the Messenger or Embassadour of Christ yet were it a very improper and unfitting phrase of speach to say of Paul that he vvas the Messenger or Embassadour of Gentiles when he intitleth himselfe ethnoon apostolos the Apostle of the Gentiles Rom. 11. 13. To speak properly he was not their Apostle but Christs vocatus a Christo principaliter vt esset Doctor gentium as Piscator observeth upon those words and himself sheweth 1. Tim. 2. 2. 7 2. Tim. 1. 11. Where it is sayd that unto Paul was cōmitted the gospel of the uncircumcision Gal. 2. 7. May we with as good regard to the proper sense of the word evaggelion gospell call his gospell the uncircumcised Iewes gospel as we may call it Gods gospel from those words Rom. 1. 1. where he saith he was separated to preach the gospel of God It is cleare that in these places Rom. 11. 13. and Gal. 2. 7. as also in the verse following where Peter is sayd to have the Apostleship of the circumcision the genetive case must be interpreted eyther by the dative as in the first I am the Apostle of the Gentiles that is to or for the Gentiles as he sayth 1. Cor 9. 2. if I be not an Apostle allois unto others yet doubtlesse I am humin to you or else by an equivalent phrase as the Apostle interpreteth himself Gal. 2 8. 9. Q. d. to me was cōmitted the gospel of the uncircumcision to Peter the gospel or Apostleship of the circumcision that is to say to me was cōmitted the dispensation of the gospell cis ta ethne vnto or towards the Gentiles and to Peter the like dispensation or Apostleship eis ten peritomen towards the circumcision What cause then hath the Doctor to insult over the Refuter saying that whiles he goeth about to discover his ignorance as if he knew not the signification of the word apostolos as well as he he bewrayeth his owne For wherein bewrayeth he is own ignorance Perhaps in saying that among all the titles that Paul taketh to himselfe to magnify his office he never calleth himselfe their or your Apostle but an Apostle of Christ or Apostle to them Nothing lesse if his meaning be explained as the coherence of his whole speach requireth viz. that he never called himself their or your Apostle but an Apostle of Christ or Apostle to them Nothing lesse if his meaning be explained as the coherence of his whole speach requireth viz. that he never called himself their or your Apostle taking the word in his proper signification of a Messenger or Imbassadour For the Doct. himself confesseth that when the Apostle calleth himselfe the Apostle of the Gentiles Rom. 11. 13. he useth the word with reference unto the parties to whom he was sent which argueth the Apostles meaning to be this not that he was their Messenger but that he was Christs Imbassadour sent to them If he shall yet urge that those words may warrant him to say that Paul was their Apostle I graunt it but withall he must knowe that in so saying the word Apostle doth not now signify a Messenger but a Teacher or Minister of the word holding that peculiar function which the 12 Apostles enjoyed If the Doctor know not this it is grosse ignorance in him if knowing it he shall yet indeavour to justify his cēsure given forth against the Refut it wil be enough in the judgement of the indifferent reader I doubt not to prove himself to be but a wrangler Having sayd enough in defence of the Refuter for both his reasons Sect. 10. ad pag. 70. we are now to take notice how that which the Doct. addeth to vnderpropp his owne Assertion is too feeble to stay it up from falling Even as saith he Angels absolutely spoken is a title of all Ministers sent of God but used with reference to the Churches whereto they are sent as the Angels of the. 7. Churches doe signifie the Bishops or Pastors of the same Churches so Apostoli absolutely used is a title of all Embassadours sent from God with authority Apostolicall Rom. 16. 7. though kat hexochen given to Paul Barnabas Acts. 14. 14. and the 12. Apostles but used with reference to particular Churches doth signifie their Bishops Here the Doctor deserveth to be answered with his owne words viz. that while he goeth about to discover his Refuters ignorance as though
power of the truth seing the answer which he hath framed to oppugne it is not onely evill and absurd but though perhaps against his will and meaning giveth way unto it for from his owne graunt I thus argue to infringe that assertion which he laboureth to confirme 1. Whosoever is ordeyned the Bishop of any Church he receiveth the power of Episcopall order from the handes that ordeyne him But Iames received not the power of episcopall order from the handes of the Apostles Ergo neither was he ordeyned by them the Bishop of any Church 2. Againe Whosoever by his designement to the charge of any Church receiveth onely the power of jurisdiction to execute there that power of order which was before invested in his person he receiveth no new function by that designment But Iames the Apostle by his designement to the charge of the Church at Ierusalem received in the Doctors opinion onely the power of jurisdiction to execute that power of order which before was invested in his person Therefore he received no new function by that designement And consequently he was not ordeyned to the function of a Bishop in that Church To these arguments grounded on his owne answere I add this that followeth which the Doctor was willing not to see in the Refuters answere 3. Whosoever by Christs ordination received all Ministerial power with ample authority to execute the same inall places wheresoever he became he neyther did nor could receive any new power eyther of order or jurisdictioÌ„ by a designement to the oversight or care of any particular Church But Iames the Apostle by Christs ordination received all Ministeriall power with ample authoritie to execute the same in all places whereever he became Ergo he neyther did nor could receive any new power eyther of order or jurisdiction by his designment to the oversight care of a particular Church such as the Church of Ierusalem Thus leaving the Doctor to his best thoughts for his rejoynder in this behalf let us proceed to the next exception Chapt. 6. Answering the Fathers alleadged by the Doctor for Iames his Bishopprick Def. lib. 4. Chapt. sect 4. pag. 52. THe next exception concerneth the age or antiquitie of those Sect. 1. ad sect 4. pa. 52. sect 2. pag. 55. Fathers upon whose testimoney the Doctor buildeth his faith for Iames his ordination to the office of a Bishop in the Church of Ierusalem The Refuter finding the ancientest of his witnesses to be Eusebius about the yeare 320. c. demaundeth answer p. whither he had none of the Apostles Disciples which lived then to testifye his ordination the Doctor stoppeth his mouth with an other question what one of them whose writings are extant he could have alleadged whom he would not reject as counterfeit which is a plaine confession that in deed he hath none that is worth the mentioning For though he tell us that Clement the Disciple of the Apostles doth call Iames the Bishop of Bishops governing the Holy Church of the Hebrewes in Ierusalem yet as if his conscience tould him that his epistle was but a counterfeit he addeth But suppose that none of the Disciples of the Apostles in those fewe writings of theirs which be extant had given testimoney to this matter were not the testimony of Egesippus and Clement who both lived in the very next age to the Apostles sufficient No verily their credit is too weake as shal be seen sect 17. to overweigh the presumptions before alleadged to shewe that Iames received no such ordination from the Apostles as the Doct. standeth for It is therefore but his vaine bragge easier to be rejected then justifyed to say as he doth It is not to be doubted but that Iames his being Bishop of Ierusalem was a thing as notorious and as certeynly known among Christians in those times as there is no doubt made among us now that D. Cranmer was Archbishop of Canterburie in K. H. the 8. his time For is it not rather much to be doubted of seing that among all the writings that are extant of Ignatius Irenaeus Tertullian and sundry others in the first 300. yeares the Doctor cannot find any one testimonie fit for his purpose Rem adeo illustrem nullum habere autorem sui seculi aut secundi c. portento simile est Sic Chamierus de Simone De Oecum pont lib. 3. pag. 456. sic ego de Iacobo As for that counterfeyt Clement before named he rather confuteth then confirmeth the Doctors assertion For I may say of the Doctor as he doth of the Pope how he can digest that lofty title Bishop of Bishops which Clement giveth unto Iames I knowe not For doth not this title usually ascribed to him as the Doctor acknowledgeth as strongly argue him to be an universall Pope as the mention of his governing the Church of the Hebrewes in Ierusalem can conclude him to be their Diocesan Bishop And since he is sayd to govern not onely sanctum Hebraeorum ecclesiam Hierosolymis sed et omnes ecclesias quae vbique Dei providentia fundaâ—â— sunt if prejudice had not forestalled the Doctors heart he would never haue forbidden his Refuter as he doth pag. 55. to collect from thence that he was no otherwise Bishop of Ierusalem that is not in any other function then over all other Churches For doth not the D. measure the meaning of this phrase by the line and levell of that large jurisdiction which had no being in any Bishop for many hundred yeres after the Apostles when he saith that the Bishop of CoÌ„stantinople though called vniversal Patriarch yet was the Diocesan Bishop of CoÌ„stantinople alone and that the Pope himselfe though he clume to be vniversall Bishop yet is specially Bishop of Rome Yet as if he were hired to wrest this testimony out of their handes that bend it against the Popes supremacie he telleth us that in an edition of that epistle of Clement published by Sichardus at Basil anno 1526 he readeth thus Sed et omnibus ceclesijs which signifyeth that Clemens directed his epistle not to Iames onely but also to all Churches But this is to corrupt the text by a false finger for the former reading doth best agree with the title before given to Iames Bishop of Bishops And if Clement had meant to joyne any others with Iames in the inscription of his epistle he would in all likelihood haue said sed et omnibus episcopis per omnes ecclesias c. so joyning to him the Bishops of other Churches rather then the Churches themselves In the next place because the Doctors witnesses are all of them Sect. 2. ad sect 4. pag 13. such as lived in the 4. or 5. age after Christ his Refuter put him in minde of Bishop Andrewes wordes who in the like case saith serm pag 34. preached at Hampton court 1606. They wrote things they sawe not and so framed matters according to their owne conceits and many times
too weak to upholde it so it will soone appeare that he hath made a very slight answer to the Refuters objection who saith that if Iames his whole authority were confined to Ierusalē it had bin in a sort to clipp his wings so an abasement and not a preferment to him For what is it It is not saith he a clipping of his wings more then of the rest of the Apostles when by mutuall consent every mans province as it were or Circuite and charge was assigned to him As if the Doct. fault were not increased rather then lessned to clipp the wings of all the rest for company to testify one vntruthby another For as he cannot prove so I have disproved cap. 5. sect 11. his fancie of dividing to every Apostle his severall Province or circuite by mutuall consent And if there had bin any such partition of Provinces among them why should he deny them to be properly Bishops every one of them in his circuit or howe can he deny it to be a great abatement of their authority and so a clipping of their wings to be confined within one province or to one nation when as by their Apostolicall function they had authority to preach and to execute all ministeriall duties in every place and countrie wheresoever they should come ye◠of all the rest Iames his share must needs be by farr the least if he were confined to the charge of one onely Church Yea this is in deed to make him no Apostle or at least a Titular Apostle onely for as he saith of titular Bishops lib. 3. pag. 130. that they were such as had the bare name but not the authority of a Bishop so he must also affirme of Iames that he was but a titular Apostle seing th' authority of an Apostle which standeth in preaching to all nations as occasion shal be offred and in planting Churches where none were c. is denied unto Iames if his whole authoritie be confined to the episcopall oversight of that Church of Ierusalem which was already founded to his hand And if it were a punishment to Meletius and others which returned from schisme or haeresy to the Church to debarre them from their episcopall authoritie though they were allowed the name or title of Bishops how should it be an inlargement of Iames his honour to haue his whole authority confined to one Church as other Bishops although he reteyned the name and title of an Apostle As for the next point viz. Iames his continuance at Ierusalem Sect. 9. ad sect 9. pag 62. Doct. Refuter pag. 134. for o yeares even till his dying day to omit what is already sayd cap. 5. sect 10. 25. for the contrary we are now to examine whether the cause of his stay there was as the Doctor supposeth onely to governe that Church in the function of a Bishop The reason of his continuance there saith the refuter was not so much the ruling of the Christians that were converted which might have bene otherwise performed as the converting of multitudes both of Iewes and of other nations that vsually flocked thither which was a work of the Apostolicall function Wherevnto the Doctor replyeth that it is nothing to the purpose to say the Church might have bene otherwise governed vnlesse he could shewe that it was otherwise governed But he is to be advertised that if he graunt it might have been otherwise governed without an Apostles residence there then he shall shew himself verie voide of reason to make the government of that Church eyther the onely or the principall cause of his so long remayning in that place And vnless he can assigne some other cause of more weight then that the Refuter mencioneth it is but a wrangling part in him to make a shew of refuting his Refuters assertion in this case Neyther is it any thing to the purpose to urge him to shew that the church of Ierusalem was otherwise governed vnlesse he had denied that the chiefe stroke of the government rested in his handes for the time of his aboad there after the dispersion of the rest of the Apostles into other parts And where he sayth There is no doubt but that Church had a Pastor assigned to them by the Apostles c. eyther he doth but trifle or which is worse dissembleth his owne knowledge for if by a Pastor he meane a Diocesan Bishop he knoweth very well that it is not onely doubted of but flatly denyed that any such Pastor was assigned to them by the Apostles But if he take the word at large for every or any one that feedeth whether as Peter Iohn 21. 15. in the function of an Apostle or as the Bishops of Ephesus in the ordinarie calling of Presbyters Act. 20. 28. then he sheweth himselfe a meer trifler since it nothing advantageth his cause to grant that Iames was in this large constructiō of the word their Pastor by a temporary assignment and that besides him they had other Pastors even so many as there were presbyters in that Church But when he saith there is no doubt to be made but the cause and end The Doct. beggeth of his staying there 30. yeares was the same with the cause of the stay of Simon and the rest of his successors till their death he doth too apparantly begg the question For the cause which the Refuter propounded and the Doctor contradicted not ceased before Simons election to the Bishoprick of Ierusalem for his election was not till Ierusalem was destroyed by Titus as Eusebius affirmeth lib. 3. ca. 10. Wherefore there was no such recourse eyther of Iewes or of other nations unto the Temple there in Simons time or his successors as was all the dayes of Iames. And since the time of the Iewes rejection for the generality of them took place after that desolation made by Titus his army there was not the like need now as before for one of the Apostles there to reside to labour the cōversion of the Iewes and others that vsually frequented that place There remaineth one speach of the Doctor which in the Refuters Sect. 10. ad sect 8. pag 61. apprehension bloweth downe this which he so carefully laboured to set up as was shewed by this argumēt That charge saith the Doctor sermon pag. 68 which the Apostles had in cōmon whiles they iountly ruled the Church at Ierusalem was afterwardes cōmitted to Iames 〈◊〉 particular But that saith the Refuter p. 134. was not the charge of Bishops but of Apostles Ergo neyther was the charge which Iames had the charge of a Bishop but of an Apostle Now what answer maketh the Doct. in his defense The proposition is his owne he loveth his credit and he will not recall it what then Doth he contradict the assumption and say that the Apostles whiles they governed joyntly the Church of Ierusalem had the charge not of Apostles but of Bishops in the very function of Diocesan Bishops such as
he supposeth Iames and his successors to be no for then he should throttle his owne answer to Doct. Whitakers first argument pag. 57. where he flatly denieth any of the Apostles Iames excepted to be properly Bishops And by his distinctioÌ„ of the times both here and page 52 he playnly signifyeth that the indefinite commission of the Apostles to goe into all the world received no limitation till by the Holy Ghosts direction they dispersed themselves some into one part of the world and some into an other What then When plaine dealing will not help an aequivocating answer must serve the turne As though saith he the charge of the Apostles is not by the Holy Ghost called episcope Act. 1. 20. that is Bishoprick And as though Iames who before was an Apostle absolutely did not by this designement become the Apostle of the Iewes As though say I the holy Ghost doth not use the word episcope when he so entileth the charge function of the Apostles Act. 1. 20. in a larger sense for an vniversall and unlimited Bishoprick then the word episcope episcopoâ— is taken eyther in other parts of the apostolical writings as 1. Tim. 3. 1. 2. Act. 20. 28. Phil. 1. 1. when it is applyed to such as had the standing charge of one Church or in the Doctors understanding when the name of Bishop or Bishoprick is given to Iames and his successors And as though Iames did not receive a great change in regard of his charge and function when being at the first an Apostle absolutely he was made the Bishop of one particular Church by his assignement to Ierusalem As though also the Doctor did not at unawares justify his refuters assumption in graunting that Iames before his assignmeÌ„t to the particular charge of IerusaleÌ„ was an Apostle absolutely For if he were absolutely an Apostle whiles he ruled the Church of Ierusalem in coÌ„mon with the rest of the Apostles then they also in that time were absolutely Apostles and consequently their charge there was not the charge of Diocesan Bishops but of Apostles as the Refuter affirmeth Wherefore unlesse he will recall that which as yet he standeth forth to mainteyne viz. that the charge which Iames had in particular for the government of the Church at Ierusalem was the same and no other then that the Apostles before had in coÌ„mon he must bear the losse of all his laboâ—r in pleading for Iames his Bishoprick for it will followe necessarily upon the premisses of the argument before set downe that Iames his charge at Ierusalem was the charge not of a diocesan Bishop but of an Apostle And thus much shall suffice concerning Iames let us now heare what the D. can say for the Bishopricks of Tim Titus Chap. 8. Answering the first 8. Sections of the Doctors 4. chap. lib. 4. and shewing that Timothy and Titus were not ordeyned Bishops as the Doctor supposeth FRom Ierusalem the Doctor traveileth to Ephesus and to Creet Sect. 1 ad sect 1. pag. 74. of the Doct. in hope to shewe the places where and the persons whom the Apostles ordeyned Bishops And that first out of the scriptures for so he promiseth pag. 72. of his sermon And to make it good he saith That it is apparant by the epistles of S. Paul to Timothy and Titus that he had ordeyned Timothy Bishop of Ephesus and Titus of Creete the epistles themselves being the very patternes and precedents of the episcopall function For as the Apostles had coÌ„mitted unto them episcopall authoritie both in respect of ordination and iurisdiction which in the epistles is preâ—upposed so doth he by those epistles informe them and in them all Bishops how to exercise their function first in respect of ordination as Tit. 1. 5. 1. Tim. 2. 22 and secondly in regard of iurisdiction as 1. Tim. 1. 3. 〈◊〉 19. 20. 21. 2 Tim. 2. 16. Titus 1. 10. 11. and 3. 9. These are his wordes and the very pith of his arguments Where first let the reader observe that he bindeth himselfe to mainteyne this assertion viz. that it is apparant by the epistles of Paul to Tim. and Tit. that he had ordeyned the one Bishop of Ephesus and the other Bishop of Creete Which if he had as soundly confirmed as he did confidently vndertake actum esset de certamine the controversy had soone bin ended But how should this be made apparant by S. Pauls epistles when he neither doth nor can produce from thence any one word that soundeth that way Yea it repenteth him as it seemeth that he had said It is apparant by his epistles for in his defence to prove that Timothy and Titus were by S. Paul ordeyned Bishops of Ephesus Creet he maketh this his first reason pag. 74. because in his epistles written to them it is presupposed that they were by him ordeyned Bishops of those Churches and the Antecedent he proveth pag. 75. by this argument because it is presupposed in the epistles that the Apostle had committed to them episcopall authority both in respect of ordination and jurisdiction to be exercised in those Churches Whereas if he had stuck close to the wordes of his sermon in dissolving as now he will needes his first sentence into a two fold reason he should have argued thus It is presupposed in the epistles to Timothy and Titus that the Apostle had coÌ„mitted episcopall authoritie to them both in respect of ordination and jurisdiction c. Ergo it is apparant by those epistles that he had ordeyned them Bishops But though he sawe it he was ashamed to be seene to The Doct. reasoneth loosely changeth his termes and argumentes and then taxeth his Refuter for not answering his argument argue thus loosely and as we have often done so againe must wee give him leave to change at his pleasure not onely his termes or phrases but also his very arguments But when he taketh this liberty he wrongeth his Refuter against all equitie to taxe him as he doth both here and hereafter pag. 78. lin 16. for not answering his argument For who can answer an objection before he heare it And who that considereth the tenour of his first sentence before set downe would haue dreamed a twofold reason to be infolded therein Nay who would not have judged as the Refuter did that the later clause had bene a confirmation of the former But to take his arguments as he hath nowe tendred them when he saith It is presupposed in the epistles to Timothy and Titus that Paul had ordeyned theÌ„ Bishops of Ephesus and Creete if his meaning be that their ordination to the episcopall charge of those Churches is presupposed by the Apostle in his epistles written to them I utterly reject his assertion as a false presupposall or rather forgerie of his owne which hath no warrant from any line or letter in those epistles And to his proofe thereof viz. because it is presupposed in those epistles that the Apostle
had coÌ„mitted to them episcopall authoritie both in respect of ordination jurisdiction to be exercised in those Churches I answer that he mingleth and that deceiptfully truth and falshood togither For thought it be true that the epistles doe presuppose a power of ordination and jurisdiction coÌ„mitted to them yet is it false and he but beggeth the question in assuming it for truth that the authority of ordeyning and censuring is an authoritie episcopall that is proper to Bishops onely and that the power and authority of ordination and jurisdiction was given them eyther then and not before when they were appointed to stay in those places or there and no where else to be exercised by them A bare deniall of these particulars falsly presupposed by the Doctor is sufficient answer till he prove by some part of Pauls epistles that they are by him presupposed in them His second argument in his owne Analysis is the same which Sect. 2. ad pag. 75. sect 2. p. 75 76. 57. his Refuter tooke to be the first and it standeth thus If the epistles written to Tim. and Tit. be the very patternes and precedents of the episcopall function whereby the Apostle informeth them and in them all Bishops how to exercise their function then Tim. and Tit. were Bishops But the Antecedent is true Therefore the Consequent To discover the weaknes of the consequence or proposition the Doct. was told answ pag. 137. that the consequent dependeth not upon the Antecedent but with this supposition which is false that the Apostle by describing in these epistles the rules to be observed in ordination and jurisdiction intended to informe Tim. Tit. as Bishops and in them all other Bishops how to carry themselves in those matters And if the Doct. had bin as willing to apprehend his right meaning as to pick occasioÌ„ of quarreling without any just cause given he might have discerned that the supposition whereof he speaketh is not of the naturall hypothesis of the proposiâ—ion impugned but such a limitation of the Antecedent or Assumption as is necessary to be supplyed if he will have the proposition or consequence to passe vncontrouled Wherefore as he might have spared his Crocadile-like mourning over his Ref Alas good man you know not what the supposition of an hypotheticall proposition 〈◊〉 so had he weighed his owne rules lib. 2. cap. 3. sect 3. for the fynding out of that hypothesis which in a coÌ„nexive argument is wanting to make a perfect syllogisme perhaps he mought have perceived the weaknes of his consequence which he would seeme not to see For the true hypothesis which is implyed in this connexive argument and must be supplyed to make it a perfect simple syllogisme can be none other then this They must needs be Bishops and ordeyned to that function to whom such epistles are directed as are patternes and presidents of the episcopall functioÌ„ c. Or more generally thus Every persoÌ„ to whom an epistle or speach The Doct. discerning the weaknes of his arguments exchangeth it is directed which conteyneth the patterne or precedeÌ„t of any function or directions how to exercise it is vndoubtedly invested in the same function And why now I pray you good Mr. Doct. may not this proposition be denyed or doubted of I will spaâ—e labour in refuting it for I suppose your self perceived the weaknes of it and therefore gave us the exchaunge of an other argument though you pretend another cause of the exchange And since you will not argue with T. C. to whose answerthe Ref directly pointed as with the finger but are willing to let him rest in peace neyther will I argue against Doctor Whitgift but affoard him the like kindeness Onely whereas you aske the Refuter how he could be so ignorant or without judgment as to think that Doct. whitgift in speaking of the office and duty of a Bishop conteyned in those epistles did meane onely that description of a Bishop which is set downe 1. Tim. 3 to requite your kindnes I demaund how you could be so ignorant or void of judgment as to think that when Doctor whitgift said that the whole course of the epistles written to Tim declareth him to be a Bishop seing therein is conteyned the office and duty of a Bishop diverse precepts peculiar to that function he meant by the office and duty of a Bishop that Ministery which is comon to all Ministers for so you seeme to interprete his wordes when you affirme pag. 76. this to be his meaning that directions were given to Timothy throughout the epistles for the discharge of his office eyther in respect of the Ministery coÌ„mon to all Ministers or of his episcopall function cheifly in regard of ordination and jurisdictioÌ„ And herein you tender his credit lesS then you would seeme when you make him to argue in this fashion The epistles written to Timothy doe give him directions for the discharge of his episcopal function Ergo they doe declare that he was a Bishop for this were to make him guilty of your owne fault in begging of the question The Doct. beggeth the question as you doe when you add to your assumption or Antecedent that supposition before examined for if that be as you say it is the playne meaning of the assumption then your second argument beggeth the question in pittifull manner thus The Apostles intent in his epistles written to Tim and Tit was to informe them as Bishops how to exercise their episcopall functioÌ„ Ergo those epistles shew that they were Bishops No merveil therefore if the Doctor were desirous to cover the beggery of his reasoning with the Sect. 3. ad pag. 77. 78. sect 3. shredds of a new shaped syllogisme which disputeth thus Whosoever describing unto Timothy and Titus their office and authority as they were governors of the Churches of Ephesus Creet and prescribing their duty in the execution thereof to be performed by them and their successors till the coÌ„ming of Christ doth plâ—inly describe the office and authoritie and prescribe the dutie of Bishops he presupposeth them to be Bishops the one of Ephesus the other of Creete But Paul in his Epistles to Timothy and Titus describing unto them their office and authorittie as they were governors of the Churches of Ephesus and Creet c. doth plainely describe the office and prescribe the dutie of Bishops Therefore Paul in his epistles to Timothy and Titus presupposeth them to be Bishops the one of Ephesus the other of Creet Into this new frame he casteth his argument as he pretendeth because the Refuter had confounded himself with his owne hypotheticall proposition but the reader is rather to judge that a false supposall of confusion in his Refuter hath transported the Doctor into such a maze that he hath confounded himselfe in his owne The D. coÌ„foundeth himselfe in his owne reasoning reasoning For where he should according to his own project sect 1. of
this chapter haue given us a second reason for his first conclusion scz that Timothy and Titus were ordeyned Bishops by S. Paul he now tendreth us a second prosyllogisme to confirme the antecedent of his first argument But to let him goe free with this fault I will answer this argument as it standeth first to the proposition which although it never sawe the Sun before his defence came abroad he taketh for graunted because T C and his Refuter have assailed it in vaine So he flattereth himself in his owne conceite but all in vaine For a meaner Scholler then T. C. or his Refuter eyther may easily discerne the inconsequence of his proposition although he may seme to have fortified the presupposall which he concludeth with a double bulwark both of describing the authority and of prescribing the duty of Bishops For S. Paul in his speach to the Elders of Ephesus Acts. 20. 18. c. describing his owne office and authority as he was the Superintendent of that church president of the presbyterie there plainely describeth the office and authority of all Superintendents or presidents in particular churches consequently prescribeth the duty which was to be performed by all such as should succeed in the like office till the comming of Christ Notwithstanding it were absurd froÌ„ hence to inferre that the Apostles speach there presupposeth his ordination to the office of a superintendent or President of the Presbytery in that Church of Ephesus wherefore neyther doth it follow that the Apostle in his epistles to Tim Titus presupposeth their ordination to the office of Bishops in the churches of Ephesus and Creete though it should be graunted that in describing their authority as they were governours of those churches and in prescribing their duty such as was to performed by them and their successors till Christs comming he both described the office and prescribed the duty of Bishops But this which he assumeth for a truth I reject as an assertioÌ„ no lesse voyd of truth then the main coÌ„clusion now in question for it is grounded upoÌ„ this false suppositioÌ„ that none other then diocesaÌ„ Bishops had in those times or could have by succession the government of particular Churches Now let us heare what he can say in defence thereof The Assumption I prove saith he by those particulars wherein the episcopall Sect. 4. ad sect 3. pa. 78. authoritie doth chiefly consist both in respect of ordination Tit. 1. 5. 1. Tim. 5. 22. and also of iurisdiction they being the censures of other Ministers doctrine 1. Tim. 1. 3. 2. Tim. 2. 16. Tit. 1. 10. 11. 3. 9. Iudges oâ— their person and conversation 1. Tim. 5. 19. 20. 21. Tit. 3. 10. to which proofes he answereth nothing Answered nothing no merveile if he had no answere to these proofes as they are now fitted to the assumption of his new shapen argument if this be his meaning his best friends I think wil scarce coÌ„mend his honesty or discretion But if his meaning be that these proofes before layd downe in his sermon received no answer at all dooth he not too much forget himself since he taketh notice in the next page following of this reason yeelded for the denyall of his assumption viz. that those instructions comprised in the places alleadged were not given to Timothy and Titus as Bishops but particularly to them as Evangelists and in generall to the Presbyters c. But since this answere is in his eyes no answer at all let us trie whether it may not be sayd with more truth that his proofes whereof he boasteth are no clear proofes eyther of the principall points before denied or of those which he now assumeth He knoweth full well that his refuter flatly denieth that which he acknowledgeth to be in effect his assumption both before and now to wit that S. Paul had any intention to informe Timothy and Titus as Bishops or any other Diocesan Bishops by them how to demeane themselves in those particulars of ordination jurisdiction hath he any argument to prove this or can he deduce it out of the scriptures before mencioned At least if he will needs cleave to his last assumptioÌ„ why are not the proofs thereof if he have any contrived into form of arguments are his syllogismes so soon at an end Me thinks he should not expect any help in this case from his refuter whom he judgeth to be but a very bungler in the art of Syllogising Yet if it must needs be done to his hands I will doe my best to give it the best coate I can and that is this Whosoever describing vnto Timothy and Titus their office and authority as they were governors of the Churches of Ephesus and Creet and prescribing their duty in the execution thereof to be performed by them and their succssors till Christs coÌ„ming doth describe their office prescribe their duties in those particulars wherein episcopall authoritie chiefly consisteth he doth in so describing prescribing plainly describe the office and prescribe the duty of Bishops But S. Paul in his epistles to Timothy and Titus describing their office authoritie as they were governors of the Churches of Ephesus and Creete and prescribing their dutie in the execution thereof to be performed by them and their successors till Christs comming describeth their office and prescribeth their dutie in those particulars wherein piscopall authority consisteth For he describeth their office and prescribeth their dutie in the power of ordination and jurisdiction as the places before quoted doe shewe And in these particulars of ordination and jurisdiction episcopall authoritie chiefly consisteth Therefore S. Paul in so describing the authoritie and prescribing the duty of Timothy and Titus doth plainely describe the office and authority and prescribe the duty of Bishops Behold here good Reader how the Doctor after many windings in and out is retired back to that which he assumed as you may see sect 1. for the proofe of his first argument viz. that episcopall authoritie standeth in the power of ordination and jurisdiction This was then taken for graunted and so inforced to prove that Timothy Titus their ordination to the function of Bishops was presupposed by S. Paul in his epistles to them in as much as they had that authoritie coÌ„mitted to them Here it is againe produced to justify the same coÌ„clusion because if episcopal authority coÌ„sist in those particulars theÌ„ S. Pauls describbing of their authority and prescribbing of their duty in the same particulars argueth the authority duty of Bishops to be describbed in those epistles c. So to make a shew of some variety of arguments one assertioÌ„ must come twice upon the stage for one purpose that with an impudent The Doct. beggeth stoutly face to begge rather then with â—ound reason from Gods word to coÌ„firme what is well known to be one of the main points controverted For his adding the authority of Gregorie Nazianzen Chrysostome
commandements given to Timothy were to be performed by such as succeeded him in the same office Mr Calvin saith he vnderstandeth in the name of the cōmandement those things whereof he had hitherto discoursed concerning the office of Timothy And doe not we also understand the things or works given in charge under the name of the commandement Neyther deny we that those things belonged to the office or ministery of Timothy Yet we refuse that succession in the same ministeriall function which the Doct. would wring if he could tell how out of Pauls charge to performe the things so cōmanded untill Christs second cōming 2. True it is that T. C. and others finding among other precepts in Pauls epistles to Timothy this that the governing Elders are to be honoured as well as the Teachers doe from thence conclude the continuance of both functions and why should they not since the continuance of Bishops and Deacons is of all interpreters rightly gathered frō the rules that are layd down concerning their functions 1. Tim. 3. the former being no less ordinary and perpetually necessary then the later Yet the continuance of Timothy his office cannot be concluded vpon the same ground till it may appeare that his function was also perpetuall and not extraordinary 3. As for the testimony of Ambrose it nothing helpeth the Doctor except it be to shewe how grosly he plaieth the Sophister in thus arguing S. Paul in his words 1. Tim. 6. 14. hath regard unto Timothees successors that they after his example might continue the wel ordering of the Church So saith S. Ambrose Ergo in his understanding saith the Doct. he meant such as succeeded Timothy in the same office As though the Fathers did confound the offices of Apostles Evangelists with those Pastors Bishops which succeeded them in the rule and government of the Churches because they say the later were successors to the former 4. His reason followeth now to be examined Whatsoever authority is perpetually necessary and such as without which the Church neyther can be governed nor yet continued the same is not peculier to extraordinary persons or to die with them but by an ordinary derivation to be continued in their successors But the authority committed to Timothy and Titus was perpetually necessary and such as without which the Church neyther can be governed as without jurisdiction nor continued as without ordination Therefore the authority committed to them was not peculiar to them as extraordinary persons but by an ordinary derivation to be continued in those that succeeded them Wherevnto I answer as before if he speak of successiō at large in authority onely he wandreth from the question If of succession in the same office I disclaime the later braunch of the proposition for all men knowe by the perpetuity of Pastorall authority by which the word and sacraments are still continued in the Church whereas the dispensation of these holy things was first committed by Christ to the Apostles Math. 28. 19. 20. that the perpetuall necessity of an authority to performe this or that ministeriall work doth not necessarily require any to succeed in the same function that first enjoyed that authority And this is so evident a truth that rather then the Doctor will contradict it he will become non-suite in this point and perswade his Reader if he can that succession in authority onely which was never denyed is sufficient for his purpose the contrary whereof is before sufficiently made manifest To follow him therfore in the defence of his propositiō he saith Sect. 12. ad sect 8. pag 85. it is grounded on this hypothesis that diocesan Bishops were the successors of Timothy and Titus and therefore reasoneth thus If the successors of Timothy and Titus were diocesan Bishops then those things which were written to informe their successors were written to informe diocesan Bishops But the successors of Timothy Titus were diocesan Bishops Therefore those things that were written to informe their successors were written to informe diocesan Bishops Here the Doctor is againe to be advertised that the true hypothesis of the former proposition is this that diocesan Bishops not onely de facto were but also de jure ought to have been successors vnto Timothy Titus in the exercise of their authority therefore the consequence of the later proposition which mencioneth their succession de facto onely is too weake for vnless it were certeine that S. Paul intended that diocesan Bishops should succeede them his writing of purpose to direct their successors cannot argue that he meant by them to informe diocesan Bishops It had bin fit therefore the Doctor had shewed from some wordes of the Apostle in these epistles or from some other Scriptures that the Apostle aymed at the successiō of such Bishops but this was too hard a task for him and therefore he perswadeth his reader that their succession de jure cannot be denied if their succession de facto be proved Which he indeavoreth by two arguments First by this disiunction Either diocesan Bishops were their successors or the presbyteries or the whole congregation But neyther the presbyteries nor the whole congregation Ergo diocesan Bishops As for the last member of this disiunction it is absurdly added by the Doctor howsoever he would seem to haue done it to please his Ref for although he say that the right was in the church yet he giveth the execution to the presbytery of each congregatiō neyther yet is he so to be vnderstood as if he denied a preheminence for order sake vnto some one to be the mouth of the rest in executing that which was by the whole presbytery decreed Which preheminence as it did by right belonge to Timothy Titus in regarde of their Evangelisticall function during their stay in those places so it was devolved after their departure to him that was primus presbyter or proestoos president of the presbyters that is to say in each congregation to the Pastor and in a Synode or assembly of the Pastors and presbyters of many Churches to that one which with the consent choyse of his brethren moderated the action If therefore he speak of successors vnto Timothy Titus in that speciall presidencie which they held at Ephesus and in Creete his disiunction is to be disclaimed as insufficient because it wanteth the mētion of such a president as we give to each presbyterie and Synode His second argument followeth in this forme Those who succeeded Timothy and Titus in the government of the Churches of Ephesus and Creet were their successors But the Bishops of Ephesus and Creet did succeed Timothy Titus in the government of those Churches Therefore they viz. Diocesan Bishops were their successors Well may you see the Doct. would faine be thought to be rich The Doct. is poore proveth idem pe◠idem when in deed he is poore For is this argument any better then a beggerly proving of the point denyed by the self
the Bishopriks of Timothy and Titus handled by the Doctor lib. 4. cap. 4. sect 11. and 12. pag. 93-97 THe second objection lieth thus Timothy and Titus were Evangelists Sect. 1. ad sect 11. pag â—3 Ergo they were not ordeyned Bishops of Ephesus and Creete This consequence the Doctor denied because their being Evangelists did not hinder but that when they were assigned to certeine Churches and furnished with episcopall power they became Bishops And to remove this answere the Refuter proveth first that their being Evangelists did hinder their assigning to certein churches without which they could not be Bishops 2. That when they were left at Ephesus and in Creete they received no such new authoritie as he calleth episcopall neyther needed any such furnishing as he supposeth The first is proved not by 2. reasons as the Doctor imagineth but by one disiunctive argument in this maÌ„ner What could not be done without eyther confounding the offices which God had distinguished Ephes 4. 11. or depriving Timothy and Titus of an higher calling to thrust them into a lower that the Apostle Paul neyther would nor could doe But to make Timothy and Titus Bishops when they were Evangelists could not be done without eyther confounding the offices which God hath distinguished Ephes 4. 11. or depriving them of an higher calling to thrust them into a lower Ergo the making of Timothy and Titus Bishops when they were Evangelists was a thing which the Apostle neyther could nor would doe The assumption is very scornfully rejected by the Doctor because in his imagination the partes thereof are nice points which none of the fathers did ever understand but his triumph is vaine and vnseasonable whiles we are in examining by the verdict of the scriptures or by reason grounded thereon what to determine of this controversy Wherefore to passe by this answerlesse answer I will indeavour to draw the reader to the consideration of that I haue to alleadge in defense of our assumption as followeth To conioyne the offices of Evangelists and Bishops Pastors in one person at one time is to confound the offices which are distinguished Ephes 4. 11. And to take from an Evangelist his evangelisticall function when he is invested into the office of a Bishop or Pastor assigned to the charge of one certein Church is to deprive him of an higher and to thrust him into a lower calling But to make Timothy and Titus Bishops when they were Evangelists could not be done without eyther conioyning both offices in one person or taking their first office from them when the later is given to them Ergo neyther can it be done without eyther confounding the offices which are distinguished Ephes 4. 11 or depriving them of the higher function to thrust them into a lower Here the proposition is impugned in both the branches therof first therefore for the former thus I argue It is apparant by the very text Ephes 4. 11. and by other scriptures that the severall functions of Ministery there mencioned were by Christ distributed to severall persons not coÌ„mitted two or moe of them to one man at once Ergo to conioyne the offices of Evangelists and Bishops in one person at one time is to confound the offices which by God are distinguished For the manifestation of the antecedent first let the text be weighed Ephes 4. 11. 12. he gave some to be Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers He saith not he gave some to be Pastors onely and some to be Evangelistes and Pastors or that some were Apostles onely and some Apostles and Evangelists but as before he gave some to be Apostles and some to be Evangelists c. thereby signifying that such as had the calling of Apostles had not also the office of Evangelists Neyther did the Evangelists holde therewithall the office of Pastors 2. This is further confirmed by the similitude which the Apostle vseth 1. Cor. 12. 14 28. of many members in one body which haue not all one and the same but each of them his severall office The eye is not an eare neither doth it serve the body in the office of hearing or smelling c. in like manner all are not Apostles nor all Prophets c. but God hath ordeyned some to one office and some to another as first Apostles secondly Prophets c. 3. And of this distinction we haue examples For touching the extraordinarie Ministers of Apostles Prophets and Evangelists we finde them distributed to severall persons Luk. 16. 13. Act. 1. 26. and cap. 11. 27. 28. and 21. 8. And for ordinarie functions there were at Ierusalem Deacons and Elders Act. 6. 3. 6. 11. 31. at Philippi Bishops and Deacons Phil. 1. 1. but of two or moe offices combined in one person at once there cannot be yeelded any one cleare example in holy scripture All that the Doct. objecteth to infringe this is of small moment viz. that as Apostles might be Evangelists as we see in Mathew Sect. 2. Iohn so Evangelists might be Bishops as we se in Mark. pag. 95 For the name of EvaÌ„gelist by ancient or later writers given to Matthew and Iohn because they wrote those histories which are kat hexochen called Evangelia Gospells proveth not that they had that functioÌ„ of Evangelists which is distinguished from the Apostles Ephes 4. 11. The scripture is best expounded by the scripture therefore we must by Evangelists there vnderstand such as have the name given them in other partes of the new testament as Acts. 21. 8. and 2. Tim. 4. 5. And as for Mark we know him to be an EvaÌ„gelist not onely because he wrote one of the 4. Gospells but rather because he was as Timothy a companion and fellow helper to the Apostles but his Bishoprick we disclaime no lesse then Timothees and for the same reason because he was an Evangelist by his particular function neither can the Doct. herein contradict us without contradiction aswell to himself as to the truth For he coÌ„fesseth as the truth in deed is that the word Evangelist specially taken signifieth the extraordinary fuÌ„ctioÌ„ of those in the primitive Church which went up down preaching the Gospell not being affixed to any certeine place And particularly of Timothy Titus he saith they were Evangelists whiles they accompanied the Apostle Paul in his traveiles were not assigned to any certeine place From hence therefore I thus frame a 2. argument to prove that the combyning of the functions of Evangelists and Bishops or Pastors in one person at once is a confounding of offices which by their first institution were distinguished Whatsoever offices are severed by properties of an opposite nature they cannot at once be conjoyned in one person without confounding the functioÌ„s which by their first institution were distinguished But the function of Evangelists Bishops are severed by properties of an opposite nature for the one is extraordinary and not bound to any
not the writing of the Apostles Acts make a second and the writing of the Evangelicall or Canonicall epistles a third and the receiving and penning of the revelation a 4. And as for the. 72. or rather 70. For Luke mencioneth 70. not 72. chosen by Christ cap. 10. 1. how confident soever the Doct. be in assigning to them an Evangelisticall function yet we cannot hastilie subscribe to him therein much lesse can wee graunt that which he affirmeth of Philip that he layd aside the evangelisticall function to take a temporary Deaconship Act. 6. and so returned to it againe but these are parerga by-controversies about which we will not contend Let us therefore attend to the reason urged by the D. to prove Sect. 〈◊〉 ad pag. 95. 96. that Timothy and Titus were advanced and not debased when they were made Bishops For saith he whereas before they were but Presbyters though called Evangelists in a large sense they were now made the Apostles of those Churches and by imposition of handes ordeyned Bishops Behold here quot axiomata totidem paradoxa as many paradoxes as axiomes For how will he prove 1. that they were before but presbyters The D. beg geth 3. times together and contradicteth himself in one sentence c. 2. called Evangelists in a larger sense 3. now made Apostles of those Churches 4. and by imposition of hands made Bishops The two last are nakedly sent forth without any one ragge to cover their shame the second is a manifest contradiction to the truth before acknowledged by himselfe pag. 94. where he comprizeth Timothy and Titus no lesse then Philip and some others under the name of Evangelists specially taken for the extraordinarie functioÌ„ of those that went up and downe preaching the gospell being not affixed to any certain place And this truth thus acknowledged convinceth his first assertioÌ„ of a palpable falshood For how could they be but presbyters seing they stood in the extraordinary function of Evangelists Forsooth he saith thâ—â— what the fathers say of the 72 disciples that they had but the degree of the Presbytery the same may of Timothy and Titus much more be verifyed But doth he noâ— abuse the fathers in making them the authors of his owne paradoxe For doe they match the 72 disciples or any other Evangelists with the degree of Presbyters any otherwise then they doe the Apostles with the degree or place of Bishops Neyther is this done to set the Evangelists below Bishops or to lift up Bishops above Prophets but to countenaÌ„ce that superioritie which in their times Bishops held above Presbyters by a comparison of the like difference which they apprehended betweene the Apostles the 70. disciples Wee haue therefore better arguments to prove the contrary assertion viz. That Timothy and Titus were in degree superiour to all ordinarie presbyters for besides that already gathered from Ephes 4. 11. it is apparant by that honour which the Apostle and by that obedience which the Churches to which they were sent gave unto them whiles they were his fellow-helpers and companions in his traveiles 1. Cor. 4. 17. 16. 10. 16. 2. Cor. 1. 1. 7. 13. 15. 8. 23. Philip. 1. 1. and 2. 20. 22. Wherefore I conclude once againe that to make them Pastors or Bishops when they were Evangelists is not to advance them but rather to throw them downe from a higher degree of Ministerie to a lower In the second place whereas the Doctor had sayd that Timothy and Titus were furnished with episcopall power at the time of Sect. 6. 〈◊〉 pag. 9â— their stay in Ephesus and Creet by S. Pauls appointment and the Refuter denied that they received any new authoritie which before they had not c. the D. now argueth against his Refuter in this manner If they received no new authoritie why did Timothy receive a new ordination by imposition of handes whereof the Apostle speaketh 1. Tim. 4. 14. 2. Tim. 1. 6. and which the Fathers understand of his ordination to be Bishop I graunt that Paul mentioneth hands-imposition on Timothy that some of the fathers doe thereby understaÌ„d his ordination to be Bishop Notwithstanding I say he cannot prove eyther from those words or any of the fathers writings that the imposition of hands mencioned by Paul was a second ordination to a new office or a furnishing of him with any new Ministeriall authoritie which before he wanted What the Fathers speak of his ordination to be Bishop may be construed as is before noted coÌ„cerning Iames their speaches are which say that Iames was ordeyned Bishop of Ierusalem of a new or differing imployment in the work of the Ministerie for the temporarie charge he received which argueth no new authoritie or office imposed on him 2. And whereas he asketh whether men were admitted to the extraordinary function of Evangelists by the ordinary meanes of imposing hands his owne pen hath given him a direct answer pag. 94. lin 32. where he saith that Timothy and Titus who were of the later sort of Evangelists and therefore in an extraordinary function lin 15. of the same page were ordeyned Ministers of the gospell by imposition of handes which I would fayne know how he can prove by any testimony divine or humane vnlesse he carry those wordes of Paul 1. Tim. 4. 14. and 2. Tim. 1. 6. to his first ministeriall function 3. Againe he asketh may we think that any but the Apostles being not assigned as Bishops to severall Churches had that authoritie wheresoever they became which Timothy had at Ephesus Titus in Creet And he addeth verily Philip the Evangelist had not authoritie to impose handes for the furnishing of men with graces for the Ministerie but the Apostles Peter and Iohn were sent to Samaria for that purpose Act. 8. 5 -17 If it be his drift thus to argue Philip the Evangelist had no authoritie to give graces fit for the Ministery by imposition of handes Therefore besides the Apostles none but Bishops had that authoritie wheresoever they came which Timothy and Titus had at Ephesus and in Creet I answer his reasoning is many wayes faulty For he cannot prove eyther that Bishops have or that Timothy and Titus had that authoritie by imposition of hands to give such graces Neyther is it true which his words import that the gifts of the holy Ghost given by the hands of Peter and Iohn Act 8. 17. were graces fitting the persons that received them to the work of the Ministerie Wherefore although it should be graunted that the Evangelist Philip had no authoritie to give those peculiar graces yet he might haue as great authority wheresoever he came as Timothy and Titus had in the Churches of Ephesus and Creet so that his assertion implyed in his quaestion viz. that besides the Apostles onely Bishops had the like authoritie to that which Timothy and Titus had hath no colour of any sound reason to uphold it Yea it is strongly confuted by
he say there I meane to winter to conclude for certeinty that his Mr. was at Greenewich when he wrote 3. And if he say here I meane to winter to send to his Mr. for new direction where to find him As for the testimony of Athanasius Oecumenius and others which following the error of him that first iÌ„magined Paul to be at Nicopolis when he wrote to Titus drunk it in without any further examination it cannot overweight the force of any just probability to the contrary for in questions of this nature yea of greater event often times the heedlesse receiving of that which some one or moe of the Ancients have imbraced hath bin the cause of many errors But if the rest of his witnesses be no more resolute for him then the authors of the Centuries he might well have spared the citing of them for they leave it doubtfull whether the epistle were sent from Ephesus or Nicopolis In the next place he urgeth the generall consent of the ancient Sect. 2. ad sect 18. pag 107. c. Fathers as Eusebius Dyonisius Dorotheus Ambrose Hierom Chrysostome and others to the number of 16. which testify that Timothy and Titus were Bishops To all which he received a threefold answer Frst that the fathers in so calling them take not the name properlie for the functioÌ„ of a Diocesan or provincial Bishop but improperlie in a more generall signification like as they call some of the Apostles Bishops for the work and preheminence sake wherein Bishops afterwards succeeded them This answere is wittingly mistaken of the Doctor for a bare deniall of that which they affirme wherefore it shall suffice to urge him vnto the proofe of the point denyed and by him wholly neglected scz that the Fathers did so term them properly as giving them the very function of Diocesan Bishops for which he pleadeth Secondly he was tolde their consent was not so generall as he would make us beleeve the truth of which answer is evident by this that among all the fathers summoned to give in their evidence we heare not the names of Ignatius Irenaeus Tertullian or any other that lived in the first 300. yeares For that counterfeyt that shrowdeth himself under the name of Dyonisius Areopagita is demonstrated by many worthy divines D. Reynolds Conf. with Hart. cap. 8. divis 2. pag. 488. Cent. 1. lib. 2. de Dyonis Areopag Perkins problem pag. 9. Scult Medull de Dyonis script pag. 484. to be such a novice that he was unknowne to Eusebius and Hierom or any other of the ancients before Gregorie the great Wherefore it will give the Doct. little reliefe to graunt him that in his time it was generally received that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus especially seing the Papists may also from his testimonie likewise conclude that in his time the Monkes were of great credit in the Church many of their ceremonies as annoyntings crossings Incense coÌ„secrations c. were in vse and that in his time it was generally coÌ„fessed that Bishops onely were allowed divina ordinatione Chrisma conficere Hierarch eccles Cap. 4. 5. And whereas unto that objected out of Ignatius that he was so farre from esteeming Timothy as a Bishop that he rather maketh him a Deacon epist ad Trall the Doctor answereth by distinguishing the times that he was such an Evangelist as first ministred to Paul as a Deacon afterwards was ordeyned a Presbyter lastly a Bishop he explayneth not but rather perverteth Ignatius his meaning whose purpose is nothing else but to shew what service Deacons doe owe to Bishops by comparison of that service which holy Steven did to blessed Iames Timotheus Linus unto Paul c. In which comparison though he match Tim. with the DeacoÌ„ and not vvith the Bishop as T. C. rightly observeth yet as he giveth not to Paul the function of a Bishop so neyther unto Timothy the office of a Deacon Nay rather he shadoweth out in Timothy the office of an Evangelist in that he maketh him an assistant unto Paul in his Apostleship As for that fancie vvhich the Doct. broacheth of Timothies serving first in the office of a Deacon then of a Presbyter lastly of a Bishop it is not for his credit to father it upon Ignatius or Ambrose It is true that Ambrose saith Timothy was ordeyned a presbyter and that he was a Bishop because he had no other presbyters before him yet affirmeth he withall that there is but vna ordinatio episcopi presbyteri that there is but one ordination of a Bishop and a Presbyter vterque enim Cacerdos est Com. in 1. Tim. 3. Wherefore that one ordination whereof Ambrose speaketh confuteth that thrice ordination vvhereof the Doctor dreameth And if Ignatius had bene acquainted vvith Timothies ordinatioÌ„ to the Bishoprick of Ephesus doubtlesse in vvriting to the Ephesians he vvould not have associated him vvith the Apostle Paul as a joynte Teacher or Mr by vvhom they vvere instructed in the faith Vos ergo tâ—les estote a â—alibus magistris eruditi Paulo Christifere Timotheâ— fidelissimo He would rather haue distinguished their functions like as he doth the Pastorall charge of Evodius from the Apostolicall function of Peter and Paul who first planted the gospell at Antioch as his words alleadged by the Doctor serm pag. 82. ad Antioch shewe In vaine therefore braggeth he of a generall consent of the auncient fathers when of all that lived in the first 300. yeares there cannot any one be alleadged that giveth to Timothy and Titus the name of a Bishop much lesse the function of a diocesan Bishop Here perhaps the Doctor will againe put us in minde of Eusebius Sect. 3. who reporteth out of former histories that Timothy first had the Bishoprick of the Church of Ephesus Titus of the Churches in Creet And because this his report is the maine foundation whereon all the rest are grounded I will vouchsafe it this particular answer following It is worth the noting that what he speaketh he delivereth not as a certain truth grouÌ„ded on the holy scriptures but as a doubtfull report derived from other stories from whence no sure proofe can be drawne in divinitie as before hath bene observed But not to insist on this exception why doth not the D. fortify the consequence of this argument Timothy obteyned first episcopen the oversight tes paroikias of the Church in Ephesus like as Titus had of all the Churches in Creet Ergo they had each of them the function of a Diocesan Bishop in those Churches For Timothyes charge being paroikia en ephesoo the parish in Ephesus was too narrow a compasse for a Diocese Titus having the oversight of all the Churches in Creta an Iland that had an 100. cities and therefore called hekatompolis had too large a jurisdiction for one province Moreover since there are no records of like authoritie to shew that any one Bishop in the Apostles dayes enjoyed the like superintendencie
viz. that Bishops jure divino are equall among theÌ„selves in respect of power and jurisdiction aswell as order But though he deale honestly that himselfe and not the Bishops of King Henries dayes restreyneth the equalitie of Bishops among themselves to the power of order yet he casteth a great blemishe disgrace upon those our forefathers in signifying that the auncient Fathers consented not with them but with him and against them in this point As for that clause he addeth as were also the Apostles whose successors the Bishops are I know not to what purpose it serveth save to discover his contradictinge eyther himselfe or the The D. coÌ„tradicteth himself or the truth truth himself if he mean that the equality of Bishops amonge theÌ„selves is as large as that equality which was among the Apostles for theÌ„ he erreth in restreyning the equality of Bishops unto power of order onely the truth if he meane that the Apostles had no other equality among themselves then he giveth to Bishops for they were equall also in authority and jurisdiction aswell as in power of order as is rightly acknowledged by our Bishops in their bookes and by the auncienter Bishops in their writings Neyther is it true as the Doct. would insinuate thaâ— Bishops onely are the Apostles successors The D. untruly insinuateth that Bishops onely are the Apostles successors For to speak properly they have no successors and in a generall sense all Pastors and Teachers that hold and teach their doctrine are their successors And herein we have against him amongst many others the consent of those reverend Bishops who having sayd that Christ gave none of his Apostles nor any of their successors any such authority as the Pope claymeth over Princes or in civill matters doe make application thereof aswell to Preists as to Bishops But the D. notwithstanding upon this that the Bishops are the Apostles successors goeth on and telleth us That we may not inferre because the Apostles were equall among themselves that therfore they were not superior to the 72 disciples or because Bishops are equall among themselves therefore they are not superior to other Ministers Whereunto I could say it is true if it were apparant first that Bishops other Ministers doe differ by any special difference as the 72. disciples did from the Apostles but no such thing appeareth eyther in the scriptures or in the Bishops booke from whence the Doct. reasoneth but rather as hath bene shewed by the refuter and is before mainteyned the cleane contrary Secondly that the Apostles had any superiority over these disciples the which the Doctor wil not so easily prove as take for granted seing 1. Christ living the Apostles had no authority over any 2. their Apostolical authority was not as then wheÌ„ the 72. were sent forth coÌ„mitted vnto them and 3. it appeareth not that the Ministery of the 72. was to be coÌ„tinued in the Church after Christ but onely to remaine for that present journey and afterwards to be disposed of as Christ pleased Thirdly it is also true that as the equality of the Apostles amonge themselves and the supposed superioritie they had over the 72 tooke not away their subjection and inferiority to Christ so neyther doth the equallity of Bishops among themselves nor their superioty over other Ministers take away their inferiority to the Pope by any necessity of consequence Wherefore I must for this The Refus rightly alleadged the testimony testimony conclude 1. that the refuter hath rightly alleadged it and 2. that the D. hath wronged not onely his refuter but us them in labouring and that with slaunder to wrest their testimony out of our hands The next testimony is taken from the booke called Reform leg eccles Sect 2. Ref. pag. 4. D. pag. 5. cap. 10. 11. de divinis offic ijs to prove that those which made the booke deemed that as the episcopall function is not jure divino so the government of the Church by the Minister and certeyn Seniors or Elders in every parish was the auncient discipline so consequently his doctrine in his sermon contrary to their judgement In answer whereunto 1. he chargeth his Refuter to playe the part of an egregious falsifyer and The D. columniateth the allegation to be forged but by that time the matter be examined I perswade my self the reader will thinke it meet the Doctor take home those speaches to himselfe as his owne proper the rather seing the Ref setteth not downe the words of the book but onely his own collection out of them 2. he fathereth that upon him which he neyther sayd nor meant With what eye trow we looked he vpoÌ„ the Refuters words that he would make his reader believe that the Refuter affirmeth as he afterwards intimateth that the The Doct. slauÌ„dereth compilers of the booke meant to bring in lay-Elders or to establish the pretended parish discipline or to acknowledg that it was the ancient discipline of the Church Let us now debate the matter as it deserveth at large And first it being remembred that the booke is cited to prove that the doctrine in his sermon is against the judgement of our immediate forefathers we are to see what his doctrine is viz that as the episcopal function in quçstion is jure divino so all ecclesiasticall power of jurisdiction is in the Bishops hands onely that the Pastors of particular flocks as they have their authority from the Bishop so all the authority they have is in fore conscientia not in foro externo eyther for direction or correction that belongeth wholly to the Bishop he is to reforme abusâ— exercise Church Censures against offenders It is not in the power of any Pastor of a particular congregation with any assistantes of lay-Elders or other associates to execute any censure c whereof we maye see more at large in the 4. point of his sermon pag. 45-52 And however in his defence he doth in part deny this to be his doctrine yet is it sufficiently averred lib. 2. Cap. 4. hereafter following to be his doctrine Now to prove that this his doctrine is against the judgement of those fathers is that booke alleadged the Doct. is now to make good his charge if he can he sayth he will doe it by transcribing the 10. 11. chap. cited the bare recitall whereof being as he saith a sufficient consutation of his forged allegations The words transcribed by him are Evening prayers being ended in citie parish Churches wherevnto after the sermon there shal be a concourse of all in their owne churches the principall Minister whom they call parochum the Parson or Pastâ—r and the Deacon if they be present c. and Seniors are to consult with the people how the mony provided for godly vses may be best bestowed to the same time let the discipline be reserved For they who have coÌ„mitted any publike wickednes to the coÌ„mon offence of the Church are to
of the parish 2. when the Bishops or ecclesiasticall Syndicâ— Iudge shall give licence and authority for the receiving of him into the congregation by the Pastor be shal not receive him into the Church but in the presence of the congregation and 3. not before he hath witnessed his repentance to the Congregation by confessing and bewayling his sinne before them craving â—â—â—don both of God and them togither with theâ—â— favour for his reciving in The which when the party hath done the Minister 4 ly shall ask the congregation whether they will forgive him his fault and commend his cause by prayer unto God that he would shewe mercy to him and coÌ„firm that in heaven which they doe on earth And the people answeringe thereto we will he shall againe ask them whither they will receive him into their company and count him as a brother wherevnto when they have answered we will then shal the Minister absolve him and receive him into the Church saying after this manner I doe here before this Church the guiding whereof is coÌ„mitted vnto me absolve thee from the punishment of thine offences and from the bonds of excoÌ„munication by the authoritie of God the power of Iesus Christ and the Holy Ghost with the consent of the members of this Church present and also of the ordinary Ordinario suffragante And I doe restore thee againe to thy former place and ful right in the Church Behold here the order prescribed by theÌ„ for administration of this part of discipline and therein observe that the Bishop or ecclesiasticall Iudge had but a voyce in it he was neyther the doer nor the sole-doer but the Minister and the Seniors or cheefe men of the Parishe and the congregation had their voyces also and that as they could not doe it with out the Bishop so neyther the Bishop without them And thus farre they sought to bringe in the auncient discipline and doe shewe their judgement to be directly against his doctrine for the Bishops sole government as appeareth also by the former testimony cited out of the Bishops booke Consider we now what the D. sayth to the Seniors they speake of he telleth us that it is apparant that by Seniors they 〈◊〉 not ecclesiasticall officers because where they reckon vp all ecclesiasticall officers from the Clerks to the Church wardens Deacons Ministers c. they doe not once mention Seniors or their office And therevpon concludeth that by them they vnderstand some of the principall housholders in some places called vestry-men in some Masters of the parishe in some â—â—ncients of the parish Which is nothing to the purpose seing the ref never sayd that by the Seniors with whom they require the Minister to consult they mean any of the ecclesiastical officers theÌ„ established wherof onely they make mention in the Chapters noted in the Doctors margin yet when in the places alleadged by the Refuter they all those officers notwithstanding prescribe the Ministers to take to them Seniors and without their counsel to doe nothing in the the Church busynes to proceed with wicked persons according to Math. 18 and adjudging them worthy to be excommunicate and having gotten to approve it they must denounce it publiquely in the congregation that therein so much as may be they might bring in the anncient discipline will not any man that hath witt and honesty conclude that they acknowledged that of olde time there were Seniors let the D. call them what he will they call them Seniors who were joyned with the Pastors of particular coÌ„gregations in Church government and that they so farre as their comission and the lawes then established would permit them out of the love they bare to that discipline sought to bring it in The D. therefore wanteth witt or honesty in so charging his refut the former we knowe he hath the later the reader may see he wanteth else would he never at his first meeting with this testimony charge his refuter to be an egregious falsifyer to have produced forged allegations and when he is to take his leave of it will the reader to judge with what conscience that booke was alleadged as if the Refuter against coÌ„science had alleadged it But I will joyne with him in that request praying the reader in Gods feare so to doe as also how wel he hath proved his Refuter in the allegation thereof to be as he chargeth him an egregious falsifyer and to have produced forged allegations and so proceede to the rest of those notorious untruthes as he calleth them Chap. 4. Wherein the Refuter is discharged of the other notorious untruthes charged upon him by the Doctor The second notorious untruth layd to the Refuters charge by Sect. 1. ref pag. 4. D. p. 7. the Doctor is because he sayd that his dactrine is contrary to the profifsed profissed judgement of our worthy wryters Whitakers Fulk c. who in their answeres to the Papists who plead for their hierarchy with the same reasons that the D. doth for his doe determine that the government our Bishops exercise ever other Ministers is jure humano by the positive law of man onely the which if the D. say true is false and so the papists left vnanswered fre hence ariseth this second notorious vntruth but how doth M. D. make it appeare so 1. Can he deny the doctrine in his sermon to be cleane contrary to their judgement that holde the government our Bishops exercise over other Ministers to be given them jure humano by the positive lawe of man onely No he dareth not contradict his Refuter in this point What then 2. Doth he deny that the Papists doe pleade for their hierarchy with the same reasons that he doth for ours no he onely indeavoureth to perswade that his arguments are good though theirs be naught 3. But doe not our worthy wryters those the refuter named with others in their answers to the Papists that alleadge the same reasons determine as the refuter saith that the governmeÌ„t which our Bishops exercise over other Ministers is jure humano not by divine right but by the positive lawe of man onely This is so evident a truth that the D. neyther doth nor can refell it Where then is that notorious vntruth wherewith he chargeth his Refuter by reason of those wordes is not he rather a notorious slaunderer in delivering The D. is the slauÌ„derer such an accusation as he cannot justify Iudge Christian reader wheÌ„ thou hast heard his answer First sayth he the popish opinion is farre different from that which I hold for they holde the order and superiority of Bishops to be jure divino implying thereby a perpetuall necessity therof in so much that where Bishops are not to ordeyne they think there can be no Ministers nor Preists coÌ„sequently no Church I holde otherwise as the Ref himself acknowknowledgeth p. 90 in fine If therefore the Papists doe bringe the like argumeÌ„ts to prove their
writers of our side against the papists there are that mainteyninge the episcopall function to be of apostolicall institution doe yet deny it to be divini juris and perpetually necessary not that great Bell of whome we heard even nowe I am sure of For as for the D. silly distinctioÌ„ betwene apostolical instuutioÌ„ divine right whereby he putteth this difference betwixt his opinion the papists as he telleth not from whence it commeth so I see not whither it goeth except to give Romish licence to alter and change divine ordinances at humane pleasures But hereof more hereafter in a sitter place here enough is said for the Ref. defence against the D. second slander wherin he hath bewraied want both of judgment and honesty the one in devysing such silly shifts and thinking The D. bewraieth want of judgment honesty to escape froÌ„ the whole host of our worthy writers by putting on so poore a visard or peece of a garment that would scarce cover any part of him the other in labouring against the truth and his own conscience to perswade that none of our worthy Champions against the papists are in their judgment opposite to him in this question And this his fault is the greater because he laieth downe their judgement imperfectly and closely stealeth all reputation The D. wrongeth all our best divines of sound learninge both from them and all other that accorde in judgment with them The former appeareth in that he restreineth their deniall of the episcopall function to be divini juris vnto his owne sense as if thereby they ment nothing else then that their functioÌ„ is not perpetually necessarie whereas it is plaine they make it an humane and not a divine ordinance The later discovereth it self in that he asketh what man of sound learning doth or can deny but that the first Bishops were ordeyned by the Apostles For he cannot be ignorant that as our immediate forefathers before spoken of so also the greatest nomber of orthodoxall divines at this day do flatly deny that the superioritie of Bishops over other Ministers was ordeyned by the Apostles The second notorious vntruth being removed we are now to Sect. 2. Ref. pag. 5. D. pag. 8. 9. meete with the third which the D. casteth upon his Ref. because he sayd that his doctrine was contrariant to the lawes of our Land which make it one part of the Kings jurisdiction to grant to our Bishops that ecclesiasticall power they now exercise over us and to take it from them as his pleasure the which his highness taketh to himselfe and giveth to all Kings where he professeth that God hâ—h left it to the liberty and free will of Princes to alter the Church-government at their pleasure These are the refuters wordes in deed and he sheweth from whence he collected them to witt from Sr Edw. Cook De jure regis ecclesiastico the Kings Majesties owne speach in his Preface before his premonition But how proveth the D. that the Refuter hath in these words vttered a notorious vntruth for that is the charge if many words will prove it he hath proved it in deed for he hath spent a page and halfe about it wherein is as much profoundnes as truth let vs give him the hearing at large Before he coÌ„meth to the restimonies quoted by the refuter he giveth us two distinctions one concerning the episcopal power the other concerning the exercise thereof first therefore of the first Touching their power he telleth us that it is either spirituall respecting the soul as to binde and loose the souls of men or corporall respecting the outward man as to binde and loose the bodies the former of which is derived to them from the Apostles the later committed to them by the King to whose crowne all commanding and compulsive power is annexed It is well he graunteth the civil power of Bishops to be jure humano his Majestie is much beholden to him But will he ever be able to prove trow we that the spirituall power of opening shutting binding and loosing which he saith was derived to the Bishops from the Apostles is by divine ordinance proper to them and not coÌ„mon to all Ministers of the gospell with them but that they by the word of God are excluded from it this he meaneth in and by those wordes or The Doct. beggeth the question else he speaketh idlye in so meaning who seeth not that he beggeth the mayne question and laboureth for that which by all the sweat of his browes he will never compasse Touching the exercise of their power to let passe his termes of babituall or potentiall right as fitter to choake then to nourish his distinction that though their power be derived to them from the Apostles as a divine ordinance yet where a Christian Prince is assisting and directinge them by his lawes they may not actually exercise their power but according to his lâ—â—es ecclesiasticall seemeth to me somewhat harsh 1. that God should give to Archbishops Bishops c. such a peerelesse power so The Doct. speaketh harshly with contradiction to himself absolute and large over millions of soules as he speaketh without certaine rules and directions for the exercising and managinge thereof but hath left it as a dead trunke or body to depend upon the ecclesiastical lawes of ChristiaÌ„ Princes which as a soule must give life and breath and motion thereunto Verely that power is not a peerelesse but a powerlesse power in deed 2. That that power which hath rule and direction enough from God for the exercise of it where no Christian ayding and directing Princes are should become powerlesse and livelesse by the aidance and advise of Christian Princes 3. That the Doctor dare be so bold as besides these two to imply for so he doth that Arch Bishops and Bishops with their adherence maie actually exercise their power supposed to be derived to them from the Apostles contrary to the ecclesiasticall lawes in case they be not such as doe assiste and direct them But passe we on all this winde shaketh no corne nor maketh ought to prove the vntruth in question leave we therefore his distinctions come we to his answere to the ref first proof of his assertion He affirmeth that the authority which the reverend Iudge speaketh of in the place quoted is the authority of the high Commission which the Bishops exercise not as they are Bishops for that others who are no Bishops have the same but as they are the Kings commissioners ecclesiasticall then which The D. speaketh vntruly or deceiptfully what can be more untruly or deceytfully spoken Will he say that that reverend Iudge speaketh of the authority of the high CoÌ„mission onely knoweth he not that that whole booke tendeth to prove that both the function of Archbishops and L. Bishops the jurisdiction they exercised in England long before the high Commission was dreamt of was by froÌ„ the
Kings of England Doth he not pa. 13. affirme from the Statute of the Parliament held at Carliel 25. Edw. 1. that the holy Church of England was founded in the stare of Prelacie by the King and his progenitors And that in the time of Edw. the third it was often resolved 17. cap. 23. that the K. might exempt any person from the jurisdiction of the Ordinarie and graunt him episcopal jurisdiction fol. 9 edit 1606 that in 1. Hen. 4. the Archbishops Bishops of this Realme are called the K. spirituall Indges And to conclude doth he not afterwards conclude that though the proceedings and progresse of the ecclesiastical Courts run in the Bishops name yet both their courts lawes whereby they proceed are the Kings Verily if by our lawes their function and jurisdiction were holden to be of divine ordinance he neyther could nor would have said so But heare we the Doctor speake againe he telleth vs that the authority which the Bishops exercise in the high Comission is not exercised by them as they are Bishops but as they are high cōmissioners and his reason for it is for that others that are no Bishops have the same Wherein he dealeth as decitfully The. D. dealeth deceiptfully as before For 1. he will not I suppose avouch that the ecclesiastical jurisdiction which the Bishops there exercise of suspending excōmunicating depriving c. is exercised as Commissioners and not as Bishops and Archbishops or that others their Assistants in that Cōmission that are neyther Archbishops Bishops nor Ministers of the word can without them exercise those Censures In deed in that the high Cōmissioners convent men from all parts out of all Dioceses in the Land and proceed against them by imprisonments impositions of fines c. it is done by power of the high cōmission but for all ecclesiasticall Censures what doe they which every Archbishop within his Province and Bishop within his Diocese may not doe yea sometimes and too often doth not without that Commission Thus we see how he hath infringed the Refuters first proofe taken from Sr Edw. Cooks testimony or report The refuter might have sent him for further proofe of that point to that Booke called an Assertion for Church polocie wherein are proofs plentifull and pregnant whereof the D. in likelihood cannot be ignorant And I might here commend vnto him other testimonies also but I hast on to other more needfull matters Let us therefore heare him what he can say to his refuters second proofe to witt the K. Majesties judgement whose words are before set downe 1. saith he It seemeth that whiles the Refut talketh of The D. slandereth his Ref. with one brearh yet against his will cleareth him with another liberty to alter at their pleasure he thinketh it left to his liberty to alter the K. words at his pleasure Might not a man this once tell him that he careth not what he saith so it may as others before him De Imperatorio nomine invidiam conflare the refuter is so farr off from changing the K. words that he did not so much as once offer to set thē downe but onely sheweth what he conceiveth to be the K. judgement by his words in the place in question the Doctor therefore here falleth up to the eares into the pitt he digged for his refuter and his fault is the greater for that he cleareth his refuter of the crime objected confirmeth him in his so judging by the Kings words which himselfe layeth downe with the next breath saying The King in deed doth say tha◠it is granted to every Christian King Prince and cōmon wealth to prescribe to their subiects that outward forme of ecclesiasticall regiment which may seem best to agree with the forme of their civill government so as they swarve not at all from the groundes of faith and true religion Let the reader judge whether the Refuter did not rightly collect what he collected from the Kings words yea or no and I wish him also to observe how the Doct. slippeth from these wordes of the King without so much as an offer to shewe wherein they are contrary to the Refuters collection or fall short of proving his assertion both which he should have done if he would have made good his charge upon the ref But we may see he durst not abide the light of the Sun which here shineth so bright as if he had not turned his back vpon it it would have marred his sight quite We must therefore here leave the Doct. or follow him flying from the point in question for not daring to speake one word to it he appealeth to the Kings wordes elswhere sett downe Premonition p. 44 from whence if we will beleeve him he will make it appeare that the K. differeth not in judgement frō the doctrine of his sermon The Kings words are these That Bishops ought to be in the Church I ever mainteyned as an apostolik institution and so the ordinance of God c If the D. would by these the Kings words have proved the point in question he should have shewed that the function of the Bishops of the Church of England nowe exercised by them is for the substance of it mainteyned by these words of the King to be an Apostolik institution and so the ordinance of God the which if he could have done he mought have made a contradiction betwene the Kings preface his Premonition but never a whitt the more have proved that the King agreeth in judgement with the doctrine of his sermon which tendeth to prove another manner of episcopal function to be of divine institutiō then the King in these words speaketh of as the Doct. it seemeth sawe well enough when he forbore to set downe his Majesties very next words where he sheweth in what respect he ever held that episcopal function which he speaketh of to be an Apostolike institution to witt that he ever mainteyned the state of Bishops and the ecelesiasticall hierarchie for order sake Againe that he alloweth of Bishops and Church hierarchy and reverenceth the institution of rankes and degrees among Bishops Patriarchs which he knoweth were in the tyme of the primitive Church for order sake Againe that if it were now a question as once it was which of the Patriarchs should have the first place he could with all his hare yeeld it to the Bishop of Rome that he should be primus episcopus inter omnes episcopos princeps episcoporum so it be no otherwise but as Peter was princeps Apostolorum And againe affirmeth that the allowance he giveth to the hierarchy of the church is for distinction of orders for so he vnderstandeth it c. What shall we say to the Doctor did he not read these speaches of the King or did he skip them because they spell not well for his purpose It appeareth plainely by them that the other his Majesties words cited by the Doctor are without colour
maketh it to saye that by the scriptures of God a Bishop and a Preist are all one or knoweth he how farr and vnto whom he reacheth the name of an heretike verely Chrisostom saith * in 1. Tim. Hom. 11. ad Evagrium quaest vet et novi testā q. 101 de dignitat sacerdotali Betwene a Bishop and a preist in a manner there is no difference S. Ierom saith somewhat in rougher sort I here saie there is one become so peevishe that he setteth Deacons before Preists that is to saie before Bishops whereas the Apostles plainely teacheth us that Preists and Bishops be all one St. Austin saith what is a Bishop but the first Preist that is to say the highest Preist So saith Saint Ambrose there is but one consecration of Preist and Bishop for both of them are Preists but the Bishop is the first All these and other mo◠holy Fathers togither with Saint Paul the Apostle for thus saying by Mr. Hardinges advise musts be holden for Haeretikes And in his reply to him article 4. page 309. having shewed what primacie or headship Ierom gave to Peter viz that to avoid confusion which lightly happeneth in all companies where no order is Christ appointed Peter for that he was the eldest man to speake and deale for the rest as cheefe and heade of all his brethren he addeth these wordes which order also was afterwards vniversally taken throughout the world that in every congregation of Preists one should have a special preheminence above others and be called Episcopus Bishop This was thought a good politick way to avoid conteution in the Church By all which it appeareth that this worthy IEWELL was perswaded 1. That the preheminence of Bishops above other Ministers was first brought in by humane policie and not by any divine ordinance in the holy scriptures 2. that the preheminence of Bishops in the first originall and establishment thereof was onely a preheminence such as Peter had above the rest of his fellow Apostles which was at the most of order onely and not of any superiour cōmanding power jurisdictiō And 3. that in the primitive Ch other Elders besides Ministers of the word had an hand in the governmēt of the Church Thus we see the judgement of these two Bishops cited by Sect. 4. Ref. pag. 5. D. pag. 9. 10. the Refuter nowe let the reader judge whether he hath uttered a notorious vntruth in saying the Doctors sermon is contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England professed by the Bishops or rather whether the Doctor hath not malliciously The D. slandereth malliciously slaundered him in so charging him I saye malicious and if his conscience be spurred the quaestion from the abundance whereof his pen wrote it will subscribe to it For knewe he not all this to be true in the Bishops bookes quoted by the Refuter in his Margin Yea are not divers partes of these testimonies expressed in the Refuters answere page 34. and 124 Did he not reade them there And hath he not slipped them over with such a slubber that if he be not farre spent he cannot laye them and his answere to them togither without the blushredd-colour Well but the Doctor is none of them that will be madd without reason he therefore giveth vs a reason why he doth not credite his Refuter For sayth he the doctrine of our Church appeareth best by the articles and confession of our Church Which reason is without reason and argueth the man not so wel advised as he mought be when he appealeth to the cōfession of our Church collected out of the Apologie thereof written as himselfe sayth by Bishop Iewel from the Apologie it selfe and Authors owne exposition and defence of it Is it likely think ye that other men should vnderstand him better then himselfe doth eyther in the Apologie or defence of it especially being authorized to write it by our Church and it allowed yea cōmanded to be in all our Churches But let vs examine his allegations apart The first is the booke of Articles and what doth that The 36. article thereof approveth saith he the booke of consecrating Bishops Preists and Deacons And what then that booke saith he in the Preface thereof saith that from the Apostles times there have bene those orders of Ministers Bishops Preists and Deacons in Christs Church and that God by his spirit appointed them in his Church Is not this a sweet proof mark it well The articles approve the booke and the preface of that booke saith that those three orders have bene in the Church from the Apostles times c. Therefore the booke of articles and consequently the doctrine of the church of England approveth the function of Bishops and their superiority above Preists to be of divine ordinance As if 1. what soever is sayd in the preface before the booke which in all likelihood was done by one or two onely and not by so generall a consent as the booke it selfe must needs be allowed for the currant doctrine of the Church of England in that age because the 36. article in our booke of articles doth for some purpose approve the booke of consecrating Bishops c. as conteyning in it all things necessary to such consecration But 2. doth that preface say that those 3. orders were in the Apostles times no but from the Apostles times exclusively which words do◠not prove they were in the Apostles times but the contrary as the refuter hath shewed out of Chamier de Pontif Oecum in his answere page 87. in the like phrase of Ierom to Evagrius saying that from Mark the Evangelist unto Heraclas c. one of the Presbyters were chosen from amongst the rest set over the rest c. But 3. it seemeth they meant otherwise by the last clause which the D. citeth that God by his spirit appointed them in his Church But the reader must know that that sentence is none of theirs nor to be found in that preface it hath pleased the D. ex abundanti to add that clause of his owne head and cleane contrary to their meaning that made that book at least for as we have heard cap. 3 before going they held the superiority of Bishops The D. addeth one sentence to his testimony and detracteth another from it to be a politick devise of man and not the ordinance of God Let us goe forwards with the Doct he addeth that the Bishop is required to correct and punish according to such authority as he hath by Gods word Here 1. I charge the D as before with the adding of one sentence so here with the detracting of another whiles he deceitfully cōcealeth part of the words For the booke requireth the Bishop to correct and punish c. according to such authority as he hath by Gods word and the ordinance of this realme which later clause of the lawes of this realme they would never have added had they thought that the power
which our Bishops exercise is wholly by Gods word But 2. though those words detracted by the Doctor had not bene added by them if he thinketh it wil prove that the function now exercised by Bishops is warranted to them by Gods word he forgetteth his owne distinction betweene potest as modus potestatis togither with the difference which he putteth betweene function and authoritie lib. 4. pag. 100 102. 147. Neyther 3. is that authority which the booke requireth Bishops to exercise such a sole power of correction as the Doctor giveth unto them for the same booke requireth also of every Minister aswell as of the Bishop at his ordination that he preach the word and administer the sacraments The D. owne testimony against him discipline so giving every Minister a stroke in the outward policie government of the Church aswel as the Bishop which the Doct. taketh quite from him But to conclude this point the booke of articles doth in deed shewe the judgement of our Church in some matters of policie and church government devised by men aswell as in more weighty points of faith set down in Gods word Wherefore the doctrine of our Church concerning the later is not to be sought for in the booke of consecration or the 36. article that establisheth it much lesse in the preface of that booke but rather in those articles which concerne faith and sacraments For the whole body of our Church being assembled in Parliament evidently perceiving that there were some clauses sentences and articles in that booke and the preface thereof not warrantable by the word did therefore approve of it no further then it concerned the doctrine of faith and sacraments and provided also that no Minister of the word should be tied by his subscription further to approve it as well appeareth by the statute 13. Elizab cap. 12. And here I wish the reader 1. to take notice that in all that booke there is no word of Archbishops Archdeacons Deanes rurall Deanes with the rest of that rowe so that they will not be found be like in the word nor hath God by his spirit appointed them in his Church 2. To observe how the Doct. that so boldly and confidently that I say no more rejecteth so many Synods Churches and learned men alleadged by the Refut and acknowledged by himself to be orthodoxal divines is not so wel seene in his allegation here as he would seeme to be surely he mought very well conceive that we might take exception not onely to his booke of ordering Bishops Preists and Deacons but to the article that establisheth it both being made by the Bishops themselves Iudges in their owne cause and seeking their owne preheminence espetially when they were both so farre excepted against by that whole assembly of Parliament as not to binde any by subscription to approve them so much as consonant to the word Thus much concerning the booke of articles and the D. dealing with vs therein Come we now to the Confession of the English Sect. â—â— church collected as the D saith out of the Apologie The wordes as he layeth them downe are these We beleeve that there be divers degrees of Ministers in the Church whereof some be Deacons some Preists some Bishops c. But he should have read out to the end of the sentence and not breake off with an c. so keeping many of his readers from the sight of them if he durst for overthrowinge his owne cause For the very next words insinuate that these diverse degrees If the D. had read his owne testimony to the end it would have bene against him are of order not of power and jurisdiction whiles they make the office of those divers degrees to be one and the same saying to whoÌ„ is coÌ„mitted the office to instruct the people and the whole charge and setting forth of religion It seemeth the D. was somewhat shortwinded when he read that sentence and I challenge him to bring one word out of all that confession that giveth more authoritie to Bishops then to other Ministers that are called Preists Doth not the 7. article of that confession professe that Christ hath given to his Ministers one aswell as another power to binde to loose to open to shutt Doth it not make the authoritie of binding and loosing to be in thaâ— censure of excoÌ„munication and absolving from it aswel as in preaching mercie or judgement Doth it not make the worde of God the keye whereby the Ministers must open or shut the kingdome of heâ—veâ— And doth it not affirme that the disciples of Christ aswell as the Apostles received the authortie of opening and shutting by it And that the Preist is a Iudge in this case though he hath no manner of right to challenge an authoritie or power that is as the observation vpon it vnderstandeth it civil or to make lawes to mens consciences To be short doth it not affirme that seing one manner of worde is given to all and one onely keye belongeth to all that therefore there is but one onely power of all Ministers as concerning opening and shutting If I belie not the Confession but that these be the very wordes thereof let him that readeth confider whether the Confession produced by the Doctor as an Advocate in his behalfe to prove the Refuters fourth vntruth hath not as a Iudge given sentence against his owne Client Worthily therefore hath he here cited this confession and of no lesse worth is his owne observation vpon it It is to be noted saith he that our Church acknowledgeth nothinge as a matter of fayth which is not conâ—â—yned in Gods worde or grounded thereon And I will note it with him and doe tell him that he noteth well for vs and againste The Doct. note is for vs and against him selfe himselfe For if the government of the Church by such Bishops as he speaketh of be a matter of faith why putteth he a difference betweene matters of discipline and the articles of fayth and referreth the question of the function and superioritie of Bishops to the former lib. 3. page 38 and howe is their government mutable and not perpetually necessary as in his defence he often affirmeth In deed he once sayd that the â—piscopall function and authoritie which Timothy and Titus had the same with ours as being assigned to certaine Churches consisting in the power of ordination and jurisdiction was not to end with their persons but to be continued in their successors as being ordinarie and perpetually necessary not onely for the well beinge but also for the very being of the visible Churches This was the Doctors faith when he preached and printed his sermon page 79. but it seemeth his Refuter hath occasioned his departure from it But let we that passe and keep we him to his note here Thus I reason It is to be noted that our Church acknowledgeth nothing for a matter of fayth which is not conteyned in
Gods word or grounded thereon This proposition is the Doctors 2. It is to be noted that our CHVRCH acknowledgeth that though there be dâ—vers degrees of Ministers as Bishops Preists Deacous in the Church yet that one onely manner of word is given to all and one onely keye belongeth to all and that there is but one onely power of all Ministers as concerning opening and shutting This assumption is the Confession now froÌ„ hence I may be bold to make one note more with this conclusion 3. Therefore it is to be noted that wheras our Churches practise is otherwise in the government that our Bishops now exercise it is net a matter of fâ—ith conteyned in Gods word or grounded thereâ—n but onely of poliâ—iâ— and humane tradition for the power of the keyes and discipline of the Church is one onely and given to all Ministers aswell as to Bishops by the word of God And consequently the doctrine of the Doctors sermon is contrary to the doctrine of The D. hath slaundered his Refut his owne testimonies produced for advocates being judges the Church of England and consequently that the Doctor hath here slandered his refuter his owne testimonies produced for Advocates being Indges But we have not yet done the D. as a man that will have somewhat to saye if the worst come to the worst asketh that if the Bishops being now better informed concerning their functions had nowe reformed their judgements according to the holy scriptures and other writings of antiquity whether it would follow that their later thoughts which are comonly the wiser were false and worthy to be confuted I answere that it maye be asked whether he was more foolish or presumptuous in making that questioÌ„ For who is so foolish as to affirme that any mans later thoughts are false and worthy to be confuted because they are reformed according to the holy scriptures and other writings of antiquity 2. Presumeth he not that if the Bishops be now of late grown to another judgement concerning their hierarchie then the Bishops their predicessors have bene in the dayes that are past that these later are wiser then the former and have reformed their judgments according to the holy scriptures c Doth he not thereby censure the former of error and ignorance concerning the truth in this behalf howsoever as it seemeth by his former note they made it a matter of faith conteyned in Gods worde or grounded thereon I will not here question the probabilities whether the thoughts of the nowe and late Bishops or their predicessors be the wiser this without comparison I dare saye that those Bishops that made not this title of superiority authoritie over their brethren and fellowe Ministers were men both godly and learned zealous lovers of sincerity wrote as against the coÌ„mon adversarie so against the ceremonies of those times now pressed and against ignorant Ministers nonresidents pluralitans many things of like sort nowe not onely tollerated but defended also let the Doctor advance the Prelates of these dayes above them if he will I will make no comparison Thus much shall â—uffice to acquite the refuter of the false and slaunderous imâ—utations of such notorious vntruthes as the Doctor hath layd vpon him in his answere to the first reason Chap. 5. Concerning the hurt like to come to the Church by the D. sermon and namely of advantaging the Papists We are nowe to handle the D. answere to the Refuters second reason as he calleth it though it be in deed but a member of the Sect. 1. Refut pag. 5. 6. D. pag. 11. 12. former in reply wherevnto I wil be more breife touching but here and there vpon a word or two most materiall the most parte of the Doctors speach being in deed nothing but sarchasticall and by-speaches The Refuter thought his sermon the more needfull to be confuted because though it was utterly failse yet he had caried the matter so handsomly smoothly and confidently that it caried appearance of truth and therefore discerned that much hurt was like to come to the Church of God by it Herevnto to let passe the D devised divisioÌ„ of the words he answereth by charging his refuter againe to crosse contradict himselfe saying that however his refut had sayd in the former reason that it is evidently false so not dangerous yet now he saith the doctrine is so by me handsomly and likely handled that it is so farre from being evidently false that every word hath an appearance promise of truth But the fight is here betwixt the Doctor and his owne shadowe not betweene the Refuter and his speaches Not the Refuter but the D. fighteth against himself Thinges evidently false are not dangerous in deed where and to whom the evidence appeareth yet dangerous enough to them that see not or will not see the falshood of them Thinges evidently false to one may have an appearence and promise of truth to another The Apostle 2. Cor. 11 3. c. feared leaste the Corinthâ—â— were beguiled as Eve was by Satan through the false APOSTLES that transformed themselves into an ANGELL of light and tolde theire tale so handsomely smoothly and confidently that it had an appearaunce and promyse of truth to the Corinthes why else was he affraid they would be beguiled by them though they scarce uttred one word of truth themselves being the Ministers of Satan and their doctrine utterly false even the doâ—â—â—ine of Divills And if the D. here reasoneth well who seeth not that he confuteth that reverend Bishop Iewell whom his Ref. as he saith in that speach imitateth Hardings doctrine was utterly and evidently false surely and yet dangerous too or Bishop Iewell said not well and yet he carried himself so smoothlie likely and confidently that to many it had shewe and appearance of truth why else doth that reverend Bishop bestowe so much labour in confuting it I could agayn say as much concerning the Ref. answer the D. defence but we must passe on The Doctor thinketh that he told his tale so smoothly in his sermoÌ„ that he had almost perswaded his refuter to be of his mind we cannot let him to think so nor he me to think that that imagination of his hart among others was vaine It may be he is now feeding himself vpon this fancie that as his sermon had almost perswaded him so this his defense hath altogither perswaded him to be of his mind but I suppose the refut or his freind will tell him that he haâ—h an ill stomach that feedeth fatt with such winde As for the rest of his speaches to the end of that section let the reader judge of them as they deserve The Refut proveth the hurtfulnes of the Doct. sermon 1. froÌ„ Sect. 2. the advantaging of the Papists and 2. from the scandalizing of others thereby Touching the first The Papists saith he would be much advantaged thereby seing that Antichristian doctrine even after the renewing
down in these words That the Pastors or governours of the primitive Churches here meant by the Angels were Diocesan Bishops and such for the substance of their calling as ours be the second in these wordes that the function of Diocesan Bishops is lawful good And he affirmeth that these assertions are for the handling of the text first propounded to be discussed But if the Doctor had pervsed the 2. page of his sermon for it seemeth he cast not his eye vpon it when he wrote his defence he should haue seene that these are not the same assertions but changlings whosoever rocked the cradle The Doct. changeth his assertions putt in their stead For there having the words of his text before his eyes The 7. starrs are the Angels of the 7. Churches considering to what end he had choseÌ„ his text viz. to justify the honourable functioÌ„ of our English Prelates he vndertaketh in the first place plainly to prove that the Angels of those Churches were Bishops for the substance of their calling such as our Bishops are And secondly out of the words to shewe that the office and function of Bishops here meant by angels is in this text both approved as lawfull and coÌ„mended as excellent Will the D. say that in sense and meaning for in words they are not these are all one with the two first Nay his conscience will tel him that in each proposition both termes I meane the subiectum and the predicatum have received such a change that the two former cannot be truely sayd to be the same with the two later For in that first which he saith is an explication of the text lett him shame the Divill and speake the truth and tell us what moved him to add the word primitive to the subiect and the word Diocesan to the Predicate of that assertion Shall I help to informe the reader till his owne answere may be heard He was resolved the event declareth it to make the best defense he could for the calling of this Diocesan Bishops yet not so much by the text which he chose or by any other testimony of scripture for then fewer lines might have served his turne then are nowe the leaves of his sermon as by the authoritie of fathers councels wherof he had greater store and such as in his owne apprehension made a fayrer shewe for his purpose Hence is it that in the winding up of all that he had spoken for the proofe of his first assertion to make the conclusioÌ„ more sutable to the premises he brought his whole discourse to this yssue serm pag. 52. Thus you have heard that the Angels or Bishops of the primitive Church were for the substance of their calling such as our Bishops are Where note he saith not the angels of the 7. churches in S. Iohns time were such Bps. yet that was the point he promised to prove but the angels or Bishops of the primitive church were such Vnderstanding by the primitive Church the ages succeding for 300 yeares after the Apostles dayes as appeareth by serm pag. 56. 57. and by Def. lib. 3. page 12 and 14. which when he hath made the best of it that he can is but an idle digression from his text not a right explication thereof Yet in this veine The D. digresseth from his text doth not rightly explicate it he persisteth throughout his defence giving vs for the true and naturall explication of his text the same general assertion whereof see lib. 1. pag. 54. lib. 2. pag. 41. lib. 3. pag. 22. Onely in these places like as before he addeth the word Diocesan in the predicate or later terme of the sentence to conforme this first assertion with the second of the last edition viz. the calling of Diocesan Bishops is lawfull and good that he might with the better colour commend the later vnto us as the Doctrine which floweth from the former For which cause also he seemeth here to limitt his first assertion within the compasse of his text vnto those Pastors or Bishops which are here meant by angels he seemeth I say here to doe it and he doth it in deed in the last section of this chapter and page 3. lib. 4. where he seriously mindeth the collecting of his doctrine from the text yet in inclosing those words here meant by angels within a parenthesis he seemeth withall to intimate to his reader that those words may wel be spared the sentence neverthelesse stand perfect without them as it doth in the places before noted even as oft as he aimeth at the reducing of his 4. first points serm pag. 6. 7. vnto one coÌ„mon conclusion Thus he windeth out and in at his The Doct. windeth in and out at pleasure pleasure and vnder termes that carry a double construction hath fitted his first assertion to a double purpose What shall I say to him Would he thus have done if he had hated double dealing sophisticall shifting in himselfe as much as he seemeth to loath it in his Refuter who gave him farr lesse cause what say I yea to speake truth no cause at all so to accuse him of any such offence Let the reader Iudge But let us goe on and compare togither the 2. assertion to use his owne phrase of the newe edition with the 2. point proposed Sect. 3. serm pag. 2. In the one he roaveth at randome and affirmeth of Diocesan Bishops at large at least of all such as ours be for so he expoundeth himself lib. 4. pag. 3. that their calling is lawfull good In the other reteyning a speciall reference to his text and the angels there mentioned he saith that the function of Bishops there meant by the angels is in the text it selfe approved as lawful and commended as excellent Howsoever the Doctor be strongly perswaded that the Angels of whom his text speaketh were Diocesan Bishops for the substance of their calling like to ours yet is he not surely so farr bereaved of his senses but he can discerne a difference not onely betweene those ancient Bishops in particular and those to whom he resembleth them or Diocesan Bishops in generall but also betweene the lawfulnes of their callings distinctly considered For as he is not ignorant that his Refuter acknowledgeth the function of those Bishops which are in his text called Angels to be lawfull and good because they were Pastors of those 7. severall Churches and yet holdeth the calling of all such Diocesan Bps. as ours are to be vnlawfull so be he here remembred that we finde his owne â—llogiâ—mes lib. 1. p. 58. lib. 4. 3 to put this difference betweene the calling of the one and of the other that the calling of such as is here meant by Angels is made the M dâ—â—s termiâ—us to coÌ„clude the lawfulnes of the calling of Diocesan Bishops Moreover there is so much differece betweene the lawfulnes of the calling of Diocesan Bishops considered at large
himselfe and his family to the publike Ministerie of those whom he hath chosen to dispense the word and sacraments to him and to them he is a member of a true visible Church or if you will of one certaine parish that is to say of one particular congregation of Christians assembled togither in one place for the solemne and publique service of God 2. If the Doctor be of a contrary opinion then he reasoneth absurdly from his owne false imagination that the King is further then any Bishop from being a member of one onely parish to cōclude that they which deny the Bishop to be a member of a true Church may aswel or rather must needs be so conceited of the K. With much more probabilitie we may return this conclusion into The D. cōcludeth against himself and bringeth his slander upon his own head his owne bosome that seing he is perswaded the K. cannot be a member of any one parish because he is the governour of all the Churches within his dominiōs he must for the same cause deny him to be a member of any one Diocesan or provinciall I may adde Nationall Church within his dominions And hence it will followe that in his conceite the King is not a member of any one certeine visible Church for by one visible Church the D. meaneth the christian people of one diocese or province or at the moste of one nation For the christian people lyving vnder diverse lawes as the people of England and Scotland doe are diverse nations and so diverse visible Churches if we may beleeve his owne wordes lib. 3. p. 51. 52. Wherefore the vnpartiall reader may easily see that this odious crime of denying the King to be a member of a true visible Church falsly and spitefully ascribed to them against whom he dealeth doth truely and justly light vpon himself As for the question which he moveth whither they holde the King and his houshold to be a true Church That so he may be thought to be a member of a true Church though the Q. be needlesse and sufficiently answered already yet know he againe and againe that they hold the Kinge and his familye to be a true visible Church not onely a member of a true Church and the King in regard of his regall office a most noble member excelling all other though the Doct. seemeth to be otherwise perswaded not onely of the King as is before shewed but perhaps also of his familey because it is not as other parishes are a subordinate member of any one diocese nor constantly subjected to the jurisdiction of the diocesan Bishop His last reason why we may not with the like reason acknowledge the Bishop and his family to be an entire Church he should say but he saith familie by themselves I will answere when I finde him better disposed to receive it then he was when to the ende of his question he added It is no matter what they holde vnlesse they were more learned and judicious In the meane time lett him bethink himself what to answere to these questions 1. Whether every Bishop or any one of them doth alike subject himself as the King doth to the pastorall authority of any one or moe that doo ordinarily distribute the word and sacramentes to his whole familye 2. Whither any Bishop residinge with his familye in another diocese as the Arch Bishops alwaise doe and some others for the most parte doe he and his familey be as other parishes are subject to his jurisdiction in whose diocese they are 3. And if the Bishop be the pastor of his familey and his chapleines assistants to him for the pastorall oversight therof whether we may not affirme their families to be so many Presidents of parishes governed by a parish pres bytery In 3. sections following the Doctor bestirreth himself to recover Sect. 7. ad sect 9. Def. pag. 40. his credit with his Diocesan Bishops who by a reasō grounded on his owne words were proved by the Refuter page 6. to be absolute Popelings The reason was layd downe to him in this forme They who have not onely supreme but also sole authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall are absolute Popelings All Diocesan Bishops have not onely supreme but also sole authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall Therefore all Diocesan Bishops are absolute Popelings The Doct. scorning that this should be called his reason sayth That there is nothing in it his but the propositiō which also is stretched beyond not onely his meaning but his wordes His wordes are these serm pag. 4. least they might seeme to sett up an absolute popeling in every parish who should have not only supreme but also sole authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall they adioyne unto him that is to their Pastor a consistorie of lay or governing elders Out of these words saith the Def pag. 40. I deny not but this proposition may be framed They who give to a Bishop not onely supreme but also sole authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall doe seeme to sett vp an absolute popeling And why not or better that proposition which his Refuter urgeth In deed if he had sayd They seeme to sett vp an absolute popelinge in giving to their parishe Bishop not onely supreme but also sole authority c his proposition had more naturally flowed frō his words then now it doth but since he saith an absolute popeling which should have both supreme sole authoritie c. he very clearely describeth in these last words of having such an authoritie as he speaketh of what he meant by an absolute popeling namely such a Pastor or Bishop as hath not onely supreme but also sole authoritie in causes ecclesiastical Wherefore he may aswell deny it to be day-light at high-noone as deny that the Refuter rightly drewe his proposition from his wordes before expressed 2. Moreover put case a man should contradict the proposition which himself acknowledgeth to agree with his words and meaning must he not be inforced for the proofe thereof to assume some such assertion as that is which the Refuter propoundeth viz. that he is an absolute popeling who hath in any parish or diocese supreme and sole authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall 3. Yea doth he not elswhere in his sermon pag. 17. 51. with out any seeming affirme in plaine termes that the parish Bishop or Pastor of every parish must rule as a Pope vnlesse he be assisted with a presbyterie or subjected to the diocesan Bishops authority Yea that it is to sett vp a Pope in every parish if the Pastors doe rule alone neyther subject to the Bishop nor restreyned by Assistantes In like manner in this defence lib. 1. cap. 8. pa. 194. saith he not that their parish Bishops whom they make the supreme ecclesiasticall officers would be he saith not might seeme to be but would be absolute popelinges if presbyteries were not adjoyned vnto them because they shall have not onely supreme but also sole authority It is therefore a
the Angels of the 7. churches to be such Bishops as ours are he vndertaketh to trie pag. 3. whether those Angels were parishional or diocesan Bishops he shall finde that his first assertion doth crave the help of his assumption to stand in the place of one of the pillers that must support it And touching his conclusion since he tolde us even in the former page that it is the very conclusion which he proposed to be proved serm pag. 55. why saith he nowe he did not expresse it And if it be the main doctrin of his sermoÌ„ as every where throughout his defense he affirmeth why saith he it is onely implied in the collection of his doctrine out of the text But no more of these whies let us come to the maine question from which the reader hath bin held too longe I meane the triall of the truth of the assumption and how true it is that it is as he saith proved by the 4. first pointes of his five Well were it with the D. and the cause he pleadeth for if he could Sect. 5. as easely prove his assumption as he can saie it is proved But as in truth he hath no ground froÌ„ his text chosen of purpose to raise it vpon so he goeth not about the proof of it by any word or circumstance The D. doth not once offer to prove the point in question by any word of his text therein For every man certeinly seeth that it is every waie as doubtfull for ought appeareth to the contrary by his text whether the Angels therein spoken of were diocesan Bishops as whether the calling of diocesan Bishops be lawfull and good And it semeth that himself discerned some defect in his proofe seing he forbeareth to deliver it in syllogisticall forme of reasoninge wherin otherwise he is not sparinge for he hath no other syllogism that bendeth this waie then such as arise from each of his 4. pointes Nether one alone nor all the D. 4. points togither doe directly coÌ„clude his assertion Yea the D. referreth them to another question considered severally and a parte and yet not any one of them nor all of them in one togither directly concludeth that assertion which he saith is proved by them viz. that diocesan Bishops are here ment by Angels They all saile another way trade for the bringinge in of another commodity or conclusion viz. That the primitive Church was governed by diocesan Bishops and that the Angels or pastors or governors of the primitiue Church were diocesan Bishops and such for the substance of their function as ours are Which point how well he hath proved we shall see hereafter here for the present till he shew us how he can directly and soundly conclude the former from the later I still must and will affirme that the assumption of his first syllogism remaineth as yet vnproved specially since he himself referreth his 4. pointes which are all his proof of it to another question For the first assertion propounded serm pag. 2. with which he accordeth his assumption determineth no other question then this viz. who and what manner of persons are ment by the Churches But the assertion which his 4. pointes doe conclude is as his owne wordes teach in the next chapter pag. 60. the answere of another questioÌ„ to witt whether the premitive Churches were governed by such diocesan Bishops as ours are or by such presbyteries as we speake of This later is a question de facto examininge what forme of government was imbraced of the ancient Churches the former is de genuino scripturae sensu touching the true sense of the text he handleth Wherefore though Though the 4. pointes were granted yet the D. is still prooflesse c. â— Bishop Barlow serm at Hamp Court vpon Acts. 20. 28. fol. 3. it should be granted that he hath sufficiently confirmed the later yet it followeth not that the former is directly proved or necessarily concluded For he is not ignorant that one of his reverend Fathers †to whose judgment in the interpretation of a text he oweth more reverence then himself can challenge from his Refuter how basely soever he esteeme of him doth behould every parte of the outward functioÌ„ of D Bishops fully described in Act. 20. 28. as 1. The preheminent superiority above other Ministers in the word Episcopos 2. Both their Cathedrall seat or positive residencie in one Citie and a regencie setled in their persons during life in the word posuit And their diocesan jurisdiction in the wordes in quo viniverso And if the D. make any question of any one of these pointes he may finde the first much more sufficiently confirmed theÌ„ is his interpretation of the word Angels in his text for besides the proofes produced in the sermon it self to shewe that the Bishops of the primitive Church were set in a preeminent superiority above other Ministers he backeth his vnderstandinge of the word Episcopos with some colour of reasoÌ„ froÌ„ other Scripture that as there are scopountes Seers Phil. 3. 17. which expresseth the dutie of each pastor over his flock so there are 1. Pet. 5. 2. episcopountes quasi hoi opitoâ—s scopountas such as must visit over look both the flock the Seers wch last place of Peter the D. himself vnderstandeth of Bishops lib. 3. pag. 43. wheras to prove that diocesan Bishops are meant by Angels he alledgeth no shewe of any authority divine or humane that may perswade the name to be given vnto Bishops to expresse their preheminence above other ministers And as for the rest of the prerogatives of Bishops which Bishop Barlow did but point at not prosecute who seeth not how easy a matter it is to justify them by a like consequence of reasoninge to that which the D. useth For if we must beleeve that a diocesan extent of jurisdiction a prehminent superiority both in degree of ministery and power of ordeyninge c. is implied in this title the Angels of the Churches because the Bishops of the primitive Churches did governe whole dioceses and had therein such superiority above all other Ministers why should not the D. also beleeve that a diocesan jurisdiction and Cathedrall seate togither with a positive residencie in one Citie and a setled regencie during life is rightly gathered from these wordes in quo vni verse posuit seing he knoweth that the Bishops of the primitive Churches had every of them the like jurisdiction seate residenoie and regencie peculiar to their functions Notwithstanding the D. will at no hand consent that the presbyters of whom Paul speaketh Actes 20. 28. should be diocesan Bishops such as ours are for he taketh them for inferiour Ministers such as he will have to be called Preistes Now if he reply that the Churches practise in succeding ages allowinge vnto Bishops those priviledges before mencioned helpeth nothing to prove that those wordes of the text doe conveye the same partes or notes of
Notwithstanding for the clearinge of the state of the question two things are to be considered to wit first what he includeth in or excludeth from the substance of their callinge Secondly in what sense their function is to be esteemed a divine ordinance The substance of their callinge the Doctor explaineth serm Sect. 6. page 52. 53. where haâ—ing said that the angels or Bishops of the primitive Church were for the substance of their calling such as ours are he addeth that is to say Diocâ—san and Provinciall Bishops being superiour in degree to other Ministers and having a singularitie of prehemmence for terme of life and a peerelesse power both of ordination and iurisdiction Neverthelesse the reader must not imagin that he speaketh of Provinciall or Metropolitan Bishops when he affirmeth the episcopall function to be of divine institution â—or in his defense he usually inserteth the word Diocesan as lib. 1. pag. 58. and lib. 4. pag. 139. to teach us that the Bishops whose function he mainteyneth to be of apostolical institution are no other then Diocesan Bishops As for Metropolitans though he thinke lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 114. that their superioritie was intended by the Apostles when they appointed Bishops over mother Cities yet as well as he loveth them he dareth not affirme that any were ordeyned by the Apostles to the office or prâ—h minence of Metropolitan Bishops For every Metropolitan in his opinion lib. 3. cap. 1. pag. 20. 21. was The function of Archbps. is lesse beholding to the D. theâ— the function of Diocesan Bishops originally the Bâ—shop of his peculiar Diocese and not actually a Metropolitan vntill divers Churches in the same Province being constituted there was a consociation amonge themselves and a subordination of them to him as their primate So that the function of Metropolitans or Archbishops is lesse beholdinge to Mayster Doctor then the callinge of Diocesan Bishops Of the former he speaketh doubtfully lib. 4. cap. 5. p. 130. Their superiority arose as Beza supposeth from the very light of nature directinge and force of necessity urging men to that course but as I rather think from the institution of the Apostles Of th' other he affirmeth very peremptorily lib. 4. pag. 139. 143. that the calling of diocesan Bishops is of divine institution The substance then of that episcopall function which he holdeth to be a divine ordinance the D. hath placed in these particulars 1. That they be diocesan Bishops or overseers of a diocese 2. That they be superior in degree to other Ministers 3. That they have a singularity of preheminence duringe life and 4. a peerelesse power both of ordination and of jurisdiction in their places Loe here his enumeration and withall how he omitteth therein and that of purpose as it seemeth foure other more substantiall The D. omitteth 4. substantiall and lesse questionable points of the Bps. function but yeâ— wisely and lesse questionable points of their function who first had the name of Bishops appropriated to theÌ„ in the anceÌ„t Churches to wit that they were 1. Pastors of their Churches bound by their office to dispence the word and Sacramentes to their people and therefore 2. tied to make their positive residencie in that one City or Church whereof they had the Charge 3. assisted also every of them with his presbytery or Senate of Elders without whose advyce and consent in Church-matters nothing of weight was done and 4. not subordinated to the jurisdictioÌ„ or censure of any one Bishop superiour vnto him But of these pointes more he reafter lib. 3. 4. I now purpose not to insist on this defect in his laying down of the substanciall partes of the episcopall function neyther will I contend about the continuance of their Presidencie or singular preheminence whether it be essentiall or accidentall to injoy it coÌ„stantly for terme of life nor yet magnify the D. wisdome in his cuÌ„ning concealing of them as knowing how it wipeth his Diocesans over the shinnes In this rather I disire to give or receive satissaction whether that singularitie of preheminence and peerelessâ— power which he ascribeth unto Bishop be not a sole superioritie or sole power of rule as the Refuter affirmeth And this I the rather desire because the Doctor is so highly offended with the worde sole that as oft as he findeth it vsed by his Refuter in this question he rewardeth him with these or the like counterbuffs at every turne Whence coÌ„meth this sole I pray you that hath so oft bene foysted in I feare greatly froÌ„ The Doct. standereth shamelessly an evill conscience resolved to opâ—ugn and d face the truth lib. 3. pag 118. And in the next page God amend that soule that so often foysteth in that sole besides my meaning and my words And againe pag. 126 O defiled conscience which ceaseth not to ascribe such odious and absurd asserâ—ions to me Thus and thus is M. Doctor pleased to declaime Why but how should the word sole or the name of sovereignty or Sect. 7. sole rule â—e so odious and offensive to the Doctors eares when notwithstanding all this face the thing is so pleasing to him that he pleadeth for it tooth and nayle To ask as he doth lib. 3. pag. 20. 68 69. where doe I say in all thâ— sermon that Bishops had or must have sole power or iurisdiction and whether Bishops cannot be superiour to Presbyters in the power of ordination or iuriâ—aiction vnlâ—sse they have all the sole pâ—wâ—r Thus to ask I saye helpeth litle eyther to frâ—e him from giving way to those assertions which he seemeth to abhorre or to make his Refuter guilty of so evill and defiled a conscience as he accuseth him of nay if he discharge a good conscience he must confesse either that his wordes doe not faithfully expresse his meaning or that he meant to give vnto Bishops that sol pâ—wer of rule which his Refuter gathereth from his wordes For what difference is there betwixt that singularity of preheminence which he maketh the first branch of the Bishops superiority serm pag. 32. and that sole superiority or sole power of rule which the Refuter speaketh of Doth he not teach us out of Cyprian and Herom pa. 33. 34 that the government and the whole care of the Church apperteineth to the Bishop which is one onely And that his singular preheminence is a peerelesse power and eminent above all yea such as admitteth no partner pag. 36. 46 And doth he not afterwards pag. 45. 46. 47. vndertake to demonstrate that the Bishop governeth in foro externo not onely the people but the prâ—sbyters also of an whole diocese as having authority to guide and direct them as their ruler and to censure and correct them as their Iudge Doth he not serm pag. 30. as is already shewed in the former chapter sect 10. out of Ignatius make 3. degrees of Ministers Deacons Preists and Bishops vnder Christ the Deâ—cons subject to the
Presbyters the Presbyters to the Bishops and the Bishops to Christ And asketh he not pag. 46. what a Bishop else is but such a one as holdeth and menageth the whole power and authoritie above all yea and doth he not pag. 30. 31. out of the council of Sardis and out of Optatus and Hâ—erâ—m make those 3. degrees answerable to the high Preists and Levites placing the Deacons and Presbyters in the roome of the Preists Levites and the Bishops in the roome of Aaron the High-Preist the very cheife and Prince of all With what face then can he deny vnto the Bishop in his diocese a sole superiority or solepower of rule or say that the word sole is foisted in besides his meaninge Let him weigh the force of this argument and give us a direct answer to it the next time he writeth Whosoever ascribeth to every Bishop in his Diocese a singular preheminence not of order onely but of power and rule eminent above all and admitting no partner to governe in fore externo the Presbyters aswell as the people as their Ruler and Iudge holding and menaging the whole power and authoritie above all all subiect to him and he subiect to Christ he giveth to every B in his Diocese a sole superioritie or sovereignty and sole power of rule But the Dostor prescribeth â—o every Bishop in his Diocese a singular preheminence not of order onely but of power and rule eminent above all c. Therefore he giveth to every Bishop in his Diocese a sole superioritie or sovereigntie and so power of rule The assumption is gathered from his owne wordes as is before shewed If he deny the proposition shall he not bewray in himself that evill conscience which he chargeth his Refuter with which is resolved to oppugne and deface the truth Can he be ignorant that a singular preheminence of power and rule eminent above all and admitting no partner put into the hands of any one to govern all the rest as their ruler and Iudge and he subject to to none but to Christ is not onely a sole superiority but a very sovereignty or sole and supreme power and rule Wherefore how soever every superiority in power or majority of rule be not a sole or sâ—preme power or superiority c Yet the Refuter hath rightly affirmed and the Doctor hath with check of conscience I feare denied the power of rule which he ascribeth to Bishops to be a sole power And touching our owne Bishops though he be loth to acknowledge Sect. 8. in plaine termes that they are sole ruling Bishops yet he affirmeth that which will easily evince it to be a truth For to let passe what he saith serm pag. 40. concerning ordination that the power thereof is ascribed and appropriated to the Bishop alone and that however by the councill of Carthage the Preâ—byters were to impose handes with the Bishop yet it was then as now with vs not for necessity but for greater solemnely c. To let this passe I say he confesseth lib. 1. cap. 8. pag. 192. that the advice and â—ssistance of presbyters which the ancient Bishops used grew longe since out of use because it seemed needlesse both to the presbyters desyring their ease and to the Bishops desyring to rule alone And to take a way all shew of difference betwene those ancients and our Bishops who have not the like assistance of their presbyters that they had in former ages he telleth us lib. 3. cap. 5. pag. 111. That when Bishops used the advice of their presbyters the sway of their authority was nothinge lesse then when they usâ—d it not for the assistance of the presbyters was to help and advâ—se but never to over-rule the Bishop like as the authority of a Prince who useth the advice of his Councell is nothing the lesse for it but the more advised The truth of this later speach is not here to be examined nor yet how well the former doth accord with the later there will come a fitter time for it hereafter for the present purpose it shall suffice to observe 1. That if a desire in Bishops to rule alone was one cause why the AssistaÌ„ce which formerly they had of their Presbyters grewe out of vse it may wel be thought that ours doe nowe rule alone seing they have no such assistance as they had 2. Neither can it be otherwise if that assistance which once they had was not to restreyne them of their willes but onely to yeeld them that help that great Princes free Monarches have of their grave Counsellors by whom they are advised in their affaires of state Here therefore I crave his answere to this argument Whosoever in their government proceeding to give sentence in any cause that is to be iudged by them have no assistance of any to restreyne them from swâ—â—ing the matter as pleaseth them they have a sole power of rule or do rule by their sole authoritie But our English Preâ—â—tes iâ— their Episcopâ—ll government and in proceeding to give sentence in any cause that is to be iudged by them have no assistance of any to restreyne them fâ—om swaying the matter as pleâ—seth them Let not the D. be ashamed to speake plainely what he closely insinuatâ—th Therefore they have a sole power of rule or do rule by theiâ— sole authoritie The proposition I suppose to be so cleare that the Doct. wil not deny it The Assumption is already acknowledged for true by himself I hope therefore in his next defence he will imbrace the conclusion and esteme it no longer an odious and absurd asserti on For why should he be ashamed to speake that plainly which he doth closely insinuate the rather for that one of his fellow Doct. D. Dove I meane in his defense of Church-government pag. 19. coÌ„ming to speak of a Diocesan D. Bishop ruling by his sole power saith that this is the cheefe matter now in question and further pag. 20. that he may speake something for the iustification of the Bishops ruling by their sole authoritie affirmeth that Timothy Titus were such Bishops Now no doubt the Doctor will expect an answer to that which was overpassed in the former chapter as impertinent to the point then in hand viz. That all power is not given to the Bishop alone because that in the government of the Church others are joyned with him some vnder him and some above him c. lib. 1. cap. 2. pag. 42. and he shall here according to promise have it And that he may see the force of his reasoning I wish him to remember that Christ saith of himselfe Math. 28. 18. all power is given to mean heaven and earth and to bethinke himselfe what answere he would give to one that shoulde thus argue In the government of the world there are others ioyned with Christ the Father is above him 1. Cor. 15. 27 28. and vnder him are both his Apostles and thâ—ir successors Mat. 28 19
20. and also all Christian Princes Ergo all power is not given to Christ alone neyther is his government a Monarchy or sâ—le power of rule If this conclusion doth not necessarily followe upon the Antecedent then the Doctor if he shut not his right eye may see the loosenes of his owne argument Shall I need to ask him whether King Iames doth not therefore governe the Realmes as a Monarch by his sole authoritie because in the government thereof he hath many subordinate helps under him Or whether the Duke of Saxonie and such like free Princes doe not governe by a sole power of rule their severall Provinces because they acknowledge the Emperour their superiour Hath not every Maister in the government of his how shoud a sole superioritie though some have both under them a Schoole Mr. for their children and a Steward for the oversight of their servants and above them sundry Magistrates who in the Province or Country wherein they live carrie a farre more eminent and pecrelesse superioritie It is apparant therefore that the sole power of rule in our Bishops is not impaired by any that are superiour or inferiour to theÌ„ unlesse they were in the same CoÌ„mâ—ssioÌ„ joyned with theÌ„ as such assistants as if the case require may restreine them Neyther is their Monarchical authoritie abridged by the power of Synods assembled as he saith pag. 43. for the making of ecclesiastical coÌ„stitutions since the Kings highnes ceaseth not to be a Monarch though he cannot make newe lawes nor doe some things without the consent of his Nobles CoÌ„mons assembled in the high court of Parliament Neyther would the Doctor feare to professe that our Bishops doe governe Monarchically or by their sole authoritie save that he foreseeth as it seemeth lib. 3. pag. 22 that if he should plainly ascribe unto them a sole power of ordination and jurisdiction it might be thence inferred that he alloweth no jurisdiction to Presbyters and holdeth those Churches to have no lawfull Ministers which have not such Bishops as ours are to ordeyne them And surely though he falsly charge his Refuter for disgracing his sermoÌ„ with those inferences yet if he have none other way to avoyd them but by denying that he giveth vnto Bishops a sole power of ordination and jurisdiction he must be content hereafter to beare this imputation that he giveth way to those absurdities he would seeme to disclayme For first touching jurisdiction since he placeth it in that singular and peerelesse power of rule before spoken of sect 7. which Sect. 9. admitteth no partner and subjecteth all both presbyters and people in foro externo to his direction as their ruler and to his correction as their judge that which is already pressed to prove a sole superiority or sole power of rule in Bishops doth directly serve to conclude a sole power of jurisdiction in them For to speake as he doth of externall publike jurisdiction in foro externo which standeth as he saith serm pag. 51. in receyving accusations in conventing parties accused and censuring such as are found guilty accordinge to the quality of the offence by reproofe putting to silence suspension deprivation or excommunication in which respect seing all the presbyters within the diocese are subiect to the Bishop yea even those that should assiste him aswell as others that are severed from him and affixed to their severall cures it is apparrant that that majority of rule which the D. giveth him over all cannot be lesse then a sole power of jurisdiction For who can deny a sole power of jurisdiction to him that is in the power and exercise thereof so lifted vp aboue all others in an whole diocese that they are all in subjection vnto him and he hath no assistantes to restreyne him Must the parish Bishop needs be a sole-governor if he have not the assistance of a presbyterie joyned in coÌ„missioÌ„ with him And is it plaine that the Iudges in the Kings Bench and common-pleas who are Assistants to the L. cheif Iustices are joyned to either of them as to help theÌ„ in giving right judgmeÌ„t so to restreine theÌ„ that they judge not alone according to their owne pleasure Sâ—â— his Def. lib. 3. pag. 141. 143. And shall not also a diocesan L. Bishop hold exercise a sole power of ecclesiastical jurisdiction when he is so superior vnto all in his diocese that he hath no assistance of any to restreine or over-rule him Moreover if Bishops onely and not presbyters be authorized jure apostolico to exercise their publike and external jurisdiction in all ecclesiasticall censures over the people and clergie of their dioceses as the D. affirmeth lib. 3. pag. 116. if also the power of reconciling paenitents by imposition of handes doth belonge to Bishops onely and that by the power of their order pag. 105. then surely their function is dishonored and their authority imparred by such as deny vnto them a sole power of jurisdiction Secondly concerninge ordination the reader is to be advertised that he saith serm pag. 37. it hath bin a receyved opinion in the Church of God even from the Apostles times vntill our age that the right of ordinatioÌ„ of presbyters is such a peculiar prerogative of Bishops as that ordinarily and regularly there could be no lawfull ordination but by a Bishop And addeth pag. 40. that the perpetuall consent of the Church of God appropriateth the ordinary right of ordination to the Bishop alone And pag. 42. that Bishops onely in the judgment of the Fathers have right of ordeâ—ninge Ministers regularly And therefore though extraordinarily and in case of necessity he seeme to allowe of their Ministery which in the want of a Bishop are ordeyned by other Ministers yet this is no other allowance then he giveth to the baptisme of women or laie-persons in the want of a Minister For he saith in plaine terms pag. 44. The truth is where Ministers maye be had none but Ministers ought to baptize and where Byshops maye be had none but Byshops ought to ordeyne In which words who seeth not that the ref hath sufficient ground to affirme that the D. giveth to Bishops a sole power of ordination If he will say as he seemeth to perswade lib. 3. pag. 69. that this argueth onely a superiority in the power of ordeyning and not a sole power then let him also professe plainly that Ministers have not any sole power of baptising but onely a superiority in that power above women or other laie-persons But he cannot thus evade though he would seing lib. 3. pag. 105. he expresly affimeth that the power of imposing hands to conveigh grace either to parties baptized for their confirmation or to panitents for their reconciliation or to parties designed to the Ministery for their ordination is peculiar vnto Bishops and to the power of their order whereby they differ from Presbyters and Deacons yea this power of ordeyning is in his conceite pag. 106. so appropriated to the
power of order in Bishops that they cannot communicate it to any others Wherefore though he should never so impudently stand forth to mainteine that he doth not ascribe a sole power of ordinatioÌ„ to them yet wil it be inevitably concluded froÌ„ his owne wordes For whosoever have the right or power of ordination appropriated to theÌ„ alone as a prerogative peculiar to their function and that by the power of their order yea so peculiar to their order that they cannot communicate it to men of another function they must needes have the sole power of ordination If therfore Bishops have the power of ordination so appropriated to them alone and to the power of their order as is before shewed from the D. owne wordes it followeth of necessâ—â—y that they have a sole power of ordination given vnto them This is also implied in those speaches so often repeated lib. 3. pag. 72. 86. 93. 97. that the power of ordeyninge was in the Bishops and not in the presbyters And that Bishops had the power or right of ordeyning which presbyters had not And of ordination and jurisdiction jointly as he constantly mainteineth them to be the principall and most essentiall parts of the episcopall authority lib. 3. pag. 68. lib. 4. pag. 78. so he flatly denyed the charge of these affaires to belonge vnto presbyters The Doct. must â—ay by his slander and graunte that he giveth sole power c. to Bishops or else he cotradictâ—â—h himself often lib. 4. pag. 79 And speaking of those precepts which Paul gave to Timothe for ordination and Church government 1. Tim. 5. 19. 21. he saith pag. 77. they were not coÌ„mon to other Christians or other Ministers therefore peculiar to Bishops So that we may safely conclude neither can the Doct. impugne it without apparant contradiction to himself that our Bishops are sole-ruling Bishops and that the singularity of preheminence or preheminent power which he ascribeth vnto Bishops as an essentiall part of their function is in deed a sole power of rule or monarchicall superiority The 5. Chapter Concerninge the sâ—ate of the Question and namely of the D. distinction of ius apostolicum divinum Thus have we done with the first come we now to the second point before proposed to be examined viz. in what sense the sole Sect. 1. ruling Bishops such as ours are is to be esteemed a divine ordinance The Doctor often acknowledgeth it to be a divine ordinance in respect of the first institution as having God the author thereof But he can by no means indure his Refuter to say that he holdeth their function to be divini juris orâ—de jure diâ—iâ—o and perpetually or generally necessary for all Churches yea his chollerâ—i so kindled thereat that he chargeth him with untruth calâ—mâ—â—tion wilful depraving of his assertion as we may see both in his answere to his Refuters preface pag. 2. and in this defense lib. 3. pag. 22. lib. 4. pag. 138. But it is already shewed in the defense of that preface that the Doctor abuseth the refuter depraveth his words and meaning in as much as he had an eye onely to the first institution of the episcopall function when he sayd that the Doctors sermon tended to prove that the sayd function is to be holden jure divino by Gods lawe and not as an humane ordinance And sithence was reserved to this place the more full handling of those nice conceits in the Doctor which were then overpassed touching the difference betwixt things that are divini juris and others that were apostolici and that absolute necessity which he placeth in those things that are divini juris we are now to enter vpon the coÌ„sideration of these particulars First therefore because he now seemeth in this defense lib. 3. pag. 26. 116. lib. 4. pag. 137. 139. to allowe in his owne judgement that distinction betwixt those things that are divini those that are apostolici juris which in his sermoÌ„ pa. 92. he proposed in the name of some other divines viz. that the former are generally The Doct. neyther doth nor can make good his distinctioÌ„ perpetually immutably necessary the later not so he might have done wel to have warraÌ„ted this distinctioÌ„ either froÌ„ the scripture or froÌ„ the testimony of some orthodoxal writers FroÌ„ the Scripture he cannot 1. because he hath already laid that ground out of Actes 15. 28. which will refute it as is already shewed in defence of the said preface 2. Moreover it is well observed of sundry Divines as Aquinas 2â— 2â— q. 55. art 2. that jus divinum dicitur quod divinitus promulgatur And Lubbertus de Pont. Romano lib. 5. cap. 2. pag. 338 that jus dicitur a jussum per apocopeÌ„ Where fore as he saith jus divinum est quod Deus jubet so we may say that jus apostolicum est quod apostolus jubet vel ab apostolis jubetur The true difference therefore if there be any betwene jus divinuÌ„ and apostolicum standeth onely in this that the former hath the expresse and immediate commandement of God to warrantize that which he prescribeth whereas the later proceedeth from the Apostles as the Interpreters of Gods will and his Ministers which by direction from him give rules vnto his Church to observe In which sense the Apostle Paul distinguisheth his commandement from the Lords 1. Cor. 7. 10 12. vnto the married I command ouk â—go alla ho kurios not I but the Lord. c. But to the remnant ego lego ouk hokurios l speâ—ke not the Lord c. Will the Docter now say of the former precept because it is jus divinum that it is generall perpetually and immutably necessarie and of the later that it is not so as being onely jus apostolicum I hope rather he will spare the Refuter or his friend the labor to prove that the later is no lesse generally perpetually and immutably necessary then the former Significat Apostolus preceptum illud vers 10. niti expresso verbi divini testimonio non autem ex revelatione singulari spiritus sancti profectum Piscat in 1. Cor 7. 10. Suum autem id esse dicit vers 12. de quo nihil desertè expresserit Dominus non quod ipse ex se temerè aut suo arbitrio esset coÌ„mentatus Id enim se fecisse negat infra vers 25. 40. Beza in 1. Cor. 7. 12. And therfore after many other precepts delivered by the Apostles in sundry cases not before determined by any direct and expresse verdict of Gods word as will appeare to him that wayeth what he teacheth 1. Cor. 8. 9. 13. 10. 25 -29 11. 4 -14 23 -25 he bindeth them all up under one generall charge 1. Cor. 14. 37. If any man thinke himselfe to be a Prophet or spirituall let him acknowledge that the things which I write unto you are tou kâ—riou entâ—lai the commandements of God Dei
eutaxie of every Church dependeth in deed vpon the power of ordination and jurisdiction but not vpon the investing of the power in Bishops because his second thoughtes have drawne him to distinguish betwene potestas and modus potestatis lib. 4. pag. 102. 1 17. we have reason to thinke as shall appeare anone that he The Doct. streyneth his witts in vaine to avoid conâ— dreamed not of this distinction till he had set his witts awork to remove the contradiction which his Refuter objected against him Notwithstanding he cannot with all his cunning avoyde that necessitie which floweth from the first braunch of episcopall superiority For if the vnity of every Church dependeth on the singularity of preheminence in one duringe life and that in such sort as afterwardes he explayneth his meaning to wit that whereas there were many presbyters in one City yet there neither were noâ— might be in succeedinge ages downeward froÌ„ the Apostles times any more then one Angell in a church or one Bishop in an whole diocese how can it be denied that there is a generall and perpetuall necessity of episcopall superiority for the preservation of the Church in vnitie 2. Neyther will the learning of that distinction which he now putteth betwene pâ—tâ—stas modus potestatis free him from placing the like necessitie in the function of Bishops for the exercise of that lawful power of ordination jurisdiction whereon the Churches perpetuitie eutaxie or good order dependeth For to let passe that which he saith serm pag. 32. how the superioritie of Bishops not onely did but also doth consist in that two fold power no lesse then in a singularitie of preheminence during life he avoucheth in plaine termes that the power which Timothie and Titus had for ordination and jurisdiction was not to die with them but to be transmitted to them that should succeed them in the government of the Church That the authoritie yea the function and authority which they had consisting specially in the power of ordination and jurisdiction was not to dye with their persons but to be continued in their sucessors sermon pag. 75. 79. Defence lib. 3. pag. 72. lib. 4. pag. 84. 98. and 100 That the commandements and injunctions given them to be kept inviolable vntil the appearing of Christ were directed to them alone and their successors serm pag. 49. 74. And that the duties prescribed for the execution of their office authoritie were to be performed by them and their successors till the coÌ„ming of Christ lib. 4. pag. 77. And which is yet more he addeth that their successors were Bishops onely yea Diocesan Bishops serm pag. 75. lib. 4. pag. 85. and that not de facto onely but also de iure Ibid. And that Presbyters neither were nor could be their successors lib. 3. pag. 73. and that neither are those instructions given in generall to presbyters neyther doth the charge of those affaires belong unto them lib. 4. pag. 79. Wherefore also he affirmeth or rather from the premises concludeth that the epistles written to Timothy and Titus were the very patterns and presidents of the episcopall function and purposely written to informe not Timothy and Titus alone but them and their successors viz. all Bishops to the worlds end how to exercise their function serm pag. 72. 73. Defence lib. 4. pag. 75. 83. Yea and further saith that those precepts 1. Tim. 5. 19. 22. are perpetuall directions which are not common eyther to other Christians or to other Ministers therfore peculiar to Bishops lib. 4. pag. 77. Thus It is sufficiently proved that the D. holdeth a perpetuall necessity of the episcopall function have we seene at large the Doctors judgement now to â—ay all these things togither If the power and authoritie and not so onely but also the function which Timothy and Titus had was not to die with their persons but to be transmitted vnto and continued in Bishops because Bishops and not Presbyters were their successors even de iure and not de facto onely And if for the same cause as also because the charge of those affaires viz. of ordination and jurisdictioÌ„ belongeth not to the Presbyters nor is coÌ„mon to other Christians or Ministers the Commandements and injunctions given to Timothy and Titus to be inviolably kept till Christs coÌ„ming were directed vnto Bishops onely I would gladly heare with what new distinction the Doctor who directly and expresly affirmeth the premisses caÌ„ discharge himself froÌ„ implying or teaching The Doct. himself cutteth the throat of his own distinction and hath not one hole to hide himin by necessarie consequence that the episcopall function was appointed for the perpetuall use of the Church and is necessary to be reteyned in all Churches till the coÌ„ming of Christ His conjoyning togither Timothies function and authoritie to be continued in their successors cutteth the throat of his distinction betwixt potestas mâ—dus potestatis neither can he flie to that starting hole wherein he hideth his head his heeles at least hanging out lib. 3. pag. 57. lin ult when he expoundeth his words is to be reteyned by meet or fitt expedâ—ent or convenâ—ent profitable or needfull to be reteyned For he acknowledgeth the powre or authority it In seeking succour the Doct. doth nothing but contradict in one plaâ— what he â—aith in a nother self to be perpetually necessary as an essentiall or immutable ordinance of God lib. 4. pag. 102. 147. Neither will it releeve him to say as he doth pag. 146. that Pauls directions in his epistles to Tim. and Tit. were given though primarily and directly to Bishops yet secondarily and by consequence to those who though they were no Bishops should have the like authoritie For he flatly secludeth both the Presbyters and all other Christians or Ministers from all right and title eyther to the powre it selfe or the execution thereof lib. 3. pag. 71. 72. lib. 4. pag. 79. And sayth serm pag. 79. that it is much more necessary for the Churches of all ages succeeding the Apostles then for the first Churches in their life time to have such governors as Timothy Titus that is men furnished with episcopall authority in a preheminent degree above other Ministers 2. If he shall retire at laste to his first and safest evasion specially fitted to the question of ordination without a Bishop serm pa. 43. viz. that though such ordination be not regular or lawfull ordinarily as he sayth pag. 37. according to the rules of ordinatie church government yet in case of necessity that is in the want of a Bishop it is to be allowed as effectuall and as justifiable What is this but in effect to grant that there is the like perpetuity and necessity of the function of Bishops as there is of sundry other ordinances of God which all esteme to be divini juris For the coÌ„parison which himself maketh pag. 44. betwene baptisme administred by one that is no Minister and
evasion to avoyde if it were possible that perpetuall necessity which his words doe equally throwe vpon the function of Timothy and Titus aswell as on their authority For 1. If he had cast but one cie vpon the propositioÌ„ of that brave syllogisme wherevnto the former senteÌ„ce is fitted as the assumption he might have observed that the word authority is superfluous idlie inserted in the later seing it is wholly omitted in the former The proposition of his argument is this The supposed evangelisticall function he saith not evangelisticall functioÌ„ and authority but evangel function of Timothy and Titus was to â—nd with their persons and admitted no succession being both extraordinary and temporary Wherefore to make the assumption sutable to this proposition he should have sayd not as he then did and still doth the function and authority but the function which they had as being assigned to certeine Churches was not to ende with theire persons but to be continued in their successors And theÌ„ the words following must of necessity be carried also to their function onely q. d. their function was not to end with their persons because it was both ordinary and perpetually necessary c. And vnlesse he will yeeld to this construction of his assumption I meane either to blot out the word authority or at least to acknowledge that he userâ—â— those two words function and authority as synonima to expresse one onely thing to wit their office or function he will be inforced If the D. seeketh to avoyd one he falleth into another evill to lye downe under this foul imputation also viz. that he doth sophisticate and by foure termes in stead of three utterly marreth the frame of his supposed blamelesse syllogisme 2. Moreover if he will vouchsafe to peruse his Defense lib. 4. pag. 97 98. he may perceive that as his purpose was by a newe supply of arguments as he saith to prove that Timothy and Titus were Bishops so his maine argument there set downe concludeth the very function of Timothy and Titus to be ordinarie and episcopall because it was not extraordinarie and Evangelicall For although to conforme his first argument to his prosyllogisâ—â—es that follow he coupleth function and authoritie together yet the frame of his words doe shewe that by both termes he understandoth one thing onely to wit their proper function or office which was as he confesseth the onely thing now in question Otherwise having sayd in the proposition that their function and authoritie was eyther extraordinary and evangelisticall or ordinarie and episcopall he would never have set downe the assumption and conclusion so as he doth But it was not extraordinary and evaÌ„gelicall therfore ordinary and episcopall For neither grammer noâ— logick Neither grammer nor logick will indure the D. disjunction will permit him vnder this one word it to comprehend two things so distinct as he nowe taketh function and authoritie to be when he affirmeth the one denieth the other to be perpetuallye necessarie 3. But if he will needs begin with that disiunction with which he endeth he shall fall into a twofolde absurdity which he cannot avoid viz. an untoward laying downe of the question in the beginning and a shamelesse begging of the question in the end For neyther doe they hold the function onely of Timothy and Titus to be ordinarie or their authoritie onely to be episcopall neyther doe the Disciplinarians teach their function onely to be extraordinary and their authoritie onely to be evangelicall but rather affirme their function to be both extraordinarie and evangelicall as in the proposition of his first syllogisme he confesseth And as for their authoritie vnderstanding thereby as the Doctor doth nothing else but a power to ordeyne and to exercise a publik spirituall jurisdiction they doe no where affirme it to be eyther extraordinarie or proper to an Evangelist Yea the Doctor acknowledgeth pag. 84. and 100. that his Refuter graunteth that others were to succced Timothy and Titus in the authoritie which they had but not in their office and that their authoritie though not their function was perpetually necessarie Wherefore if he take not authority and function for one and the same thing or at least restreyne authotitie to that peculiar power which distinguisheth their function froÌ„ all other ministeriall callings he hath apparantly falsified the state of the questioÌ„ And wâ—â— is worse in the winding up of his The D. falsineth the state of the question The Doct. bewrayeth the beggerie or his cause dispute bewrayeth the extreame beggerie of his cause wheÌ„ he proveth their functioÌ„ to be ordinarie because it was ordinarie For the conclusioÌ„ of his first syllogism p. 98. affirmeth the function of Timothy and Titus to be ordinarie his medius terminus to prove it is this It was not extraordinary which to confirm he saith that their function was not to ende with their persons but to be continued in their successors aâ—d therefore was not extraordinary And to prove the AntecedeÌ„t he argueth thus Their function was ordinary and therefore was not to ende with their persons So that his whole reasoning-commeth to this issue Their function was ordinary and therefore it was ordinary To amende all these defaultes since it is apparant that in his maine conclusion he affirmeth their function to be both ordinary and episcopall as before I shewed the word authority to be superflous so it followeth froÌ„ thinges before delivered that the word ordinary in that prosyllogisme which he laieth downe pag. 99. 100. so as he received it from his Refuter is also superfluous and fit to be expunged that the syllogism may run currant in this manner That function which is perpetuâ—lly necessary not onely for the wel-being but also for the very beinge of the visible Churches was not to ende with the persons of Timothy and Titus but to be continued in their successors But the function which they had wheÌ„ they were assigned to certeine churches is perpetually necessary not onely for the well-beinge but also for the very being of the visible Churches Therefore the function which they had being so assigned was not to ende with their persons but to be continued in their successors Wherefore the Refuter hath not wronged the Doc. in charging The refut wrongeth not the D. bur the D. wrongeth himselfe when to avoid one absurdity he throweth himself into many him to asfirme that the episcopall power or function is perpetually necessary not onely for the well being but for the very being of the visible Churches The D. rather hath wronged himself in that whiles he laboureth to avoide the rocke of this one absurdity he throweth himself into the gulfe of many others And to him more fitly agreeth that which without cause he saith of his Refuter pa. 99. he roves and raves as men use to doe who being at a non-plus would faine seeme to answere somewhat To conclude then this pointe seing the direction of the
it hath no foundation in the word of God 2. Though that first point of his 5. concerning the Elders be as hath bin proved to this question impertinent yet will I take the like course with him therein 3 and lastly though he casteth of all the testimonies of the new divines either as incompetent being parties as he â—aith or as misalledged by him I will prove them both truely and rightly alledged and as competent as any he bringeth THE FIRST PART THE THIRD BOOKE Chap. 1. Conteyning an answere to the third Chap. of the Doctors 2. booke wherein he laboureth but in vayne to mainteyne the first argument in his sermon viz. That the seven Churches of Asia whereof his text speaketh were Dioceses VVEe are nowe at the length come to see how artificially and soundly he collecteth from his text Sect. â— the Doctrine which he principally insisteth on viz. That the function or calling of diocesan Bishops such aâ— ours are is of Divine institution He saith pag. 94. of his sermon it is proved by the explication of his text which standeth in this assertion that the Bishops here meant by angels were such Bishops for the substance of their calling as ours are His argument therefore in an Enthymem runneth thus The Bishops meant by angels Apâ—â— â— 20. were such Bishops as ours are Therfore the function of Bishops such as ours are is of divine institution And in a playne syllogisme according to the course of his owne reasoning Def lib 4. p. 2. 3. thus The function of such as are meant by the angels Apoc. â— 20. is of divine institution Bishops such as ours be are meant by the angels Apoc. â— 20. Therefore the function of such Bishops as ours be is of divine institution Here I willingly subscribe to the proposition because the name of angels Starres holden in Christs right hand doth argue his sending and approbation but I flatly deny the Assumption or AntecedeÌ„t of his Enthimem as having no foundation in his text nor any one sound reason either in his sermoÌ„ or in the defense thereof to make it good For though he will at no hand indure to heare of any solo power of rule eyther for ordination or jurisdiction in Bishops yet since I have proved that our Bps. are sole-ruling Bishops and that he doth vnderhand give such a power vnto them and that iure apostolico if he will strongly conclude the Bishops meant by Angels Apoc. 1. 20. to be such Bishops as ours are he must clearly prove which he can never doe nor as yet ever attempted to doe that the Bishops meant by Angels Apoc. 1. 20. were sole-ruling Bishops But that his owne conscience may be the better convinced of the weaknes of his reasoninge and of his abusing the text which he handleth he is to be put in minde that himself serm pag. 52. 53. doth thus vnfolde the substantiall partes of the callinge of ouâ— Bishops to wit that they are Di cesan and provinciall Bishops superiour in degree to other Ministers having a singularity of preheminence for terme of life and a peerâ—lesse power both of ordination and jurisdiction For hence it followeth that if he have not proved the Bishops ment by Angels in his text to be 1. some of them provinciall and and other some diocesan Bishops 2. all of them to be superior in degree to other Ministers 3. as having a singularity of preheminence duringe life and 4. a peerelesse power of ordination 5. and of jurisdiction if I say these particulars be not sufficiently fortified then it followeth that he hath left naked the main point which he should have coÌ„firmed namely that the Bishops here meant by Angels were such Bps. for the substance of their calling as ours are Now it is apparant to all that peruse his sermon and the defense thereof that he never indeavoureth to prove any one of those Angels mencioned in his text to be a provinciall Bishop or in the power of ordination to have a peerelesse preheminence above others For though he tell vs serm pag. 18. that some of the 7. Churches were mother cities and deâ— lib. 2. pag. 63. that some of the succeeding Bishops were Metropolitanes yet all his strength is spent in proovinge every of those Churches to be a diocese and consequently their Bishops to be diocesan Bishops And though he speak some what for a preheminent power of jurisdiction in these Angels serm pag. 49. def lib. 3. pag. 135. yet in all his dispute of ordination he is silent of them altogither It remaineth then that we examine how well he hath proved the Bishops which are called the Angels of the 7. Churches to be like vnto our Bishops in those particulars sc that they were 1. Diocesan Bishops 2. Superior in degree to other Ministers 3. as having a singularity of preheminence duringe life 4. a peerelesse power of jurisdiction or as he expoundeth himselfe Def. lib. 3. pag. 135. a corrective power over other Ministers To prove the first sâ— that those Angels were diocesan Bishops Sect. â— that is to say in the large extent of their authority over an whole diocese like to our diocesans the onely argument that he hath either in his sermon or defense is drawne from the forme or constitution of those Churches whereof they were Angels which he peremptorily affirmeth but very weakly proveth to be dioceses properly The Doct. onely argument to prove the Angels to be DiocesaÌ„ Bishops is unsound in both propositions and not parishes he should say that those Churches were dioceses such as ours are over which our Bishops are placed wherefore to conclude his purpose he must reason in an Enthymem thus The 7. Churches whereof those Angels were Bishops were Dioceses such as ours are Therefore those Angels or the Bishops there ment by Angels were Diocesan Bishops like to our Diocesans The Antecedent is an erronious fancy forged by the Doctor and hath nether testimony nor reason to support it as shall appeare by by In the meane while be it knowne to him that his câ—sequence also is to be rejected as weak and vnsound And may it please him to reduce his Enthymeme to a perfect syllogisme he shall soone discerne it for to make a supply of the proposition which is presupposed in the consequence of his reasoninge he must argue thus The Angells or Bishops of such Churches as are Dioceses properly and nâ—â— parishes are Diocesan and not parishonall Bishops But the 7. Churches in Asia were Dioceses properly and not parishes Therefore the Angels or Bishops of those 7. Churches were diocesan properly and not parishionall Bishops In which proposition so supplyed if there be a necessary truth then must the Doctor confesse though against the haire and contrary to his former perswasion that the Bishops of whome mencion is made Acts. 20. 28. phil 1. â— were diocesan Bishops because the Churches of Ephesus and Philippi in his opinion were properly dioceses
those seven Churches 2. If the Churches both of citie country were subiect to the B. of the citie 3. If the parishes both of citie couÌ„try had neyther Bishop nor Presbytery but Presbyters severally assigned to them 4. If the presbyters of the Country were ordeyned by the Bishop of the City not onely they but also the rurall Bishops were subject to his authority all which I have by moste evident arguments and testimonies proved already then did the severall congregatioÌ„s and parishes which I have also proved were all but members of one body depend vpon the cheife Church in the City as their head neither had they the power of ecclesiasticall jurisdiction whereof they speake as I have also proved before All this winde shaketh no corne a short answere will serve to all these particulars 1. The matter hangeth yet in question whether every of those Churches did include at least intentionally the whole City and the Country which afterwardes was subjected to the mother Church of the City Also whither parishes were multiplied presbyters assigned to them in such sort as he supposeth yea the contrary of this for the Apostles times is mainteyned by the D as is before observed 2. As for those Arguments and testimonies wherby he saith he hath already proved the parâ—iculars which he hearâ— assumeth for vndoubted truthes they are every Mothers sonne of them of vnder age neyther of growth nor strength to beare out the matter and swaye the conscience of any that considereth what is the question The reader will remember that the pointe here denied is that there were in every of these Churches many congregations which depended vpon one as cheife without power of ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in themselves All his testimonies are as appeareth cap. 2. of this defense farre beyond the compasse of the first 200 yeares the counterfeyt epistles of Clâ—mens and Anicetus excepted which he citeth cap. 2. sect 3. yet need I not except them seing the first authour of them was a very novice in respect of true antiquitie as the Doctor wel knoweth Wherefore the reader may see the valour of the Doctors best proofes in this Enthymem drawne out of the best of them thus It appeareth by Councels and Fathers after Constantines time or a liâ—le before that parishes in cities and countries adioyning were subiected to the iurisdiction of the Bishop of the citie and members of one Diocesan body Ergo at the time of writing the Revelation there were in every of the 7. Churches diverse congregations which depended on one cheefe without prower of government in themselves At length the Doctor coÌ„meth to the defense of his assumption Sect. 23. ad sect 7. def pag. â—2 54. which affirmeth as the Refuter truely gathered from his own expresse words serm pag. 18. that the 7. Churches of Asia were great and ample Cities and not the Cities alone but also the Countries adjoyningâ— And because his Refuter told him pag. 54. it was faulty both in words and matter the Doctor chargeth him to cavill egregiously but is not Not the Refut but the D. is the caviller or at least slaunderer the D. rather an egregious caviller at least a notable slanderer if his Refuters censure be true First for the words I demaund againe as his Refuter did before who ever sayd that the Church of Ephesus was a great City Who knoweth not that the City is one thing and the Church an other The D. cannot denie the later but he laboureth to excuse the former If saith he he discerned the speach which I used to be unproper had he not so much neyther arâ— I meane rethorick or logick nor grace I meane charitie as either to conceyve me to have spoken by a trope or to explane my speach by such an enunciation as the nature of the argument doth require Why how could the D. expect so much either art or grace at their hands whom he estemed to be very weaklings for learning or judgment and in affection wholly alienated from our Church-governors and such as being full of odious censures c. will not without prejudice or partiallity reade what is truely said for the defense of our Church for so he speaketh of theÌ„ pag. 1. 3. 9. 10. of his preface before his sermon If therefore himself discerned his owne speach to be improper had he not so much I say not rethorick or logick to explane his meaninge but grace that is prudence or charity to prevent both all mistakinge in the simple reader and all cavilling in his odious-censuring opposites by a plaine and naked deliverie of his true meaninge Had he remembred that he was to prove the Churches to be properly dioceses he might have conceived that his readers of all sortes would expect proper and not improper speeches to conclude his purpose For how hangeth this reasoning togither in the Doctors logick The Churches were improperly the cities and countries adioyning therefore The Doct. reasoneth stoutly they were properly Dioceses Mutato genere predicationis non valet consequentia It is a poore defense therefore for him to demand as he doth who ever heard that starrs were angels or that the cup is blood because it is sayd in his text the 7. starres are the angels and Christ elswhere saith this cup is my blood If he can shewe any text eyther of scripture or any authour old or new that hath said as he doth we will cease to wonder at the strangenes of his speach But when he further demaundeth whither when he said the churches were the cities and the Country his Refuter could not vnderstand him as speaking after that most vsuall metonymie of the Christian people in the citie and countrie nor yet explaine his wordes as the nature of the argument conteyned in his speach did lead him I answere in the Refuters behalfe he did well perceive by the Doctors words folowing where he speaketh of an intent and hope the Apostles had to convert the whole people of citie and countrie by the Ministerie of the Presbyters which they ordeyned in every citie c. that if he had limited his speach onely to those fewe that were already converted to the faith the Doctor might have had a just quarrell against him for perverting his meaning Wherefore though he finde fault with his wordes as he had good cause yet he stayeth not there but contradicteth also the matter or meaning notwithstanding he doth explaine his words so as the nature of the argument did lead him viz. that those 7. Churches conteyned the people of those 7 Cities whether already converted or to be converted hereafter by the Bishop presbyters of ech City for so he seemeth to interpret himself serm pag. 19. But he durst not in plaine termes so affirme for then the simplest of his readers might have replied that those Churches for the present conteined no more of the people in City or CouÌ„try then such as were already brought to
the name of the Lords Angel is much better to expresse a prehemineÌ„ce in him that is so intitled theÌ„ the Churches Angel seing this later debaseth his Ministery much more theÌ„ the former But as these names the L. Minister or servant and the Churches Minister or servant Phil. 1. 1. 2. Cor. 6. 4. cum 4. 5. and Colos 1. 24. 25. are indifferently taken for one and the same person or function so can there no reason be yeelded why also these titles the Lords angel and the Churches angel should be devided into severall functions To conclude if neyther the singularitie of the number doe argue a singular person nor the right reason of the whole title implieth a preheminence in one above others seing it is graunted that there were many Angels and proved that the title here used is in regard of the signification of the phrase coÌ„mon to all the D. hath no reason to say that his Refuter doth without reason yea good reason forsake the literal sense of the number But albeit enough hath bene said to shew that this title The angel Sect. 7. of the Church is to be taken for the whole societie of Ministers in every Church rather then for one singular person set in a singular preheminence above the rest yet to satisfie those which perhaps may demaunde why the Sonne of God should give in charge to Iohn to write vnto the angel as one rather then to the angels as to many it shal not be amisse to add this that followeth 1. I grant that as the number of the Churches particularly named fully answereth to the 7. golden candlesticks which represented those Churches so it was very fit the epistles directed to the Angels of those Churches should in their inscriptions proportionate the number of the Angels to the number of the starres by which those Angels were shadowed which could not have bene if there had bene expresse mention of more Angels then one in each inscription Notwithstanding as it were absurd from the precise number of 7. Ch. to gather that there were not in all Asia more then 7 Churches or that they kat hexochen are called Church 5 to note a prehemineÌ„ce in jurisdiction or governmeÌ„t over the rest so it were no lesse absurde to inferre from the literal mention of one Angel in every Church that there was but one onely person in that Church to whome the name of the Angel of that Church did by speciall right apperteine 2. Their vnitie in the Ministeriall function joynt commission to attend vpon the feeding and governing of one Church which ought to be accoÌ„panied with a coÌ„moÌ„ care and joynt labour as it were with one hand and heart or affection to further the Lords work in the peoples salvation is much more fitly declared by the name of one Angel then of many if we observe the phrase of speach used else-where by the Holy Ghost and in other names or titles to the like purpose We often find the name of one prophet Ier. 6. 13. and 18. 18. Esai 3. 2. Hos 9. 8. or Preist Ier. 6. 13. and 18. 18. Ezech. 7. 26. Hos 4. 6. Malach. 2. 7. and Angel or messenger Isay 42. 19. Malach 2. 7. to be put for the generall body of the Ministerie or whole multitude of Prophets or Preists c. in the Church of Israel or Iudah when the spirit of God intendeth to reprove threaten or admonish them as occasion serveth 3 Neyther need it seeme strange to us that a multitude or company of Ministers should be vnderstood vnder the name of one Angel seing a multitude of heavenly Angels imployed in one service for the good of Gods Saints is sometymes in the scripture shut up vnder one Angel in the singular nuÌ„ber as may be gathered from Gen. 24. 7. 2. King 19. 35. and Psal 34. 7. compared with Psal 91. 11. Gen. 32. 1. and 2. King 6. 16. 17 seing also a multitude of Devils or evil Angels joyntly labouring in any one worke is set forth vnder the name of one evill or vncleane spirit 1. King 22. 21. 22. Mar. 1. 23-27 and 5. 2-3 Luk. 4. 33. 34. and called the Devill or Satan Luc. 8. 27. 30. 1 Pet. 5. 8. Heb. 2. 14. Ephes 6. 11. 12. 4 Moreover seing it is a thing very coÌ„mon and usuall throughout the whole booke of the Revelation by the name of one Angel to vnderstand a multitude or some whole societie of Ministers and Teachers it was very meete that the beginning of the booke should be sutable to the other parts and that the first vision should have none other construction then such as might holde proportion with or rather as a line leade us to the right vnderstanding of the rest that follow Here Iohn seeth 7. starres in the right hand of the sonne of man which are interpreted to be the Angels or Byshops and Ministers of the 7. Churches and he writteth 7. epistles to so many Angels In another vision he seeth 7. Angels to whom were given 7. trumpets singulae singulis to everie Angel one trumpet and they blewe theyr trumpets successively one after another and with differing effects Rev. 8. 2. 6. 7. c. After this he sawe 7. Angels and 7. vialls given vnto them singulae singulis in which vials were 7. plagues successively also powred out by every Angel in his time Rev. 15. 6. 7. c. 16. 1. 2. c. In these latter visioÌ„s like as in the former some of our best Interpreters do vnderstaÌ„d by Angels the Ministers and preachers of Gods word for in every age they lift vp their voices as trumpets Esa 58. 1. Num. 10. 8. 2 Cor. 13. 12. to shew the people theire sinnes and to proclayme the will of God vnto men And when they denounce his judgments against the contemners of his truth and binde them vp in their sinnes Math. 18. 18. Ioh. 20. 23. they after a sort poure out the vials of Gods wrath vpon their heads Ier. 1. 10. and 25. 15. 16. 2 Cor. 10. 6. Rev. 11. 5. 6 Now there is none so foolish as to think that in the tyme of every vials powring out or of every trumpets blowing that one Angel precisely mentioned was one supreme Bishop that had a prehemenent pastorall authoritie over all the Ministers of that age it is acknowledged rather of many judicious divines that every of those 7. Angels standeth for a multitude of faithfull Ministers which in their tymes successively with one â—art and as it were with one voice published one the same truth to the world See amongst others Marloâ—at in Aâ—oc 8. 2. 6. 7. and 15. 1. 6. and Aretius in Chap. 8. 6. 9 13. The same may be sayd yea it is and must be acknowledged of those 3. Angels which followed one another Rev. 14. 6. 8. 9. to recall men vnto the true worship of God after it was corrupted by Antichrist Marlorat on that place Method Collat. pag. 322. and Mr. Fox his
things and to hold fast that onely which is good 1 Thes 5. 21. yea to judge of the doctrine delivered to them 1. Cor. 10. 15. and 11. 13. to marke such as teach contrarie to the doctrine that they have received and to avoide them Rom. 16. 17. Moreover doth not the generall bande of love binde everie one freely to rebuke his neyghbour not to suffer sinne upon him Leviâ— 19. 17. and doth not the Apostles sharpely taxe the Corinthians for suffering the false Apostles to domineare over them 2. Cor. 11. 20. Wherefore if it be a cursed confusion subversion of ecclesiastical power to subject every teacher to the jurisdiction or corrective power of everie private hearer and to coÌ„mit the managing of the keies or Church Censures to everie meane Artisan then the D. may see how grosse an error it is to think that the dutie of examining or trying and not suffering false teachers doth necessarily argue a power of inflicting the ecclesiasticall censurâ—â— vpon them And the indifferent reader may perceive that while the D. laboureth to vphold the preheminent suprioritie of Byshops he hath put a weapon into the hands of the Anabaptists to overthrow all Ministeriall authoritie and to bring in a mere Anarchy Perhaps the D. wil reply that besides this trial or judgement of Sect. 4. discerning which is coÌ„mon to all Christians needfull for their preservation from seducers there is another and an higher kind proper to the guides of the Church and necessarie for the preserving of the whole â—lock from haereticall infection This wee acknowledge to be true but withall we say it is none other then a judgement of direction as Doctor Feild calleth it in his treatise of the Church lib. 4. cap. 13. pag. 222. which endeavoureth to make others discerne what themselves haue found out to be the truth And this is coÌ„mon to all the Ministers of the word Elders of the Church as appeareth by that charge which Paul giveth coÌ„mon to all the Elders of Ephesus viz. to attend on the feeding of the flocke and to watch against the danger both of wolves entring in and of false teachers springing up amonge them Act. 20. 28 -31 For how should such danger be prevented by theire watchfulnes if it were not theire dutie to trye out the leawde behaviour and false doctrine of seducing spirits and not to suffer them to spreade the contagion and poyson thereof in the Church committed to their oversight This is yet more manifest by sundry canons prescribed elswhere by the same Apostle as when he requireth of every Presbyter an abilitie to convince the gainsayers of wholesome doctrine Tâ—t 1. 5. 9. and subjecteth the spirits of the prophets to the judgement of the Prophets 1. Cor. 14. 29. 32. Add herevnto the practise of the Aposties admitting the Presbyters of the Church of Ierusalem to consultation for the trying determining of that question touching circumcision c. which had troubled the mindes of many beleevers at Antioche Act. 15. 6. 22. 23. It is apparant therefore that in the triall and examination both of teachers and their doctrine the scripture knoweth no difference betweene Bishops and Presbyters so that if Bishops will challendge to themselves a jurisdiction and power of correction over Presbyters because it belongeth vnto them to trie or examine not to suffer false teaching Presbyters then for the same reason it being the dutie of every Pres byter to trie the doctrine of Bishops not to suffer them to spread any errour without resistance Bishops also must subject theÌ„selves to the corrective power of every Presbyter But he will alleadge as some others have done that there is a third kind of triall and judgement proper to them that have cheif authoritie in the Church to wit a judiciall examination of persons suspected in open coÌ„sistory with power to censure such as are found faulty which as it is now exercised of our Bishops so it was then practised by the Angel of the Church at Ephesus Indeed if this were true he might with some colour inferre that the angels function was in that respect like to the function of our Diocesan Bishops but who seeth not that this plea is none other then a mere begging of the question For they that deny these angels to Still the D. beggeth be Bps. such as ours doe not acknowledge any such prehemineÌ„ce in one Minister above another for the trying and censuring of offenders Moreover by this reply the cause is as litle relieved as if a shipmaster to stop one leake in the one side of his shipp should make two or three on the other side more dangerous then the former For to cover the falshood of the proposition a double errour or untruth is discovered in the AssumptioÌ„ viz. 1. that by the triall which the Angel of the Ephesian Church tooke of the false The D. to stopp one leake maketh two Apostles is meant a judicial coÌ„venting of theÌ„ in open Consistorie and proceeding vnto censure against them being found lyars 2. that this power was the peculiar prerogative of that one which is here intituled the angel of that Church The falshood of the former doth appeare in part by some things already spoken it being before shewed that the triall and examination Sect. 5. both of teachers and of theire doctrine appropriated vnto Ministers in the apostolicall writings is none other then that judgement of direction whereby themselves and their people are informed guided in this cariage towards those teachers I add 1. that the Doctor cannot paralell the words or phrases here used ou dune bastasai kâ—kâ—us ' kai epeiraso c. Apo. 2. 2. hoti eas ten c. ver 20. with any other text of holy scripture where the same words do imply such a judiciall triall as he supposeth to be infolded under them 2. And since the persons which are sayd to be tryed not indured professed to be Apostles and therefore such as challendged an authoritie and calling superiour to that Angel what likelihoode is there that they would yeelde themselves subject to his judiciall examination and censure 3. Againe the text saith onely that they were tried and found lyars now if they were in open Consistorie judicially tried why were they not upon the discovery of their false dealing enjoyned to give open testimonie of their repentance And if they refused so to doe why did they not beare the sentence of suspension and excommunication or degradation Or if any such proceeding was held against them why is it not recorded in the text seeing it woulde have made much more for the angels commendation then that which is expresly mentioned 4. Nay that is recorded which soundeth rather to the confirmation of the contrary for that bearing which is commended in the same angel vers 3. is by good Interpreters and amongst other by Mr Perkins construed of his groaning under the burthen of those false Teachers
and their haereticall doctrine of which he laboured what he could to disburden the Church But however this be taken there is little reason for any man to thinke that those false Apostles were in open consistorie convâ—nted and censured as the Doctor imagineth And yet were it as cleare as he could wishe how will the second point be manifested which the Doctor presupposeth rather then proveth viz. that the power of conventing and correcting false Teachers was the peculiar right of one Bishop here called the angell of the Church To tell us that he hath before proved that by the Angel of each Church one onely Bishop is meant will be no sufficient defense seing his proofes are already disproved cap. 3. sect 1. 2. 3. c. and reasons yeelded for the contrarie viz. that under the name of one Angell the whole colledge of Ministers or Elders is vnderstood Wherefore if a corrective power over Ministers may be rightly gathered from that course of proceeding against false Teachers mentioned Apoc. 2. 2. 20 we maye very well retort the Doctors argument against the preheminent power of Bishops for the joynt authoritie of Presbyters in this manner They who are eyther commended for examining and not suffring or reproved for suffering false Teachers in their Church had a corrective power over other Ministers But the Angel of the Church of Ephesus was commended for the former Apoc. 2. 2. and the Angel of the Church of Thyatira was reproved for the later veâ—s 20. Ergo those Angels which are before proved to be the whole Colledge of Ministers and Elders in each Church had the corrective power over Ministers And since it appeareth by the commandement which Iohn had to write vnto the 7. Churches Apoc. 1. 11. that the praise oâ— dispraise of every angel belongeth in part unto the whole Church a truth acknowledged by the best Interpreters Calvin Beza Marlorat Aretius Perkins c. though it should be graunted that one Minister to wit the cheife Pastor or President of the Presbyterie is principally aymed at in the name of the angel of each Church yet will it not follow that the whole power of correction was his pâ—culiar right nay rather it will follow that so farre as his fellow angels and not they onely but the whole Church did partake with him in the praise or disprayse ascribed to him so farre also they had theire part in the power of judiciall proceeding Wherefore if the Doctors meaning be in his assumption to restreyne the praise or dispraise mentioned Apoc. 2. 2 20. vnto The D. wresteth the text or must yeeld the cause one onely person whom he reputeth to be the Bishop his Assumption is to be rejected as an erroneous wresting of the text contrarie to the true meaning thereof But if he assent unto this explanation of his assumption viz. that in the praise or reproofe of the angel the rest of the Ministers or Elders and the whole Church did partake with him then must he subscribe to this conclusion to wit that the rest of the Elders and the whole Ch did partake with the Angel of each Church in the power of administring the Church-censures And this may suffice for answere to all that he hath alleadged from his text or any part of the holy scripture in defense of the explication of his text viz. that the Angels of the 7. Churches were 7. Bishops for the substance of their calling such as ours are We are in the next place to see what strength there is in that argument whereby from the title of Angels in his text he laboureth to vphold the title of Lord given to the Bishops Chap. 6. Concerning the Title of Lord given to Bishops comparing the same with the Title of Angels in the Doctors text handled by him Lib. 3. pag. 150. c. against the Refuters answere pag. 105. 106. LEt us now see what force there is in that argument which the D. frameth from this title The angels of the Churches to justify Sect. 〈◊〉 the titles of honour which in this age are given to Diocesan and and Provinciall Prelates his argument is this The H. Ghost giveth Bishops a more honourable title in calling them the angels of the Churches then if he had called them Lords Therfore we should not think much that they are called Lordes The consequence of this argument lieth in this propositioÌ„ That vnto whoÌ„soever the holy ghost giveth a more honourable title to them we may without scruple give any title that is inferiour which is not vniversally true as the D. I suppose wil confesse in many particulars For the name or tiâ—le of Maior Bayliffe Alderman Constable c. I might say King Dukâ— Earle c. must needs be in his understanding by many degrees inferiour to the titles that he acknowledgeth to be given by the Holy Ghost in coÌ„mon to all Ministers of the word sermon dignitie and duetie of the Ministers pag. 60. 61. 62. such as are Co-workers and Stewards of God c. But to give the former unto Ministers were to bringe confusion into the Church to overthrow that difference which the lawes of God man have set betwene civill eccles functions And though a man should offer to salve this mischeife with the like distinction of civil and ecclesiasticall Majors or Kings c. by which the D. excuseth the title of Lords giuen to Byshops yet I perswade my selfe he would not easylie admit of this disorder yea doubtlesse he would thinke it a great disparagement to his reverend Fathers spiritual Lords that everie painefull Minister of Christ should be equalled with them in those honorable titles which doe now lift them vp above their brethren And yet by his owne confession pag. 61. and 62. last mentioned they have all right to those titles of Doctors Fathers Pastors and Saviours of their brethren which are more glorious then that name of Angels of the Churches which he now appropriateth vnto Byshops We may take it therefore for an evident truth that there is no truth at all in the consequence of the D. The D. consq is not true argument no not though he should limit himselfe to titles of the same nature I meane such as declare the same kind of honor either civill or ministeriall For I make no question but the D. would judge it as vnbeseming his diocesan Byshops to beare the name of Archdeacons Officials or Curates c. as for Kinges Emperors to be called Dukes Captaines or high Constables And I judge it much more absurde to argue as he doth from titles in holy scripture given to Ministers to shew the dignitie of their function vnto titles of civill honour apperteyning vnto great personages that excell in externall pompe and worldly glorie And this is the exception which the Refuter tooke to the D. argument when to shewe the inconsequence thereof he said that Sect. 2. the titles which the D. compareth togither
termes Spirituall and temporall then the difference must be this that Bishops have besides their civill Lordships and temporall Baronies common to them with the Lords temporall an ecclesiasticall Lordship or Lordlike rule in spirituall causes in respect whereof they are denominated Lords spirituall However it be since he denyeth them to be civill Lords and acknowledgeth the name Lord to be given them in regarde of the same government which is implied vnder the name of the angels of the Churches he should in reason derive the Lordship of Byshops rather from Christs Lordship which is spirituall then from the dignitie of Lords temporall which is meerely civil For if that be true which he conceiveth Byshops have no more affinitie with noble personages in the name of Lords then they have with all civill Magistrates in the name of Pastors Both may be called Pastors of the people as he saith serm of the dig of Min. pag. 53. but the Magistrates are Pastors of their bodies the Ministers of their soules In like manner our nobles and our Byshops doe agree in the name of Lordes but the one are civill Lords the other not so but spiritual Wherefore as he affirmeth serm pag. 62. Ministers to partake with Christ in the name of Pastors because as he is the Pastor of our soules so they are Pastors not of mens bodyes but of their souls so he maketh or at least might from the like ground affirme Bishops to have the name of Lordes coÌ„mon to them with Christ seing as he is a spirituall Lord so are they also Lords spirituall and not civill Wherefore if wee may measure the greatnes or smallnes of that honour which any titles convey vnto Ministers by the greater or lesse excellencie of the persons with whom they in those titles are compared then have wee good warrant to conclude the honour included in the name of Lordes attributed unto Bishops to be by so much greater then that which is implied in the other title of the Churches Angels by how much our Lord Christ is greater then all angels But no staied building standeth upon so â—andy a foundation for as men shall please to vary the things with which they may by any title compare the Ministers of Christ so theire honour shall rise or fall at their pleasure and that vnder one and the same title For compare the name of Pastors or shepheards given to Ministers Ephes 4. 11. with Christ the cheife Pastor and great shepheard of the sheepe 1. Pet. 5. 4. Heb. 13. 20. then is it a name of farr greater honor then the name of Angels or Angels of the Churches but it is by many degrees more base if it be referred to the shepheards that watch attend on their flocks in the feilds from whence in truth it was at the first derived Wherefore it must be confessed that there is a manifest falshood infolded in the consequence of the Doctors reasoning And this serveth wel to justify the later pointe before proposed Sect. 4. scz that the Doctor is deceived in judging the name of Lord being coÌ„mon to Bishops with Lords temporall to be a title of lesse honour then the name of the angels of the Churches that hath reference to the caelestiall Angels We may with much more probabilitie affirme that by how much it is a greater honour to have a Lord-like government in any Church then to have a tutorship or Guardianship therein by so much the name of Lorde given to Bishops in respect of their government is a title of greater honour theÌ„ the other which expresseth their Guardianship which in some respect is allowed to the Churchwardens of every parishe For why should we not measure the height of that honour which titles doe imply rather by the nature of that government which 18. The Doct. contradicteth himselfe the names import then by the condition of the persons or things with which the titles doe compare the persons so entituled To end this dispute let the reader observe here a shrewd shewe of a plaine contradiction in the Doctor for whereas nowe he graunteth the name Lord to be given vnto Byshops in respect of theire government and authoritie a little after pag. 153. he denieththe title to be given them with relation but as a simple title with honour revereÌ„ce For how can it be a simple title of honour used without any relation or reference vnto those that are governed by them if it be given them in respect of their government And thus much for answer to the argument drawen from the name of Angels in his text to justifie those honourable titles of Lord and Lordship given to Byshops Chap. 7. Concerning two new arguments produced by the D. lib. 4. pag. 40. c. to prove the angels of the 7. Churches to be Byshops like to ours There remayneth some what alleadged by the D. to shew that â—â—e 7. angels were Byshops for the substance of their calling like to ours as yet vnanswered but it is from humane and not divine evidence He promiseth indeed serm pag. 61. to prove both by scripture and other evidence that the government by Byshops was used even in the Apostles times and not contradicted by them His scripture proofe is nothing but this The 7. Angels were the Byshops of the 7. Churches as all confesse and for the substance of their calling like to ours as I sayth he have proved Which proofes because his Refuter had removed before he came to that part of the sermon he therefore tolde him that he had brought nothing to prove his assertion but what was already answered now the D. telleth us that this is vntrue For saith he I bring two new arguments to prove that the 7. Angels were Byshops That they were Byshops why that is to prove what he knoweth to be of all confessed he should therefore say and make his saying good that he hath two new arguments to shewe that they were Byshops like to ours but so to affirme were to avouch an vntruth wherefore he wrongeth his Refuter to charge him with an vntruth in saying he brought nothing but what was before answered Which wrong is the greater because he could not but see by his Refuters words following answ pag. 128. that in so saying he had an â—ie to the D. proofes from scripture which was the thing promised bâ—t not performed Wherfore he may very wel againe be once tolde that â—ayling in his proofes froÌ„ scripture which onely is sufficient to make good his assertion how much soeverhe say besides he must be beholding to his reader if he be perswaded by him Notwithstanding let vs not refuse to heare what those his arguments be wherein he resteth so confidently The former sayth he though this great Analyser eyther did not or would not see it is this That two of these Angels were Policarpus and Onesimus Policarpus the Byshop of Smyrna and Onesimus the Byshop of Ephesus Policarpus the Byshop of Smyrna
erroniously and weakly mainteyned to be of Apostolicall institution To impugne the proposition were to labour to quench the light of reason and if the Doctor contradict the Assumption he must not onely eate up his owne words before set downe but also oppose himself against the judgment of the best approved Fathers who as himself testifieth have taught the contrary and then the stroke of his owne tongue which he whett as a sharp rasor against his Refuter will recoile into his owne sides in this manner Doe the Fathers restify with one consent that these two degrees of Ministers Bishops and Presbyters were instituted of Christ and hath the Doctor the forhead to denie it In a matter of fact as this is whether Bishops were first instituted by Christ himself or by his Apostles for any man to denie creditt to all antiquity it is a plaine evidence that he is addicted to noveltie and singularitie the Doct. himself being judge for they are his owne wordes lib. 3. pag. 23. Againe in a matter of fact the authoritie and testimonie of some one Father ought to overweigh the whole nation of disciplinariaÌ„s as the Doctor saith but let it here be Episcopalians or Byshoplings contradicting the same I could here give him a large handful of these kinde of flowers gathered out of his own garden but I will spare both him and them seing I am to attend upon those arguments which he hath produced to prove his episcopall function and government to be of Apostolicall institution The first argueth that function to be Apostolicall because it was generally and perpetually used in the first 300 yeares after Christ his Apostles was not ordeyned by generall councells which argument since it altogither balketh the whole book of God and is fitted onely to make some use of his extravagant learning and great reading in the Councells Fathers of his long digression in his former treatises to another question I shall doe him no wrong to passe by it for the present and referr the examination both of it and the testimonies therein vnto a fitter tyme for the question is not how long Bishops have had the possession of that superiority and government which now they reteine but by what authority and warrant of God or man they were first seased of it and there is good cause to suspect their title to be naught when their defendants not being able to bring forth any authenticall evidence signed sealed by the hands of the Apostles from whom they pretend to derive theire tenure doe laye the weight of their cause eyther upon prescription of long continuance or upon the testimony of Fathers that lived for the moste parte 2. or 3. hundred yeares after the thing was or should be done which they stand forth to restify Especially seing the true records of all ordinances delivered by the Apostles unto the Churches of Christ are neyther perished nor locked up in any private Cloysters or closets but communicated to the publick viewe of all men who lift to search what forme of government they prescribed Chapt. 3. Answering the 2. Chapt. of his 4. book and the reason there tendred to prove the episcopal function to be of Apostolicall institution bâ—cause it was as he falsly suppoâ—eth used in the Apostles times and not contradicted by them In the 2. Chapter of his 4. book he stayeth himselfe within the Sect. 1. ad lib. 4. cap. 2. sect 1. pag. 17. of the Doct. compasse of the Apostles times and indeavoureth to shewe that the Episcopall function now in question was then in use his argument for proofe thereof cartieth this forme serm pag. That government which even in the Apostles times was used in the Apostolicall Churches and not contradicted by them was undoubtedly of Apostolicall institution The government by Bishops was used even in the Apostles times and not contradicted by them It was therefore undoubtedly of Apostolicall institution Concerning the propositioÌ„ how ever it be true in their opinioÌ„ which holde that there was but one forme of government in the Church and the same instituted by the Apostles yet the Doct. was told by the Refâ—ter answ pag. 127. that it cannot serve his turn who by his distinction of gold and silver sermon pag. 95. mainteyneth that there may be an other government in the Church that good besides that which he affirmeth to be of Apostolical institutioÌ„ For the propositioÌ„ cannot be true but vpon this ground that the Apostles were not to suffer any governmeÌ„t save that which was of their owne institution and therefore in taking it for granted he did but reckon without his host This answere the Doctor laboureth to remove and then fortifieth his propositioÌ„ against all future assaultes But first he seemeth to repent the delivering of that his distinction of divers Church governments which he compareth for their goodnes as it is more or lesse to golde silver saying he did it in favour of the Dâ—sciplinarians therein clawing a churle according to the homely proverbe The disciplinariaÌ„s which were that churle in whose favour he spake were are the reformed Churches abroad where the Presbyterian discipline is established as himselfe acknowledgeth lib. 3. pag. 108. lib. 4. cap. vlt. pag. 145. But his own tongue discovereth the affection of his hart therein to witt how The D. bechurleth the reformed Churches he spake it as a clawback in hope to have got thanks at least at the hands of all that favour the discipline Which not obteyning of his refuter in revenge to him he throweth the name of a Churle on them And to him he returneth this answere that he said not simply that other governments may be admitted besides that which the Apostles ordeyned but onely there where that cannot be had But whiles the Apostles lived that which they ordeyned might be had To these premisses I will adde the conclusion which the Doct. aymeth at though he doth not expresse it viz. That therefore The D. removed not the coÌ„tradiction charged upon him by his Refut whiles the Apostles lived none other government might be admitted save that which they ordeyned But for our better satisfaction because he hath not in our understanding clearly removed the contradiction charged upon him by his Refuter answ pag. 1â—7 158. he and I both humbly pray in his next defâ—nce a direct answer to the premisses of these arguments following Whatsoever forme of Church-government is lawfull and good the same might lawfully be tollerated of the Apostles in some Churches But some other forme of Church-government besides that which they ordeyned is lawfull and good Ergo some other form of Church-government besides that which the Apostles ordeyned might lawfully be tollerated by them insome Churches Againe Whatsoever forme of Church-government is lawfull and good the same might lawfully be tolerated by the Apostles But none other forme of Church-governmeÌ„nt save that which the Apostles ordeyned might lawfully be tolerated or admitted
sufficiently proved before But this is the poore shift to pay him once again with his owne pag. 71. which the Doct. usually flieth unto WheÌ„ he hath nothing to justify his assertioÌ„s he perswadeth himself such is his judgment that in the question of Dioceses and diocesan Bishops he hath the upper-hand because he hath proved that there were such Bishops and Churches in the 2. or 3. age after the Apostles and therefore when he is foyled in any of his reasons that should prove the calling of such Bishops to be of divine institution he flieth to this as his refuge I have already proved the Churches to be Dioceses and the Bishops Diocesan and therefore if you grant that the function of Bishops was instituted of God and that Bishops were ordeyned or approved of the Apostles then you graunt asmuch as I intend to prove This then being his best defence the reader may see the Doctors sinceritie and that he was not wronged by his Refuter when he told him that he deceiveth his reader by an equivocation in the word Bishop But in deed he much wrongeth his refuter and all them whom he calleth his consorts when for a requitall he saith that they doe deceive their readers in that they would perswade them that because the name Episcopus Presbyter were confounded therefore also the offices were confounded For where doth the refuter or his consorts thus argue The objection which he before took notice of and pretendeth in all this discourse to remove is as himself setteth it down pag. 65. that the name Episcopus in the Apostolicall writings is given to Presbyters and that Bishops such as ours are not mentioned in the scriptures For answere whereunto he said then and now repeateth it againe that when Presbyters were called Episcopi those who afterwards and now are called Bishops were then called the Apostles of the Churches This he first indeavoured to prove by that instance of Epa. phroditus Phil. 2. 25 but his fayling therein is sufficiently discovered now once againe he attempteth it let us attend whether his successe be any better For saith he as I sayd in the sermon whiles the episcopall power was in Sect. 12. ad sect 16. pa. 71. 72. the Apostles and Apostolike men those who had that power were called the Apostles And what then Will he hence conclude that therefore Bishops such as afterwards and now have the name appropriated to them were then called Apostles doth it not rather follow much better on the contrary that in the Apostles times the name of Apostles was given to no other then to the Apostles themselves or Apostolike men which were as himselfe acknowledgeth pag 72 Evangelists hath not the Doct. then spun a saire threed to strangle his owne cause But since he pretendeth to repeat the words of his sermon why doth he curtoll them there he said pag 71 whiles the episcopall power was for the most parte in the Apostles Apostolike meÌ„ those who also had that power were called Apostles now he leaveth out these words for the most part and also May I intreat him plainely to informe us what moved him to make this change It seemeth he thought these words at the first needfull to be added as indeed they were to conclude his purpose for unlesse he can make it appeare that the power of ordination and jurisdiction over Presbyters which he calleth episcopall power was in some other besides the Apostles or Apostolike men of Evangelists and that those also were called Apostles or at least the Apostles of the Churches he cannot inferre his former Assertion to wit that those who are now called Bishops were then called the Apostles of the Churches And now it seemeth he foresawe that the testimonies afterwards alleadged cannot prove any other then the very Apostles or Evangelists whom he calleth Apostolike men to beare the name of Apostles in the apostolicall writings though his witnesses speak what they can he make his best advantage of them 1. he saith that Ambrose by Apostles in some places of scripture as 1. Cor. 12. 28. Ephes 4. 11. understandeth Bishops but is the Doctor perswaded that the spirit of God understandeth such Bishops as are now questioned by the word Apostles in those places If not why leadeth he his reader into an errour and perswade him to beleeve The Doct. leadeth his reader into that error which him selfe dissaloweth that which himself dissalloweth If he be why urgeth he not those scriptures to prove the maine quaestion seeing none can be found more pregnant then these if that be their meaning to prove the doctrine of his sermon viz. that the function of Bishops such as ours is of divine institution And why doth he reach the contrary in saying as before pag. 70. that the word Apostoli absolutely used is a title of those which were sent of God with authority apostolicall Moreover can the Doctor be ignorant that Ambrose in Ephes 4. 11. doth also say that the Evangelists are Deacons and that Pastors are and may be Lectorâ— quilectionibus saginent populum audientem that Magistri so he translateth the word didascaâ—j Teachers exorâ—ista sunt quiain teclesiaipfi compeseunt et verberant inquietos If therfore the Doct. will have us to believe that Diocesan Bishops such as ours were mentioned in the Apostolicall writings under the name not of Bishops but of Apostles because Ambrose faith Apostoli episcopi sunt the Apostles are Bishops let him freely confesse that the functions of Lectors Exercists such as the Papists will haue to be sevarall orders of the Clergic were also established in the Apostles times mentioned in their writings though not under the same names yet under the names of Pastors and Teachers or Masters Ephes 4. 11. and that Ambrose testifieth the same in the words aaforegoing for if he shall refuse to subscribe to this later inference he must pardon vs this once for not imbracing the former 2. And seing he faith Cyprian speaketh to the like purpose lib. 3. epist 9. Apostoles ideft episcopos Prapositos Dominus elegin The L. chose Apostles that is Bishops Let me againe demaund of Mr Doct. whether he be perswaded that the Apostles whom our Lord did choose and who after our Saviours ascension chose Deacons as Cyprian in the same place testifieth were Diocesan Bishops such as ours If not howe will Cyprians wordes further his purpose which is to prove that in the Apostolicall writings such Bishops are called Apostles If he be why is he ashamed especially seing he hath Bishop Bilson perpet govern pag. 226. alleadging both Cyprian Ambrose Bishop Barlow serm in Act 20. 28. fol. 17 urging Cyprian for that purpose to inrowle the 12. Apostles among other Bishops which he affirmeth to be ordeyned of God in his last argument hereafter following Cap. 6 Nay why affirmeth he the contrary in this 3. chapt viz. that some of the Apostles were not properly Bishops Yea he there
occasion was offred wherever he became But the episcopall power in the Doctors understanding form pag. 32. 69. 73. is the power of ordination and jurisdiction Ergo the episcopall power was not given to Iames by the Apostles Now what is the D. answer I answer saith he by distinction The power of order if I may so terme it Iames had before as those who are Bishops sine titulo but the power of iurisdiction was coÌ„mitted to him wheÌ„ he was designed Bishop of IerusaleÌ„ c. The edge of this answere is bent directly against the assumption of the Refuters objection and against the proposition of the prosyllogism added for the confirmation thereof Onely whereas the Refuter affirmeth the power both of ordinatioÌ„ of jurisdictioÌ„ to be invested in the person of Iames by Christ when he made him an Apostle therfore neyther of them given him by his fellow-Apostles the Do telleth us that Iames received froÌ„ Christ onely the power of order but the power of jurisdiction was committed to him when they designed him the Bishop of Ierusalem So in stead of power of ordination power of jurisdiction into which the Refuter distributed all episcopall power and that according to the Doctors own direction as is before shewed he now yeeldeth us a new distribution of episcopall poewr into power of order and power of jurisdiction The D. is driven to make new distributions and yet utterly silenceth both the difference and the reason of the change which a man that loveth plaine dealing should not have done especially when he hath to deale with such as are of a very shallow conceit as he saith lib. 3. pag. 103. for though they may from henceforth rest perswaded that he confoundeth not the power of order in Bishops with their power of ordination because he maketh the later but a part of the former lib. 3. p. 102. 105. yet they may stand in doubt whether the power of jurisdiction which now he opposeth to the power of order be the very same that before he distinguished from the power of ordination If the same then his answer is both false and absurd yea contradicted by himselfe For when he reduceth all episcopall power wherein they excell presbyters unto the power of ordination and the powre of jurisdiction he carrieth the later unto publick The Doct. contradicteth himselfe and dealeth absurdly or deludeth his reader c. government in foro externo with authoritie over presbyters and people both to guide and direct them as their rulers and to censure and correct them as their judge serm gag 45-51 Now it Iames had nothing to doe with this power by vertue of his Apostleship how should the rest of the Apostles which were not made Bishops as the Doctor avoucheth sect 7. pag. 58. have the same authority in this behalfe wheresoever they came that Iames had at Ierusalem or Timothe at Ephesus as the Doctor confesseth cap. 4. pag. 96. Againe how often doth he tell us that this power of jurisdiction aswell as that other of ordination was derived vnto Bishops from the Apostles and that the Bishops are their successors in this power of government serm pag. 45. 70. and in this defence passim yea he saith That the Apostles each of them reteyned this power in their owne hands whiles they continued neere vnto or meant not to be long from the Churches which they had planted and for proofe thereof citeth 2. Thes 3. 14. 1. Cor. 5. serm pag. 65. Def. pag. 63. I aske therefore whence they had this power which they reteyned in their own haÌ„ds for a time coÌ„mitted to others wheÌ„ it seemed good to theÌ„selves he cannot say they received it by any such assignement to some particular church or Churches as Iames is supposed to have to IerusaleÌ„ seing he denieth them to be properly Bishops And if he shall say that the power of governm t or jurisdiction was inclosed in that Apostolicall coÌ„mission which they had from Christ Mat. 18. 18. and 28. 19. Ioh. 20. 23. and 21. 15. 16. is it not both false and absurd to deny that this power was invested in the person of Iames when he was made an Apostle Now if to avoyd these inconveniences he shall acknowledge that he taketh jurisdiction in an other sense his market is utterly marred in asmuch as he doth onely in shewe to delude his reader impugne that which his refuter affirmeth whereas in deed he justifyeth him in his whole argument For if both those powers of ordination and jurisdiction wherein the D. placeth the power and superioritie of the episcopall function were given vnto Iames by Christ and neyther of them by his fâ—llowe Apostles theÌ„ he received not the office of a Bp. by their ordinatioÌ„ Having thus freed the Refuters objection from the force of the Sect. 14. shewing 6. errors in the D. answer Doctors answer the Reader is to be advertised of these errors which Mr Doctor hath broched therein 1. that the Apostles received from Christ the power of order onely and not the power of jurisdiction 2. and therefore by their Apostleship were but as Bishops sine titulo For since the D. giveth vnto Iames in regard of his Apostleship received from Christ none other power then that of order which made him as a Bishop sine titulo he must acknowledge that the rest of the Apostles were also as Bishops sine titulo and not indued by Christ with that power of jurisdiction distinguished by him from the power of order unlesse to avoid these rocks he will fall into the gulf of an other errour no lesse absurd viz. that the Apostles were not all equal in power by their Apostolicall function And if it be so as he saith that Iames had power of jurisdiction given him by his fellowe-Apostles when they designed him Bishop of Ierusalem it will follow from hence 3. that the Apostles gave him a power which themselves had not And 4. that those Apostles which were not made Bishops as Iames was never had that power of jurisdiction which he enjoyed Yea 5. the episcopall charge which Iames had at Ierusalem gave him a preheminence above his fellow-Apostles not onely in superioritie of order while they remayned there as before he affirmed but also in power of jurisdiction 6. And consequently all other Bishops ordeyned by the Apostles were in the like power superior to the very Apostles as many as were not properly Bishops These are the Doctors absurdities and the very naming of them is sufficient to abate the edge and weaken the force of his answer yea under correction be it spoken as it may well make him blush at the reading of his bragge preface pag. 17. where he saith in his conscience he is perswaded that no one of his proofes in all his sermon is disproved nor he convinced of any one uintruth throughout the body thereof so it may be a good motive to him no longer to strike against the
Sect. 5. ad sect 4. pag 78. 79. Oecumenius and Gregorie who testify as he saith that the episles teach Bishops how to behave themselves in the church of God is a secret confession that he knoweth not how to cōclude from Saint Pauls owne words that which he vndertooke to make apparant by his epistles to Timothy Titus But because the Doctor will needs fitt to this last assumption the proofe thereof that answere which was given to another I wil first reduce it to the parts of his reasoning then peruse the forces which he bendeth against it Whereas therefore he saith that episcopall authoritie cheefly consisteth in those particulars of ordination jurisdiction which Timothy and Titus had in charge if by episcopall authoritie he meane that which Bishops haue now gotten into their hands and appropriated to themselves then the proposition is false and the falsehood thereof made plaine by that supposed case of a Democracie in time changed into an Aristocracy and afterward into a Monarchie layd downe by the Doctor in his Refuters wordes pag. 79. but if he understand by episcopall authoritie that which in the Apostles times and with their allowance was seated in the function of diocesan Bishops then the assumption and the proofe thereof is contradicted by the Refuter when he saith that the directions given to Timothy and Titus for ordination and jurisdiction apperteyned not to diocesan Bishops for the Apostle dreamed of no such sovereigntie but in particular unto Timothy and Titus by an higher power as Evangelists in generall to all the presbyters as having the charge of those affaires in their severall congregations in the Churches right to administer them To impugn this answer first he laboureth by two argumēts to prove that Timothy and Titus did not perform those things by an higher power viz. 1. because they were to be done by a power which was to continue in the Church untill the end 2. because the power whereby Bishops doe the things that Timothy and Titus had in cōmission is so much of the Apostolicall power as was to continue to the end But if the Doctor had observed his Refuters meaning who by an higher power understandeth that power of office which was invested in the persons of Timothy Titus for being Evangelists he might perhaps have perceived the deceit that lieth in his own reasoning For although the power of ordeyning and censuring considered simply and in generall as the Refuter speaketh be such as was to continue in the presbyters though now by Bishops appropriated to themselves as he also granteth yet this hindreth not but that as the Apostles so Timothy Titus being Evangelists did performe those works by an higher power that is a power seated in an higher office But if his meaning be that Timothy and Titus did those things by vertue of an office that was to continue and that the power of doing those works is derived to Bishops by apostolicall allowance what else doth he but continue his old trade of begging 2. In like manner he deceiveth himselfe and his Reader when he fastneth a contradiction on his Refuter in saying the Apostles dreamed not of any such sovereigntie as now is in Bishops above Presbyters when he had before sayd that Timothy and Titus did the same things by an higher power to wit of their Evangelisticall function which Bishops have now appropriated to themselves 3. And he argueth too loosely when to prove a falshood in the refuters assertion viz. that those instructions were given to Timothy and Titus as Evangelists he sayth they were given them as they were particularly assigned governours of the Churches of Ephesus and Creete For it was not repugnant but very agreable to the office of Evangelists to be assigned vnto the government of particular Churches at the pleasure of the Apostles on whom they attended 4. In deed if the Doctor could give us any one sentence in those epistles to Timothy Titus shewing the charge of those affaires to belong properly to Diocesan Bishops I would freely confesse the Refuter had erred in denying it and affirming the charge thereof to belong in generall unto the presbyters but though wee haue wayted all this while for the demonstration of this point frō the Apostles writings yet we heare no newes of any argument that clearely deduceth this conclusion from any word or phrase which Paul useth in his epistles onely he sayth he hath sufficiently proved this point before lib. 3. Wherefore that the reader may see how worthily he disputeth there in defense of his Diocesan Lords I will pray leave to lay downe in open viewe what he here referreth us unto In his third book cap. 3. sect 1. he giveth a threefold superiority Section 6. unto Bishops over other Ministers viz. singularitie of preheminence during life power of ordination and power of jurisdiction all which he groundeth upon Tit. 1. 5. And because his Refuter had denied Titus to be a Bishop he referreth his Reader there for the proofe thereof to that which was to followe lib. 4. cap. 4. which we haue now to examine In the meane time he desireth him to take it for granted In like manner towards the end of that book cap. 5. sect 18. he argueth that Bishops had corrective power over the presbyters because Timothy and Titus had such power over the presbyters of Ephesus and Creete as he proveth if we may beleeve him by most evident testimonyes out of Pauls epistles Tit. 1. 5. 1. Tim. 1. 3. 4. 19-22 And unto his Refuters answere viz. that Tim. and Titus were not Bishops and that he should never prove they were he returneth this reply I desire the Reader to suspend his iudgement till he come to the proofes on both sides if he shall not find my proffes saith he for their being Bishops better then his to the contrary let him beleeve me in nothing Lo◠here his wordes and how confidently he relieth aforehand upon his proofes which he meant to produce for this assertion that Timothy and Titus were Bishops Notwithstanding when he cōmeth to make this apparant that by the scriptures yea by S. Pauls epistles written unto them the maine issue of his whole reasoning cōmeth at last to this effect Episcopall authoritie consisteth chiefly in the power of ordination and jurisdiction But the authoritie which Timothy and Titus had in the Churches of Ephesus and Creet principally consisted in the power of ordination and jurisdiction Ergo their authoritie was episcopall And consequently they were Bishops Here now if the proposition be doubted of or denied wee are sent back to this former disputation where he begged that this cōclusion might be taken for granted Is there any likelihood think you that we shall ever find a good end put to this controversy whē Sect. 7. ad sect 5. 6. p. 80. 81. we must dance the round after the Doctors pipe in this fashion But leaving the Doctor
at this day in the managing of Church-causes And by that which hath bene now sayd concerning Timothy Titus the same may be affirmed of their government in the Churches of Ephesus Creet But he asketh whether Paul did not coÌ„mitt the ordination of Ministers unto Titus without mentioning eyther of Presbyterie or people And we may ask him what mention he findeth there of prayers or hands-imposition which ought to concurre with ordination if he can include them as being vnderstood in the word katasteses Tit. 1. 5 wee have as good reason to include the assistance of other presbyters and the peoples approbation in the words following hoos egoo soi dietaxamen as I have appointed thee Quis enim credat Paulum c. who may beleeve Paul otherwise to have ordered Titus then he and the rest of the Apostles themselves had in vse Muscul loc coÌ„ de elect Minist Againe he asketh or rather argueth in this manner Are not all his precepts for ordination and Church-government directed onely to Titus for Creete and to Timothy for Ephesus and doth not this evidently shewe that howsoever they might use eyther the presence or consent of the people or the counsell advise of the presbyters in causes of greatest moment as Princes also doe in coÌ„mon-wealths yet the sway of ecclesiasticall government was in them If there be any evidence or strength of truth in this reason theÌ„ the like must be acknowledged in this that followeth Our Saviour Christ directeth in singular termes vnto Peter onely both his whol speach concerning the keies of his kingdome and the power thereof Math. 16. and that precept of feeding his sheep and lambes and of confirming his brethren Ioh. 21. 15. 17. Luk. 22. 32. Wherefore however Peter might use the help The Doct. reasoneth well for Rome and assistance of his fellow-Apostles in all those workes and the presence or consent of the people in the administratioÌ„ of the keies yet the cheef power and sway of all was in him alone Good newes for Rome if the Doctor will give allowance to his argument but the truth is such singular speaches directed to one onely doe not argue in that one any such preheminent power as the Romanists and Prelatists doe from thence gather So that since the Doct. can not prove that Timothy and Titus had any such singular and sole power in Church-government as the Doctor judgeth to be due unto Bishops it is plaine that he buildeth upon a vayne and false presupposall when he saith it is presupposed in the epistles to Timothy and Titus that they had episcopall authoritie and that the directions given to them were precedents for diocesan Bishops in the exercise of their function But for the proofe of this he hath another argument in store thus framed Those things which were written to informe not Timothy and Titus alone Sect. 10. ad sect 7. pag 83. as extraordinary persons but them and their successors to the worlds end were written to informe diocesan Bishops But those epistles were written to informe not Timothy and Titus alone as extraordinary persons but them and their successors to the worlds end Therefore they were written to informe diocesan Bishops Vnto the Assumption the Refuter answereth by distinctioÌ„ thus that it is true if vnderstood of successors in authority or power of performing the same works but false if meant of succession in the same office The Doct. therefore first indeavoureth to prove what his Refuter denyeth and yet in the winding up of all would perswade his reader that what the Refuter granted is sufficient for the truth of his assumption But he is to be advertized that vnlesse he make good what his Refuter denyeth he cannot conclude what he vndertaketh For whether we look to his former assertion which he saith is here againe proved himselfe doth thus explaine it sect 3. in the beginning that in the epistles to Tim. and Titus S. Paul intended to informe them as Diocesan Bishops and in them all other Diocesans or whether wee look to the nearest scoape of his wordes in his sermon pag. 74. it is evident he there intendeth to prove that which he supposed would be answered to his former objection viz. that the things spoken to Timothy and Titus were spoken to them as extraordinarie persons whose authority he should have sayd office should die with them which cannot be removed vnlesse he prove that they were spoken to them as persons bearing an ordinarie function wherein their successors should enjoy the same authoritie to the worlds end Neyther is this to deny his conclusion as he falsely affirmeth but to contradict his assuÌ„ption in that sense which is necessarie to make it good because otherwise he argueth not ad idem Let us therefore see how well his proofes are fitted to the assumption I prove it saith he first by testimonie both of Paul and of Ambrose and after by reason And first by S. Pauls testimonie that he streitely chargeth Timothy that the coÌ„mandements and directions which he gave him should be kept inviolable vntill the appearing of our Lord Iesus 1. Tim. 6. 14. Ergo they were to be performed by such as should have the like authority and the same office to the end The consequence of this Enthymeme dependeth upon this proposition That the commaundements and directions given in charge unto Timothy could not be kept inviolable unto the end without a succession of such as should have not only the like authoritie but also the same office untill the end of the world The which is â—latly denyed and cannot be fortifyed by that which followeth scz that those commandements could not be performed in the person of Timothy who was not to continue to the end seing the meÌ„bers of his disiunction are insufficient when he taketh it for graunted that those coÌ„maundements must be performed eyther in Timothees own person or in such as succeeded him in the same function for the Doctor cannot be ignorant that the coÌ„mandement which Christ gave to his Apostles Math. 28. 19 20. for preaching and baptizing was to be kept inviolable unto the coÌ„ming of Christ neyther could it be peformed by the Apostles alway in their own persons or by such as succeeded them in the Apostolike function It is performed as all the world knoweth by successors in a different functioÌ„ which haue authoritie to doe the same works though neither in the same office nor yet with that ample coÌ„mission for the extent of their jurisdiction In like manner the Refuter saith that the coÌ„maundements given to Timothy and Titus for ordination and jurisdiction were continued in the Church by presbyters which succeeded them though in a differing office according to that ordinary course which God had appointed for his Church Thus much for S. Paul whom the Doctor now leaveth and craveth help of Mr. Calvin T. C. and others to conclude his purpose Sect. 11. ad sect 7. pag 83. 84. scz that the
by ordinary meanes for himself interpreteth the Apostles words 1. Tim. 4. 14. neglect not the gift that is in thee was givē the by prophesie c. of his calling to the Ministery not by humane suffrage but by divine revelation by the cōmandement or oracle of the Holy Ghost lib. 4. p. 141. his calling therefore to the Ministery by his own confessiō must be extraordinarie 2. Neyther can it be denied to be extraordinarie in Titus that the Apostle cōmitted to his Church the finishing of his owne work for the first establishing of the Churches in Creta and furnishing them with Bishops or Elders to instruct them For himself confesseth that the Churches which were yet in constituting and vnfurnished with Presbyters to teach them had no need of a Bishop to govern them Lib. 4. pag. 63. 3. In like manner this large commission not confined to any one Church or Diocese but with equall charge extended over all the Churches in the whole Iland was more then ordinarie seing the ordinary Bishops and Elders were restreyned to the oversight of one onely Church or flock as appeareth by Act. 20. 28. 14. 23. Phil. 1. 1. and the Doctor that hath sought all records he could meet with for the next successors of Titus can finde none that had the like extent of jurisdiction till the next age after the Apostles and yet there is an apparant difference betweene him that the Doct. mencioneth and Titus as is before observed cap. 8. sect 13. next before this 4. Moreover it was extraordinarie that Timothy Titus were authorized to cōmaund and to speake with cōmanding authoritie 1. Tim. 1. 3 4. 11. 5. 7. Tit. 2. 15. for the auncient Bishops knewe that this was rather Apostolike then suting with the function of Bishops Ignatius in ep ad Rom. knowing his owne measure would not commaund as an Apostle but exhort c. but because these men by their daily conversation with the Apostle knew perfectly his doctrine and doings the Pastors of the Churches to which they were sent were to receive direction frō them and to yeeld obedience to their instructions 1. Cor. 4. 17. 16 10. 16. 2. Cor. 7 13. 2. Tim. 2. 2. 3. 10. 5. Yea even in gifts and the way of attayning them D. Downames Betters doe acknowledge this extraordinarie preheminence that they were indowed with extrordinarie gifts as the revealing of secrets and discerning of spirits and that they had their knowledge for the most part infused by revelation perpet govern pag. 88. Bishop Barlow serm in Act. 20. 28 fol. 6. And since some of these extraordinarie preheminences then shined most clearly when they were assigned to the Churches of Ephesus and Creet it followeth inevitably that their function was even at that time extraordinarie and therefore not episcopall but evangelisticall Now whereas he saith that their function was the same ordinary function which their successors all other Presbyters did exercise because 1. they were assigned to certeine Churches as the Pastors thereof 2. ordeyned thereto by imposition of hands 3. and by that ordination furnished with the power of ordination and jurisdiction what else doth he then indeavor to justify the point controverted by others no lesse doubtfull if not apparantly false To returne now to that assumption which at the first affirmed joyntly that the very function of Timothy Titus aswell as their authority Sect. 4. was both ordinary and perpetually necessary c. it is most plaine by the reason added in his sermon pag. 79. before he bringeth in his conclusion that he then intended as his wordes signifyed to justify the perpetuity of their function for the wordes of his reason are these If whiles the Apostles themselves lived it was necessary that they should substitute in the Churches already planted such as Timothy Titus furnished with episcopall power then much more after their decease have the Churches need of such governours To this connexive proposition himselfe addeth the assumption and conclusion pag. 104. following But the former is evident by the Apostles practise in Ephesus Creet and all other Apostolicall Churches Therefore the latter may not be denyed With what face now can the Doctor deny that this argument aymeth at the perpetuall necessity for all Churches not onely of that authority or power which he calleth episcopall but also of the very office or function of Bishops such as he affirmeth Timothy Titus to have bin His complaint therefore is very injurious as we have elswhere shewed to the full when he chargeth his Refuter with wronging him in saying that he maketh this episcopal power perpetually necessary for the very being of the visible Churches that he contradicteth himselfe in another place when he acknowledgeth that where the episcopall government may not be had an other may be admitted But albeit the Doctor be loth to confesse himselfe guilty yet is it a signe of remorse that he refuseth to mainteine that necessity of the episcopall function which his argument at first directly concluded Howbeit he proceedeth in false accusation against his Refuter in saying he doth but elude his reasō with a malepert speach because he wished him not to wave crave but to prove the question for doth he not crave rather then prove that which he assumeth for an The D. waveth and craveth daunceth the round evident truth when he giveth us no other argument then his owne naked affirmance that it is evident c. to justify the assumption or Antecedent of his reason viz. that it was necessary whiles the Apostles lived to substitute in the churches already planted men furnished with episcopall power therein like to Timothy Titus And doth he not wave to and fro or rather goe back againe to the first point controverted in this whole Chapter when he avoucheth in the same Assumption that Timothy Titus were furnished with episcopall power when the Apostle Paul substituted them in the churches of Ephesus and Creet Wherefore if his drift were in this division such as he avoucheth in the entrance thereof viz. by a new supply of arguments to prove Timothy Titus to have bene Bishops of Ephesus and Creet the issue of all his reasoning is no better then a plaine dancing the round in this fashion Their function and authoritie was episcopall because it was not Evangelisticall for it died not with their persons and therefore was not Evangelisticall It died not with their persons because it was ordinarie and perpetually necessary c. for if it were necessarie to have men furnished with episcopall power whiles the Apostles lived it was much more necessary after their deathes Now that it was necessarie whiles they lived it is evident by the Apostles practise in furnishing Timothy and Titus with episcopall power at Ephesus and in Creet Who seeth not by all this his discourse that we are now just where we began All this waving therefore from one
argument to another in shewe is but to dazell the eyes of his reader that he might not discerne his grosse begging For in effect this is all he can say They were furnished with episcopall power therefore their authoritie was episcopall or S. Paul made them Bishops and therefore they were Bishops of his ordeyning As for those two questions which he debateth Sect. 15. 16. viz whether it be perpetually necessary that the sway of the ecclesiasticall authoritie should be in one and what forme of Church-government is to be preferred as the best I forbeare to follow him in those digressions His resolution to the former being negative doth scarce accord with the conclusion of his last argument which affirmeth that such governors as were Timothy Titus in his opinion furnished with episcopall power are much more necessarie after the Apostles death then in their life time But his resolutioÌ„ to the later is grouÌ„ded on such a reason as wil put life againe into the same if there were an undoubted truth in it For could he prove the Monarchicall government of Bps to be of divine institutioÌ„ as he affirmeth it would follow not onely that it is the best forme of Church-government but also necessarily to be continued And as I nothing feare to graunt him that consequence so I knowe he boasteth in vain of warrant in the scriptures for the episcopall function He hath sought for it first in the Angels of the 7. chueches then in Pauls approbation of Archippus Epaphroditus he proceeded to Iames his presidence at Ierusalem now he hath done all he can to prove it by the Apostles ordeyning Timothy Titus to the function of Bishops In all which disputations of his I have clearely shewed that the scriptures give him no colour for his assertion We are therefore now ready to listen to those testimonies of antiquity which if we might beleeve him with a generall coÌ„sent beare witnes to his assertion that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus Titus of Creet Chap. 12. Concerning the testimonies of Antiquitie alleadged by the Doctor to prove Timothy to be the Bishop of Ephesus and Titus of Creet FIrst he alleadgeth the subscriptions annexed to the end of the Sect. 1. ad sect 17. pa. 105. epistle to Titus of the second to Timothy wherein the one is sayd to have bin ordeyned the first Bishop of the Church of the Ephesians and the other the first Bishop of the Church of the Cretans Being asked by his Refuter whether he thought them to be of the Canon or added by the Apostle he signifieth that he is not of that opinion Whence I inferre that their evidence can never justify his maine purpose which is to prove that the function of diocesan Bishops is of divine institution But he saith It is certeine they are of great antiquity and of better credit then the Refuter other disciplinarians would make them If it be certeine their antiquity is great their credit very good why doth not the D. give us the proofs whereon he groundeth his certeinty First for their antiquity they deserve not that preheminence which he giveth them to be heard before Eusebius the rest of the fathers which he alleadgeth for the authors of the most ancient Syriac and the old latin translations found no mencion of an episcopall ordination bestowed on Timothy Titus in the greek copies which they followed And yet the books which the old latin Interpreter imbraced doe fully accord in the subscriptioÌ„ of all the former epistles with those latter copies into which that clause of that Bishoprick was foisted in If therefore their credit have not some better support then their antiquity their evidence is little worth The Doct. greatest labour in defense of their credit is to remove out of the way his Refuters objection who saith The subscription set vnder the epistle to Titus affirming it to be written from Nicopolis is contrary to Pauls owne words Titus 3. 12. because of Paul had been at Nicopolis when he wrote after this charge given vnto Titus Indeavor to come to me to Nicopolis he would not have sayd â—kei gar kekâ—â—ka c. for there but rather entautha here I have determined to winter The Doctor paveth the way to his answer with this preface In deed saith he if any other learned man that were not a party in this cause had censured these subscriptions I would have respected their censures but the Cavillations of the disciplinarians against them are to be rejected You may see how partiall the Doctor is who yet would seeme to hate partiallity and how little credit these subscriptions have with the D who therefore hath resolved to give them what grace he can because they are disciplinarians who have disgraced them The Rhemists may freely controull the subscriptions of sundry other epistles because they are not parties in this cause see their Argument on 1. Cor. 2. Cor. Gal. 1. and 2. Thess and 1. Tim. for the place whence the epistles were sent But Mr. Beza can have no indifferent hearing his reasons are but Cavillations But heare I pray how the Doctor confuteth him If you will saith he consider with me that Paul being as usually he was in peregrination Titus could not tell where he was Paul therefore being at Nicopolis wrote as any discreet maÌ„ would in the like case Come to me to Nicopolis for I meane to winter there whereas if he had written as the Refuter would have had him Titus might have sayd where Paul as being vncerteine where Paul was whither himselfe was to goe It seemeth the Doctor eyther did not consider or would not take notice 1. that it was needlesse for Titus to be informed where Paul was at the writing of this epistle seing he was not to goe presently to him but to make himselfe ready to come upon a new message as these words declare when I shall send Artemas to thee or Tichicus be diligent to come to me 2. that Paul his being then in peregrination as the D. conceiveth doth very probably argue the contrarie to that which he collecteth to wit that as yet he was not come to Nicopolis were he resolved to spend the winter and to wait for Titus his coÌ„ming thither But because the Doct. would seeme to build upon the coÌ„mon judgement of such as are discreet I very willingly submit the triall of this difference to the discreet reader which observeth in the writings and speaches of them that are discreet the different use of these adverbs hic illic here there whether it stand with discretion 1. for the K. Almner which followeth the court when he is at Greenewich to send for one of his followers with the like words When I send A. B. or C. D. to thee then come thou vnto me to Greenewich for there I meane to winter or rather thus for here I meane to winter 2. for his follower that receyveth his letters if
Creta hath as yet received no firme support no not from humane evidence much lesse from the holy scriptures Chap. 13. Concerning Evodius Linus Mark Simeon others whom the D. saith the Apostles ordeyned Bishops THe Doct. now leaving the scriptures searcheth after other ancient Sect. 1. ad sect 20. pa. 112. records to see if he can find any other places where or persons whom the Apostles ordeyned Bishops which if we should wholly overpasse in silence we should neyther wrong him nor the cause seing the records of men subject to error drincking in many errors through oversight or want of judgment cannot substantially conclude the question now in hand as hath bin often observed But because he glorieth though without cause as shall appeare in answer to his next page that the evidence of truth put his Refuter to silence we will enter into a neerer search after the truth make no doubt but we shall lay open to the conscience of the indifferent Reader both the falshood of some of his records and his false or deceitful handling of the rest And first he beginneth with Antioche vvhich as he saith serm pag. 81. had the first Bishop after Ierusalem ordeyned by the Apostles Peter and Paul about the yeare of the Lord. 45. vvitnes Eusebius Chron. anno 45 and Hist lib. 3. ca. 22. and Iguat ad Antioche I ansvver there are many parts of S. Lukes sacred â—â—ory that vvith hold us from acknovvledging any such episcopall superiority in Evodius as the Doctor ascribeth to him for many matters of great moment are recorded concerning the Church at Antioch vvhich fell out after the 45. yeare of Christ and yet there is no mencion of Evodius much lesse of his Bishoprick After the death of Herod vvhich vvas in the end of the. 3. yeare of Claudius Euseb lib. 2. ca. 9. ex Iosepho and. 45. of Christ as Euseb accounteth in Chron. an 45. Paul and Barnabas returned froÌ„ Ierusalem to Antioch Acts. 12. 23. 25 at which time there were certeine Prophets and Teachers there by whose imposition of hands Paul Barnabas were seperated to the work wherevnto the Holy Ghost called them Cap. 13. 1. 2. 3. Now if Evodius had bin the Bishop of that Church at this time would S. Luke have overpassed his name in silence when he rekoneth up the principall Teachers that then were there And if Peter had gone after his imprisonment to Antioch there to constitute Evodius his successor would not S. Luke have given some notice of his being there with Paul Againe when Paul and Barnabas came back to Antioch they gathered the Church togither and rehearsed all that God had done by them there aboade a long time with the disciples cap. 14. 27. 28. In this their stay there grew that dissention about circumcision which occasioned that meeting at Ierusalem to end the question Cap. 15. 1. 2. c. where was Evodius all this while was he a non-resident from his charge had he bin the Bishop of Antioch and there resident how is it that we heare nothing of his enterteyning Paul and Barnabas at their returne and of their relating to him as Paul did afterwards to Iames at Ierusalem Cap. 21. 18. 19. the successe of their traveiles why heare we nothing of his partaking in the controversy eyther with or against Paul and Barnabas why nothing of his going up to the Synode at Ierusalem for who more fit to be imployed in such a busynes then their Bishop for which part soever he tooke it was necessary for the Churches instruction in all succeeding ages that as the Angells of the Asian churches Apoc. 2. 3. so he should have his due praise or dispraise for resisting or supporting those false Teachers that disturbed the peace of the Church To goe forwards as the the storie leadeth after the the Synode was ended Iudas and Silas were sent with Paul and Barnabas vnto Antioche aâ—d letters were written not to the Bishop but to the brethren of the Gentiles and they were accordingly delivered to the multitude assembled who rejoyced for the consolation Cap. 15. 22. 23. 30. 31. Iudas and Silas stayed there for a time so did Paul Barnabas till they were so styrred that they parted companies vers 32. 35. 39. 40 but before Paul and Barnabas were divided Peter coÌ„ming thither was withstood by Paul to his face for that offence which he gave in withdrawing himself from the fellovv-ship of the Gentiles as Paul himselfe relateth Gal. 2. 11. 12. 13. In al these events vvhat did Evodius worthy the name or place of a Bishop indovved vvith such a singularity of povver and honor above all other Teachers though of an higher degree then Presbyters as loÌ„g as they are vvithin his Diocese If vve may beleeve the Doct pag. 136. lib. 3. ought not he to have interposed his episcopall authority in coÌ„manding his people to keep the decrees ordeyned by the Apostles and in appeasing those contentions vvhich arose betvveene Paul and Peter and betvveene Barnabas and Paul vvhiles they conversed vvithin his jurisdiction Surely vvhat ever the D. conceiveth of these matters who can perswade themselves that S. Luke and S. Paul would have buried in silence the name office and indeavours of Evodius if he had bin so long before ordeyned by Peter and Paul to the Bishoprick of Antioch As for Eusebius his Cronicle it doth too much discredit it selfe Sect. 2. to be credited of us in this case for it saith that Peter in the last yeare of Tiberius which was the. 39. of Christ placed his chaiâ—e at Antioch and there sate 25. yeares and that in the 2. yeare of Claudius he removed to Rome and there sat also 25. yeares Because both these computations cannot stand togither the first 25. yeares is generally esteemed an error and reduced to 7. yeares but yet these absurdities remaine 1. that Peters aboad 7. yeares at Antioch and his remove to Rome in the second of Claudius cannot accord with S. Lukes storie for his continuance in Iudea and his imprisonment by Herod not long before the death of Herod see Doctor Reynolds Conf. with Hart. Cap. 6. divis 3. and D. Whit. de pont Rom. quest 3. pag 346. 347. 2. that Peters removing from Antioch to Rome in the 2. yeare of Claudius contradicteth the D. assertion scz that Evodius was ordeyned Bishop of Antioch by Peter and Paul in the yeare of our Lord 45 which was the. 3. yeare of Claudius by Eusebius his owne account Notwithstanding I deny not but there may be a truth in the main point avouched by Eusebius and Ignatius to wit that Evodius was the Pastor or Bishop of Antioch there placed before Ignatius For a parish-Bishoprick that is the function of a Bishop set over one particular coÌ„gregatioÌ„ is granted by the Refuter to be established every where by the Apostles but that function of a Diocesan Bishop which the Doct. contendeth for is denyed and worthyly seing it is
contradicteth also an other report of his witnesses Eusebius Ierom and Dorotheus viz. that Anianus succeeded Mark in the government of the Church at Alexandria in the 8. yeare of Nero as being then and there Martyred For the Doct. himself serm pag. 82. referreth the Martyrdome of Peter Paul to the very later end of Nero his reigne which was 4. or 5. yeares after Againe howsoever some doe give him the name of a Bishop yet nothing is sayd by any one that can conclude the function of a Bishop Sect. 6. as being affixed to the charge of one Church Yea rather they all give him not onely the name but also the right function of an Evangelist not onely in accompanying the Apostles but also in traveiling from place to place to plant and establish Churches And among the rest Nicephorus most fully justifyeth him to be a right Evangelist For lib. 2. cap. 43. he reporteth that Mark published the gospell not onely in Egypt but also in Libia and in all Barbaria also to them of Pentapolis and Cykue and that he there coÌ„stituted Churches and gave them Bishops c. But the Doctors oversight is most to be admired in his bringing of Eusebius to witnes The D. own witnes is against him his Bishoprik at Alexandria For the contrary appeareth by the order which he observeth in setting downe the number and names of such as he accounteth Bishops of that Church For in his account Anianus was the first and Abilinus the second lib. 2. ca. 24. 3. 12. and Cerdo the third which after Anianus the first Bishop governed that Church lib. 3. cap. 16. What can be more ful and plaine to shewe that in Eusebius his judgement Anianus and not Mark was the first Bishop of Alexandria As for those words whereon the Doctor buildeth lib. 2. cap. 24. that Anianus first undertook the publik administration of the Church at Alexandria after Marke the Apostle and Evangelist If prejudice had not stood in his light and others in whose stepps he treadeth they might have seen their grosse mistaking of his meaning who distinguisheth him from his successors by the name of an Apostle and Evangelist For if Mark must needs be the first Bishop because Anianus first obteyned Bishoprick after him then let Peter be acknowledged the first Bishop also at Rome because at Antioche Ignatius was the second Bishop by succession after Peter Euseb lib 3 ca. 30. And at Rome Clemens after Peter governed that church Ieron lib. 1. cont Iovin Yea let not Iames any longer be reckoned the first Bishop of Ierusalem because he undertook the charge thereof after the Apostles or rather iÌ„mediately after Christs passion But if the Doctor can discerne as he doth serm pag. 82. and 83. that Eusebius excludeth Peter Paul from the place or function of a Bishop at Rome when he giveth the first place to Linus after them the second to Anacletus and so forwards doth he not wittingly wrong his witnesses and deceive his reader when he taketh their word for a certeine evidence that Mark was the first Bishop of Alexandria in saying that Anianus did first obteyne the government after Mark. In the fourth place Simeon the sonne of Cleophas is by the Sect. 7. ad p. 112. 113. Doctor produced as ordeyned by the Apostles Bishop of Ierusalem after Iames as Eusebius testifieth lib. 3. cap. 10. But it is little for the credit of the episcopall function that it is inforced to crave aide of such fabulous reportes as flying fame scattereth and he must pardon us this fault that we can hardly credit the tale for if the Apostles had thought it necessarie that each Church should be governed by a diocesan Bishop would they have suffered Ierusalem to have wanted one for 10. yeares togither after Iames his death For Iames lived not above 30. yeares after Christs passion as the Doctor acknowledgeth serm pag. 69. but the destruction of Ierusalem which happened before Simeons choyse as Eusebius saith fell out in the 40. yeare after Christs death Cent. lib. 2. col 664. was there now imediately after the cities destruction more need of a Bishop there then before and was the choyse of their Bishop a matter of that moment that all the Apostles and Disciples of Christ remayning alive must needes meet togither to make the election and must he needes be one of Christs kindred yet let it be granted since the Doctor will have it so that Simeon was the next vnto Iames in the government of the Church of Ierusalem as Eusebius affirmeth and be it granted also that Iohn ordeyned Policarpe Bishop of Smyrna and that he constituted Bishops in diverse other places and that the Apostles in every place committed the Church to Bishops and left them their successours as Irenâ—us and others testify how will the Doctor prove that all these were diocesan Bishops induced with a singular power of ordination and jurisdiction in many Churches or congregations which is as his Refuter saith the very soul of a diocesan Bishop The Doctor in his wisdome passeth by this point as if he had not seene it in his Refuters answer and falsely chargeth him to take exception against the assertion of the Fathers which affirme Bishops to be the successors of the Apostles Whereas it is evident that he denieth onely the Doctors inference that from the Fathers affirmation concludeth diocesan Bishops such as ours to be of Apostolicall institution This ariseth saith he from the mistaking of the word Bishop which in the first tymes signified no more then an ordinarie Pastor Wherefore since the Doctor doth nothing else but in an ydle florish repeat that which he had in effect before delivered viz. that the Apostles derived their authority aswell for government as for doctrine vnto Bishops we should but waste wordes and time in vaine if we should vouchsafe him any other answere then that already given and remaineth yet vntouched Chap. 14. Answering the D. 6. chapter and sheweth that he hath not any one argument or testimony to prove directly as he pretendeth that the episcopall function is of divine institution HAving answered all that the Doctor bringeth to prove by coÌ„sequence the episcopall function to be a divine ordinance because Sect. 1. ad sect 2. cap. 6. pag. 138. 140. it was of apostolicall institution we are now to goâ— on and examine what he can alleadge in the last place directly to prove that it is of divine institution But before he begin to enter into the lists he beggeth the change of the question propounding The D. beggeth the change of the questioÌ„ this for the conclusion which he intendeth to prove viz. that Bishops were ordeyned of God which change we can be content to allowe so that he will acknowledge his error in conceyving these latter proofes to be more direct then the former for he fetcheth a farre more large compasse by consequence to conclude his maine doctrine seing there is much
From whence the Refuter gathered this argumēt Iames the just was ordeyned Bishop of Ierusalē straightwayes after Christs passion Ergo the Apostles ordeyned Bishops and cōmitted the Churches to them Hereat the Doctor is displeased because one part of his argumentation is culled out from the rest for his argument as he saith is an induction standing thus The Apostles ordeyned Bishops at Ierusalem and in other Churches which afterwards he doth particularly enumerate Therefore they ordeyned Bishops He addeth that he proveth they ordeyned Bishops at Ierusalem because they ordeyned Iames the iust and Symon the sonne of Cleophas Bishops of Ierusalem the former he proveth here the other afterwards according to the order of the time If the D. meaning when he penned his sermon was to argue as he now saith no merveile if his Refuter fayled in discerning his Analysis his genesis being so disordered and confused For the explayning and proving the former antecedent he proposeth as appeareth in this sect serm p. 65 these three things to be shewed 1. the time when 2. the places where 3. the persons whom the Apostles ordeyned Bishops He beginneth with the time when the first Bishop was ordeyned and withall declareth the place and person Afterwards he sheweth jointly the places where and the persons whom the Apostles ordeyned Bishops Now he telleth us his whole reasoning is one induction which standeth in an enumeration of places or Churches And the enumeration of the persons is made a prosyllogisme to justify that which is affirmed for the places As for the discourse of the time it hath no place at all in his argumentatiō unlesse it be to give the Bishops of Ierusalem their due place For in order of time Evodias at Antioch Linus at Rome and Mark at Alexandria had possession of their Bishopricks before Timothy was placed at Ephesus if the D. be not deceived in his computation that he delivereth serm pag. 78. Thus we see what a Crypticall disputer Mr D. is his argumentations are as Oracles or rather riddles that require an other Oedipus rather then such an one as his refut is to discover the right order of disposing thē For who besides himself would have found out the Medius terminus which he hath assigned distinguished his first probatiō frō the ensuing prosyllogism so as he hath done But let us see how he justifyeth the parts of his later enumeration wherein he coupleth togither the persons with the places Sect. 3. First touching Iames whom he affirmeth to be the first Bishop of Ierusalem ordeyned by the Apostles very shortly after the Lordes passion before he prove the truth of his assertion he yeeldeth two reasons why that Church had a Bishop assigned unto it lōg before any other Church 1. because a great number were within a short time converted to the faith 2. because it was the Mother-Church unto which the Christians from all partes were afterwards to have recourse Touching the former I grant the number was greater then can be shewed in any other Church within so short a time but that this was any reason to move the Apostles to ordeyne them a Bishop the Doctors bare word in affirming it is too bare a proofe to perswade us to enterteyne it especially seing he will not allowe a Bishop to such Churches as in number doe exceed the converts at Ierusalem when Iames in his conceit was ordeyned their Superintendent For there are as he knoweth well enough in some one of our parishes at this day above twice yea thrice 5000. Moreover if this number were any motive to the Apostles to give them a Bishop then the time of Iames his ordination was after their conversion and not as elswhere he saith īmediately after Christs passion Now touching the later I confesse also that Ierusalem was the Mother-church from which in some respect all other Churches sprung For the word of the Lord went out frō Ierusalem Isa 2. 3 that by Christs own appointmt Luc. 24. 47 and from thence the light of the gospell spread over all the world by the Ministery of the Apostles others which before the dispersion of that Church were members thereof Act. 8. 1. 4. 5. 11. 19. 20. cap. 1. 8. Neyther deny we but that many Christians upon speciall occasions had recourse thither Act. 11. 29. and 15. 2. 15. 25. 27. but that the Christians of any other Church as Samaria or Caesarea c were bound to make repaire thither as unto their Mother-church to whose jurisdiction they were subject as childrē to their Mother there is no syllable of scripture to perswade much lesse to beleeve that the Christians of all parts were afterwards to have recourse to Ierusalem as the Mother-church For this assertion hath no evidence eyther of Scripture or ancient Father to countenance it let them therefore beleeve it that list we owe the Doct. no such obedience But say there were a truth in this which he assumeth without proofl how shall it stand for a reason to move the Apostles to commit the care of this Church unto a Diocesan Bishop Why should it not rather be a reason there to erect the Sea of an Oecumenicall or vniversall Pope If by the Christans of all parts he meane of all other Churches in the world as if seemeth he doth since afterwardes he calleth that Church the Mother Church of Christendome pag. 60. of this def for why should any of the daughter churches be exempted from the obedience of their Mother when others yea the eldest if any at all remaynned under her government But if he will limit his speach to the Christians of that one nation the charge whereof he saith was assigned to Iames pag. 52. it must be the Sea if of a Bishop then of a nationall and not a Diocesan Prelate For if the Church of Ierusalem was never a parish because it was intended that as the people of the citie and country were all under one high-priest so all the Christians of citie and country should be under the Bishop of Ierusalem as the Doctor argueth lib. 2. pag. 89 then for the same reason neyther was that Church a Diocese or a province but a nationall Church as was the church over which the High-preist was set under the law Lastly to grant asmuch as in any equitie can be demāded viz. that partly in regard of the multitude of new converted Christians and partly for the great recourse thither of unbeleeving Iewes as well as of beleevers out of all partes it was meet that some one of the Apostles should there abide to feed the converted flock and to labour the conversion of others howe can this argue a necessitie of giving this Apostle a new ordination to the office of a Bishop in that place but of this more hereafter His testimonies are to be examined whereby he proveth that Sect. 4. ad sect 4. pa. 52. Iames was ordeyned Bishop of Ierusalem by the Apostles He beginneth with
Ierome and to make him the more gracious with the Disciplinarians he saith it is that Ierome on whose onely authoritie almost they rely in this cause the like words he hath p. 61 following and lib. 3. pag. 45. and 58 but this is I say not almost but altogither a malicious slander For he is not ignorant that his refuter every where calleth for proofes from the scripture as others have done before him that his testimonie is then onely regarded of them when he hath the scripture to justify that he affirmeth But it well appeareth by his citing Ierome so oft in his sermon 40. times at least well nigh twice as oft as he alleadgeth any other that he relyeth very much on his authoritie To him here he addeth Eusebius Epiphanius some others whose testimonie in his conceit should suffice to perswade for such a matter as this now in question But his Refuters exception is just such a ioynt act of the Apostles in the beginning of the Church as the ordeyning of Iames to the episcopall charge of Ierusalem how should it be proved but by the scripture and who could better testify it then the Evangelist Luke who wrote the historie of their actes If then he hath not recorded it it is a strong presumption he was never Bishop there The Doct. replyeth saying as though the Apostles did nothing but what is recorded in the Actes and as though we should deny credit to the ancientest writers such as he of best credit reporting with one consent a matter of fact not registred in the actes As for the antiquity and credit of his witnesses I overpass that consideration to sect 15. c. I am here to advertise the Reader the poverty of the Doctors supply here brought to releeve the weaknes of his argument For unlesse he can make sure and certein Proof of this among other partes of his induction that S. Iames was ordeyned by the Apostles Bishop of Ierusalem how shall he justify his conclusion before set down to wit that the episcopal function is without quaestion of apostolicall institution And howe shall certeine and sure proofe of Iames his ordination to the Bishoprick of Ierusalem be made from such witnesses as the Doctor hath produced Are not the canonicall writings of the newe testament penned partly by the Apostles and partly by Evangelists which were their companions best able to testify what function Iames and other faithfull servants of Christ did beare and exercise in the Churches that injoyed their presence We find many things recorded by Luke concerning the Ministerie of Paul and Barnabas Philip and others by whose labours the kingdome of Christ was inlarged Acts 9. 15. 27. 13. 2. 3. 14. 14. 15. 22. 31. 8. 5. 40. 21. 8. Neyther are the scriptures silent touching Iames and his imployment at Ierusalem Act. 1. 13. 15. 13. 21. 18. Gal. 1. 9. 2. 9 why then should this ordinatiō of Iames to the function and charge of a Bishop in that Church be wholly buried in silence if it had bene the joynt-act of the Apostles before their dispersion and an act of that moment wherein they gave the first president of a new function of greatest use highest place for all churches in succeeding ages Was it not as worthy more necessarie to be recorded then the first institution of the Deacons office Act. 6. 2. 6 Have we not cause then to hold it for a strong presumption that Iames never had any such ordination seing there are no footsteps of it in the Apostolical writings and seing the Doctors defense is so slight as it is mark it I pray first he asketh whether the Apostles did nothing but what is recorded in the Acts a frivolous question No man denyeth that as Christ did many things which are not written Ioh. 20. 30. 21. 25 so also did his Apostles but will he argue thus They did something not recorded in the scriptures Ergo they did this now in question How doth the Doct. forget himselfe thus to open so wide a dore unto the Papists to bring in all their superstitions under the name of vnwritten traditions Can he give us any one instance of an Apostolicall ordināce or of any Apostolike actiō of like momēt and necessarie use for all Churches that is not mentioned in their writings neyther can be proved otherwise then by the stories and writings of the Fathers And this may serve for answere also unto his second question whether we should deny credit to the ancientest Fathers c. reporting with one consent a matter of fact not registred in the acts In some matters of fact credit is not to be denied to their report as that Iames the Iust was martyred at Ierusalem and that Mark the Evangelist preached the gospel at Aleandria but there are many matters of fact testified by many ancients and those of the best credit as the D. speaketh which notwithstāding many worthy mē nothing inferior to the Doctor esteem worthy of no credit I wil instance only in Peters Bishoprick first at Antioch then at Rome which is contended for not onely by Papists but also by some zealous defenders of our Prelacie let the testimonies be wel weighed which are brought for the maintenance of Peters episcopall chaire in both Churches Rome especially even by Bishop Bilson perpet govern pag. 227. 262. and 264 and they wil be found to be neyther in number nor in credit inferiour to those that the D. alleadgeth for Iames his Bishoprick at Ierusalē yet as many other men of singular learning pietie doe deny credit to their report so the Doctor also as one nothing moved eyther with the authoritie of those fathers or with the judgement of his great Mr that gave him so good satisfaction in the studying of this controversy utterly secludeth the Apostle Peter from the office of a Bishop in any of those Churches as we may see serm pag. 81. 82. and in the 7. section of cap. 3. def If the Doctor shall say he hath reason to beleeve the testimony Sect. 5. of the Fathers for the one and to denie credit vnto them in the other know he that we haue reason also to withdrawe approbation from this which he alloweth But first listen we to the reasons that sway him in this question Although saith he the acte of making Iames Bishop be not set downe in the Actes yet the stori◠so speaketh of his continuance at Ierusalem Acts. 15. 21. of his assistance of presbyters of his presidencie in that Councill where Peter and Paul were present that it may appear their testimony is true agreable to the scriptures who have reported him to be Bishop there To the same purpose afterwards sect 9. pag. 61 he saith That the same scriptures togither with Gal. 1. 2. doe shew Iames his continuance as Ierusalē as the Superintendent of that Church not for a short time but for
over all the Churches of any kingdome or countrie we have reason to think that Titus his cōmission was extraordinarie In deed Theodoret on 1. Tim. 3. and Chrysostom Hom. 10. on 2. Tim. doe give as large jurisdiction to Timothy as to Titus yea farre more large esteeming him to have the charge of all in Asia as Titus had in Creta But Chrysostome plainely signifyeth that this was extraordinary for of Titus he sheweth that how soever Paul cōmitted so great a charge to him because he was one of his companions a man of whose fidelitie he had good proofe in whom he put much confidence Hom. 1. in epist ad Tit. yet it was never his meaning that his burthen should lye by continuall succession on the shoulders of any one man Hom. 2. in Tit. 1. 5. Per civitates inquit neque enim voluit Insulam totam vni viro permitti sed unicuique propriam curam ac solicitudinem indici c. If then Titus his cōmission to Creta was but Temporarie when Eusebius giveth to Timothy at Ephesus the self-same Overseer-ship or Bishoprick if you will the self same I say or the like for his power and function with that which Titus had over all the Churches in Creta When also Chrysostome some others doe match them in extent of jurisdiction extraordinary doth not the Doctor argue loosely in drawing their testimony to justify that peculiar function of a diocesan Bishop which he giveth unto Timothy and Titus Especially seing it is evident by Eusebius his owne wordes lib. 3. cap. 31. 32. that he acknowledgeth the first and neerest successors of the Apostles among whom he reckoneth Timothy and Titus to be for the most part Evangelists and plainely distinguisheth them from others which were more properly Pastors or Bishops And we have before observed out of Dorotheus that Timothy had no setled continuance at Ephesus as Bishops have on that one Church whereto they are affixed Ambrose also maketh S. Paul a fellow Bishop with Timothy when on 1. Tim. 1. 3. he giveth this note Obsecrat episcopus coepiscopum suum And Hierome though he gave the name of a Bishop unto Titus allotteth to him the peregrination of an Evangelist in saying if the Catalogue of ecclesiasticall writers in his first tome be his that he preached the gospell aswell in the Ilands lying round about as in Creta it selfe and that the Apostle did therefore call him away from Creta quia eum haberet necessarium in evangelij ministerium because he was necessarie for him for the ministery of the gospell Hieron in Tit. 3. The Refuters third answer therefore viz. that the scripture calleth Sect. 4. ad pag. 120. Timothy an Evangelist even after he was sent to Ephesus 2. Tim. 4. 5. is so farre from being contradicted by the fathers that it receiveth approbation from some of those whom the Doctor would draw to his side And whereas he addeth that if they had generally affirmed him to be a Bishop properly it cannot be of force to teach us contrary to the scriptures to acknowledge his episcopall function he speaketh but the truth neyther can the Doctor for shame directly contradict him in so saying yet rather then he will faile to make a shewe of impugning this answere he perverteth it to an other purpose then was meant saying It is all one with the second objection already answered viz that the scripture calleth Timothy an Evangelist and therefore he was no Bishop but the best is if that had bene so I hope the objection is sufficiently mainteyned against the D. answer As for the newe writers whom he alleadgeth pag. 110. for a new supply to concurre with the Fathers for the justifying of that Bishoprick which he ascribeth to Timothy and Titus his friendes may wonder at his impudency that can doe this without blushing Mr Calvin he saith the authors of the Centuries doe affirm that Timothy was the Pastor of the Church of Ephesus he should have added with all proved that by the name of a Pastor they meane a Diocesan Bp such as ours But the cōtrary is manifest first by the cold allowance which the authors of the Centuries give to Timothyes Bishoprick Cent. 1. lib. 2. col 614. when they say they can finde no certeintie in any approved writer quomodo aut quamdiu after what manner and how long Ephesianae ecclesiae Doctor gubernator prefuerit he was teacher and governour of the Church of Ephesus But especially by that which Mr Calvin saith on 2. Tim. 4. 5. to prove that Paul there speaketh of the office of an Evangelist 1. that there was such a speciall function mentioned Ephes 4. 11. betweene the Apostles and Pastors that were the second helpers to the Apostles 2. that the Evangelists excelled the Pastors in degree and dignitie of office 3. that it is most probable Timothy was one of them and not of the Pastors 4. that Paull in the honourable mencion of that his office respected both his incouragement and the commendation of his authoritie to others As for that presidencie which D. Fulk giveth on Tit. 1. 5. to Timothy and Titus I most freely subscribe unto it and yet reject that episcopall superioritie which the Doctor taking part with the Rhemists in their Annotations contendeth for in them In like manner I say with Beza that Timothy was the proestoos but that a president of a presbytery is according to Bezaes language a Bishop that is to say a Diocesan Bishop such as ours as the Doct. would have the reader to conceive it is so foul an untruth that he cannot without check of conscience avouch it seing he cannot be ignorant that Beza every where disclaimeth that sole and singular preheminence which the Doctor with the Romanists ascribe to Timothy and Titus Yea he flatly impugneth Timothies Bishoprick and that in most plaine termes in his Annot. on 1. Tim. 3. voluit eum Paulus ferente necessitate Ephesi subsistere non vt illi ecclesiae tanquam episcopus addictus esset sed vt ecclesia constituta pseudapostolis occurrere◠vnde etiam postea revocatus est romam ab ipso Apostolo neque constat an Timotheus postea sit Ephesum reversus vt qui fuerit Evangelista c. Paul would have him necessity requiring it to be at Ephesus not to be fixed as the Bishop to that Church but that the Church being constitute he might meet with the false Apostles from whence also he was afterwardes called to Rome by the same Apostle neyther is it certaine whether Timothy afterwards returned to Ephesus as he that was an Evangelist c. Thus having discovered the Doct. deceitfull and dishonest dealing with his owne witnesses and his weak handling of the whole controversie I hope I may be bolde with the Readers consent to conclude that the Doctors assumption touching Tim and Titus viz. that they were ordeyned to the function of diocesan Bishops by S. Paul the one at Ephesus the other in