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
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
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
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
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-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
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
esteemeth them to be the proper pastors of the Church lib. 4. pag. 141. lin 18. and giveth vnto other presbyters seâ—m pag. 45. no other pastorall authority then what is delegated vnto them by their Bishops Wherefore like as he reasoneth to shewe the lawfullnes and excellencie of the episcopall function pag. 54 so may we to prove by necessary consequence froÌ„ his owne wordes that it is generally or immutably necessary or perpetually imposed by Christ and his Apostles on all Churches For if the office of presbyters which in his opinion are but assitantes vnto the Bishops admitted in partem sollicitudinis to seed that parte of the Church which he should commit vnto them be not onely lawfull but necessary also to be reteyned and that jure divino then the same may be said much more of the function of Bishops that are as he supposeth the cheef and principall pastors even by Gods ordinance But if their function be not divini juris nor generally and perpetually necessary for all Churches then let the Doctor also professe plainely that he mainteineth not the office of Presbyters or any other Ministers to be The Doct. saith as much for the perpetuity of Di ocesan Bishops as of any ministers of the word yea more divini juris and generally or perpetually necessarie for the feeding or governing of the visible Churches of Christ Yea let him without staggering affirme that it is a thing indifferent not de jure divino necessarie but left to every Churches libertie to accept or refuse as they shall see expedieÌ„â— those that are authorized of God as Starres Angels Pastors and guides to convey vnto them the light of his truth and the word or bread of life and to convert them in the way of salvation But 2. doth not his reasoning import the contrary when he saith pag. 55. that if every Minister be to be honoured in regard of his calling with double honour viz. of reverence and maintenance which he saith serm of the dignitie and dutie of the ministers p. 65. 73. is due to them by the word of God yea jure divino theÌ„ much more is the office of Bishops who are the cheife and principall Ministers to be had in honour Yea doth he not from the doctrine of his sermon in question inferre these vses impose them on the consciences of his hearers pag. 94 96 viz. 1. to acknowledge their function to be a divine ordinance 2. to have theÌ„ in honour as spirituall Fathers as the Apostle exhorteth the Philippians cap. 2. 29. and to receyve them as the Angels of God as they are called in his text 3. to obey their authoritie as being the holy ordinance of God according to the Apostles exhortation Heb. 13. 17. For can the consideration of Gods ordinance appointing their function commanding honor and obedience to be given vnto them in the dayes of the Apostles binde the coÌ„science at this day if their function were not of necessity to be coÌ„tinued Or can the exhortation of the Apostle Phil. 2. 29. Heb. 13. 17. touch the consciences of the people of England so strictly as he pretendeth and not reach at all to the conscience of those professors and teachers of the faith of Christ that live in other reformed Churches It is true I confesse that such Leaders and Labourers in the Lords worke must first be had before they can be honoured and obeyed but doe not these exhortations and many other apostolike canons which prescribe what is required eyther of Ministers for the good of their flocks or of people for incouragement of their Teachers as Act. 20. 28. 1. Tim. 3. 2. 4. 5. 17. 1. Pet. 5. 2. 3. 1. Cor. 9 14. Gal. 6 6. 1. Thess 5. 12. 13. Heb. 13 17. by an equall bond binde all Churches aswell to labour for the establishing of such Elders Bishops and Leaders as to see that when they are setled they may both give all diligence to performe their duties and receive all reverence and honour due vnto them And 3 how often doth he tell us in this defense lib. 3. pag. 24. 26. 44. 48 55. 59. 63. et alibi passim that many of his allegations doe testify for the superioritâ—e of Bishops not onely de fâ—cto but also de iure as giving test mony to the right and shewing what form of government ought to be as being in the judgement of the Fathers which he approveth perpetuall And though he returne the lie upon his Refuter lib. 3 pag 57. for saying that he plainly avoucheth a necessity of reteyning the government of Diocesan Bishops when he affirmeth that as it was ordeyned for the presâ—rvation of the Church in vnitie and for the avoiding of schiâ—me so it is for the same cause to be reteâ—ned yet he confessed pag. 64. that Ieroms judgement in the place alleadged was that Bishops are necessarily to be reteyned for the same cause to wit the avoyding of schisme for which they were first instituted And from the same words of Ierom he collecteth pag. 111. that of necessity a pâ—erelesse power is to be attributed unto Bishops Wherefore if the Which way soever the Doct. turneth him he offendeth D. be not guilty of a plaine-lie and notorious falsification of Ieroms meaning in carrying his words to a necessity in reteyning Bishops surely he hath much wronged his refuter to charge him with the like guiltynes for the like collection And if he consent not in judgment with Ierom he doth too much abuse his reader in fortifying his assertion with his testimony vnlesse he had given some intimation wherein he swarveth in opinion from him But 4. he discovereth his owne judgement touching the necessity of diocesan and provinciall Bishops something more clearely when he saith lib. 3. pag. 3. that of provinciâ—ll or nationall Churches the metropolitans Bishops of dioceses aâ—e and ougâ—t to be the governors For if he had intended onely a lawfullnes and not a necessity of reteyninge The Doct. wrongfully chargeth his Refuter their functions he would have sayd they are and may be rather then as he doth they are and ought to be the governors yea in his sermon pag. 32. doth he not imply a necessity I say not an absolute necessity as he wrongfully chargeth his Refuter lib. 3. p. 57. but a generall and perpetuall necessity for succeding ages aswell as for the Apostles times when he saith that vpon this threefolde superiority of Bishops scz singularity of preheminence during life power of ordination and power of jurisdiction there dependeth a three-fold benefit to every church to wit the vnity perpetuit e and eutaxie or good order thereof For who can deny that those things are generally and perpetually necessarie to be reteyned in every Church whereon the vnitie perpetuitie eutaxie of every Church dependeth If the Doctor shall thinke to escape by saying that the perpetuity Sect. 5. ad lib. 4 pag. 102 147. and
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
ordination performed by Ministers that are no Bishops doth evidently shewe it The truth is saith he where Ministers may be had none but Ministers ought to baptise and where Bishops may be had none but Bishops ought to ordâ—yn But though neyther ought to be done yet being done the former by other Christians in want of a Minister the later by other Ministers in defect of a Bishop as the one so the other also is of force the Church receiving the partie baptized into the communion of the faithfull and the partie ordâ—yned as a lawfull Minister Now if this be a truth say I then there must be a truth acknowledged also in these conclusions The D. againe saith as much for the per petuitie of the episcopall function as of the functioÌ„ af other Ministers that followe viz. That according to the rules of ordinarie Church-government as the right of administring baptisme is a peculiar prerogative of the ministeriall function jure divino by the lawe of God so eodem jure even by the same lawe the right of ordination is peculiar to the Bishops And as all Churches under heaven till the comming of Christ to judgement are bound to strive for the establishing reteyning of that Ministerie which God hath authorized to administer baptisme so are all Churches by a like band tied to contend for the episcopall function which hath right to ordeyne And consequently the calling of Bishops for ordeyning is as generally perpetually and immutablie necessarie as the office of other Ministers is for the work of baptisme I add that in the D. opinion there is as perpetuall and immutable a necessitie of the episcopal function for the ordering of every Church as there is in the opinioÌ„ of many very judicious divines of wine for the holy and pure administration of the Lords supper For whereas he alloweth not of any other forme of Church-governement then by Bishops unlesse in case of necessity where orthodoxall Bishops cannot be had and that because any government whatsoever is better then none at all serm pag. 97 In the like necessity where wine cannot be had they judge it better to take in stead of wine water or any other kinde of drinke vsuall in such places then wholly to neglect the Lords sacrament or to maime it by an halfe administration in one onely element see Polani Syntag. Col. 3213. Wherfore as their allowaÌ„ce of a change in the outward elemeÌ„t of the Lords supper being limitted to such an extraordinarie case doth rather support then contradict their assertion that the Church hath not libertie to refuse wine or to preferre any other element before it the D. his excusing other reformed Churches for enterteyning a Presbyteriall aristocracie in stead of an episcopall Monarchie onely in such a case of necessity as he pretendeth might give his Refuter just occasion to think though he affirmed no such mattet that he held the episcopall governmeÌ„t to be divini juris thereby intending that all Churches are bound to preferre it aswell in their indeavours as in their judgement before Sect. 6. ad serm p. 79. Defens lib. 4. pag. 100. 146. 148. and 167. any other forme of government whatsoever But there is an higher pitch of the necessity of this function as may appeare by some words that slipped from the D. in the penning of his sermon pag. 79. to witt that the function and authority which Timothy and Titus had as being assigned to certeyne churches is ordinary and perpetually necessary not onely for the welbeing but also for the very The D. did hold the episcopal function perpetually necessary for the very being of the visible Churches being of the visible Churches For from hence it followeth by good consequence as his Refuter rightly gathereth answer pag. 145 and 138. that seing in his judgment the function and authoritie which they had was episcopall and diocesan such as ours is now therefore also in his judgement the episcopall power or government of Diocesan Bishops is perpetually necessary for the very being of the visible Churches Now herewith the Doctor is highly offended and chargeth him with mallice want of iudgemeÌ„t and with ignorant mistaking or wilfull depraving of his sayings and that against sense lib. 4. pag. 146. 148. 167. A great charge in deed but how doth he avoide the consequence objected for sooth to explaine his meaning he dismembreth his owne speach cutteth asunder the knot which with his own tongue and pen he had knit for whereas before he spake jointly as of one thing expressed by two words of their function and authority that it was ordinarie and The Doct. plaieth fast and loose tieth vntieth but every one may see the sleight to his â—â—ame perpetually necessarie now to shew his skill in playing fast and loose at his pleasure he saith pag. 100. and 147. he meant that their function was ordinarie and their authoritie was perpetually necessary But as slippery as he is his Refuter will not suffer him thus to slip his neck out of the coller all his wit and learning can neyther unloose nor cut a sunder that chayne which bindeth him to a grosse absurdity His wordes serm pag. 79 are these The function authoritie which Timothy and Titus had as being assigned to certeine Churches viz. of Ephesus and Creete consisting specially in the power of ordination and iurisdiction was not to end with their persons but to be continued in their successors as being ordinary and perpetually necessary not onely for the wellbeinge but also for the very beinge of the visible Churches Yf the Doctor had meant so to divide the later parte of his speach as he woulde now perswade what meant he not to discover his meaning plainely It had bin easy for him to have disioyned their function from their authority in his whole speach on this manner q. d. But neyther was the function which Tim. and Tit. had at Ephesus and in Crete to ende with their persons as being ordinary neyther was their authority to dye with them as being perpetually necessary c. Therefore had he so ment in deed and truth as he now professeth since there wanted not skill there must needs be in him a wante of will to speake plainely vnto the capacity of his reader The Doct. is guilty of that imputation which he professeth to abhorr so that he standeth here guilty of that â—oul imputation which elsewhere he professeth to abhorre lib. 2. pag. 52. viz. a desyre and intent of dazeling the eies of the simple I might say the eies of all even the moste judicious as all maye see that reade with a single eie and weigh with an upright hand what he hath written But to speake what I think he rather belieth his owne heart in The D. in all likelihood belieth his owne hart saying now that he then meant that which he never dreamt of till he had set his witts a work to finde out some flie
Bishop of the City adjoyninge how could they and their people be reputed parts of the Citie-Church or inclosed within her circuite Wherefore since it is confessed serm pag. 24. that Country townes remeined heathenish for a time after the conversion of the Citie it must be confessed also that the Churches circuite at the first did not inclose the Countrie villagies as it did afterwardes Notwithstanding to justify his former assertion he alleadgeth that there were no more Bishops set over the City and Country when all were Christians then when there were but a fewe the same Bishop of the City having jurisdiction over all the Christians both in the City and the Country aswell when all were Christians as when but a fewe He would have said that the Bishops which succeeded some ages after in the same City had the same jurisdiction over all the people of City and Country when they were all converted to the faith which the first apostolike Bishops had over those fewe in the City Country adjoyning that first yeelded obedience to the Gospell For he acknowledgeth Def. pag. 54. that it could scarce be verified in any place till Constantines time which was above 200. yeares after the Apostle Iohns daies that all the people of City Country were Christians But with what bands can the D. tie togither these parts of his reasoning with what hands can the Doct. tie togither the parts of his reasoning The Bishops in Constantines time and after had the like jurisdiction over all the people of City and Country that the first Apostolike Bishops had over those fewe that first imbraced Christianity Therefore the circuite of the Church was at the first when they were but fewe the same that it was after when all became Christians Is there not much more probability in this coÌ„sequence The Bishops in Constantines daies and after had the like jurisdiction over all the people of City and Country that the first apostolike Bishops had over those fewe which at first imbraced Christianity Ergo the circuite of the Church and Bishops charge was farr lesse whiles there were but a fewe then it was when all the people of City and Country were converted vnto the Christian faith Which of these two hath more probability I leave to the indifferent reader to judge Wherefore till the D. can make good the consequence of his reasoninge all the proofes which he braggeth of for the demonstration of his antecedent the ancientest of them being after the first 300. yeares as appeareth Def. pag. 36. c. doe give just occasion of returning into his owne boosome that definitive sentence which he delivereth against his opposites viz. that the generall consent and perpetuall practise of all Christendome since the Apostles times ought without coÌ„parison to prevayle with all men in perswading theÌ„ to acknowledge that every Churches circuite was much inlarged by the generall conversion of all in Cities and Countrey townes above the authority of a fewe self-conceited persons such as the D. and his associates not so singular for learninge as they are singular in opinion when they would make the world beleeve if they could that every Churches circuite was the same at first when but a fewe imbraced the faith that it was after wheÌ„ all the people of City Country were made members of one diocesan Church If the D. shall flie as to a Sanctuary â—o his former evasion viz. that the Châ—câ—â—â—uite contâ—ined at the first both City câ—uÌ„tâ—y in the inteÌ„tioÌ„ of the Apost or first founders I haue enough already said to drive him out of this starting hole unless he caÌ„ provide some better forfication to releeve himselfe in this behalfe But he supposeth that he hath sufficiently fortified his assumptioÌ„ by repairing the breaches which his Refuter had made in the reason which his sermon tendred in defence thereof His words are these whereas our Saviour Christ writing to the Churches of Asia numbreth but 7. and naming the principall and some of them mother-cities of Asia saith the 7. starres were the Angles of the 7. Sect. 18. ad sect 9. pag â—5 56. Churches it cannot be denied that the Churches whereof they were Byshops were great and ample cities and not the cities alone but the couâ—tries adjoyning From hence his Refuter drewe this connexive syllogisme answere p. 55. if our Saivour writing to the Churches of Asia numbreth â—ut 9. and some of them mother cities then they were great and ample cities and not the cities alone but the countries adjoyning But our Saiviour c. Ergo Now the D. misliking the frame of this argument referreth him to his former manner of arguing sect 2. pag. 42. 43. where he shewâ—th how this lyllogisme is to be framed and there we find a double proof layd downe in defence of his assumption as he hath now shaped it vz. that the 7. Churches contained within their circuite the cities and countries adjoyning the which he affirmeth to be proved first joyntly thus if the 7. Churches within their circuite comprized all the Churches in Asia then all both in cities and countries But the first is true for our Saviour Christ writing to the Churches â—n Asia comprizeth all vnder these 7. as being the principall and contayning within their circuite all the rest Concerning the Doct. joyntly let us severally observe first that he concealeth his conclusion secondly that he departeth from the words laid downe in his sermon and thirdly that he followeth not his owne directions giuen for the reducing of an Enthymeme or connexive argument into a simple syllogisme 3. Faults at once in the Doctor worth the noting 1. we need not mervile why he concealeth his conclusion the reason is apparant he concludeth not his assumption which is in questioÌ„ For his propositioÌ„ being such as it is vz. that if the 7. Churches comprized within theire circuite all the Churches in Asia then all both in cities and countries his conclusion must be this none other that the 7. Churches did comprize within their circuite all the Churches that were both in the cities and countries of Asia a point farr differing from that which himselfe proposed to prove to wit that the 7. Churches within their circuite conteyned both the cities and countries adjoyning that is as himselfe explaineth his owne meaning pag. 52. the circuite of every one of those 7. Churches conteyned both the citie and country adjoyning for the consequence of his proposition as he hath proposed it runneth more currant then it would if he had sayd as he should thus If the 7. Churches comprised within their circuite all the Churches in Asia then every of those 7. Churches conteyned in her circuite the whole citie with the country adjoyning For here a man might very wel deny the coÌ„sequent although he sawe better proof then the D. hath brought for the justifying of the Antecedent 2. But when departeth he froÌ„ the words of his sermon both in the antecedent
one thing as Apoc. 14. 6. 9. three rancks of Ministers succeeding one another and concurring in one course of doctrine The 7. Kings and the two Kings above mentioned Apoc. 17. Dan. 11. were so many orders or states of government The parties refusing the marriage feast were so many companies agreing in one excuse c. In like manner if the Refuter shall say that those 7 monades of Angels reckoned up Apoc. 2. 3. were so many societies of Ministers conjoyned in one charge of one Church the D. may see his interpretation is backed by many like speeches in script where one monade or vnitie is put for many linked togithe in one societie Passe we now on to his 3. argument from which we might well Sect. 4. passe seing it might have bin better spared then ill spent it being nothing but a new repetition of what he urged before to prove the assumption of his second onely he hath here set in forme of reasoning the strength of that which was in substance of matter there delivered when he â—ayth The inscriptions of the 7. epistles written to the Angels doe shâ—w that they were 7. singular persons But least he should judge better of it then there is cause I will not refuse to examine it and this it is To whome the epistles were written they were just 7. for they were written singulâ— singulâ—s thâ— first to the first c. To the Angels of the 7. Churches the 7. epistles were written Therefore the Angels of the 7. Churches were juste 7. Once againe I must demaund whaâ— he meaneth by just 7 If 7. singular persons onely the proposition is grosly false and that also which he addeth for the proofe thereof for those epistles were not written singulae singulis personis each to one onely person but rather singulae singulis socâ—itaâ—ibuâ— each epistle to that societie of Angels or Byshops which attended on the Church in that citie mentioned in the inscription and not to them alone but also to the whole Ch. as is manifest by Apoc. 1. 11. and consequently in regard of that communion which all Churches have one with another to the rest of the Churches yea to every one that hath an eare to heare as the conclusion of each epistle sheweth chap. 2. 7. 11. 17. 29. and chap 3. 6. 13. 22. As for the testimony of Arethas Ambrose they nothing help to conclude his purpose scz that the Angels in his text were onely 7. persons For as we need not deny the Angels to whoÌ„ the epistles were written to be as Arethas saith iust of the same nuÌ„ber with the Churches so we may graunt with Ambrose that these 7. Angels were the 7. â—â—lers of the 7. Ch. And yet it followeth not that by the Angels mentioned in the D. text are ment onely 7. overseing Angels other Angels or Minist excluded as shal be shewed hereafter in answ to his next sectioÌ„ the testimony of fathers and new writers also they are moâ— that are with us then with him in this point namely that by the Angel of the Church in each inscription is to be understood more then one Minister or Church-ruler Mr. Fox in his meditations on the Revelation pag. 7. 9. 17. gathering and conferring togither the opinion of all interpreters that he could meet with sayth they all consented in this that vnder the person of an Angel the Pasâ—oâ— and Ministers of the Churches were vnderstood let the reader see what he sayth there concerning Augustin Primasius Hayâ—o Beda Richard Thomas and others I will also here shewe what some of them saye Augustin epist 132. sayth thus Siâ— enim in Apocalypsi legitur Angelus c. Qâ—od si deAngelo superiorem Câ—lorum et non dâ— prâ—positis ecclesiae vellet intelligi noÌ„ consequenter diceret habeo adversuÌ„ te c. whereby he plainely sheweth that though he spake afterwards but as of one yet he vnderstood it of more then one as his 2. homely upon the Apocalyps sheweth Quod autem dicit Angelo Thyatirae habeo adversum te dicit prepositis ecclesiarum That he sayth to the Angel of Thyatira I have somewhat agaynst the he sayth it to the rulers of the Churches And though Byshop Bilson alledgeth him to prove the contrary in the self same epistle the words following Laudatur sub Angeli nomine praepositus ecclesiae the ruler of the Church is praised vnder the name of an Angel yet have we reasâ— to think he ment not to appropriate to one onely person eyther the title of prepositus ecclesiae or the praise there spoken of seing in the selfe same epistle compared with his 2. homely before named he includeth both the company of Presbyters the whole Church and it is easy to shew out of other his writings that by prepositus ecclesie ruler of the Church he vnderstaÌ„deth all them that had authoritie to preach the worde and to rebuke men of sinne c see his Tract on Iohn 46. and de civitate dei lib. 1. cap. 9. and Mr. Fox his meditations in Apoc ex August in Apoc. Hom. 2. Interdum Angelorum nomine ecclesias catholicas voluit intelligi neque enim soli opinor minîstri sed et universitas totius ecclesiae vocatur ad poenitentiam I could add to him Chrisostom in cap. 2. ad Tim. Ambrose in 1. Cor. 11. 10. Ierom on the same place and Phil. 1. 1. Gregory in his moral on Iob. lib. 11. cap. 3. Beda in Luk. lib. 2. cap. 7. Rupertus Tincinens lib. 1. in Apoc. c. 3. Albin lib. 1. in Ioh. 1. Aretius in Apoc 3. 1. Marlorat in Apoc. 2. 1. Angelos ecclesiasticaruÌ„ in dextra sua habet Christus hoc est pastores omnes et episcopos seu verbi Ministros potestate sua regit c. And that it was not his meaning by the Apostles meaning of the word Angel in the singular nomber in each inscription as the D. would have it to vnderstand one onely cheife Pastor or Byshop over the rest but all the Ministers of each Church vnder that name may appeaâ—e by that he sayth that the 5. epistle was written vnto the Pastors of the Church which was at Sardis in cap 3. 1. againe in cap. 2. 1. verisilmile est c. It is very like that not some one of the ecclesiastical governors is noted here in the places following but the whole succession of the Byshops c. To passe by our owne writers Mr. Fox Mr. Perkins Mr. Brightman and others I will onely note what D. Fulâ—e saith in answer to the Rhemists in Apoc. 1. 20. S. Iohn saith he by the Angels of the Churches meaneth not all that should weare on their heads myters and hold crosier staves in their hands like dead Idols But them that are the faithfull messengers of Gods word and utter and declare the same Againe they are called the Angels of the Churches because they be Gods messengers unto the Churches But to shut up with 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
be fortified by this Enthymeme Those whole cities and countries whose people are generally so â—stranged from the faith that their conversion must be laboured are not diocesan Churches like to ours Therefore neyther they who were appointed over such cities and countries set over diocesan Churches such as ours The Antecedent is a truth so apparant to all the world that it were madnes to contradict it And the consequence is such as I verify think no man of comon sense will ever call it into question As for the Refuters exceptions against the proposition which he had framed for an other purpose they are as the Doctor saith eavils not worth the refuting and yet to shewe his valour he will needes have a fling at them though with shame to himselfe For first for want of just matter of blame he forgeth a false calumniation in in saying That his Refuter absurdly eavilleth with him as if he had sayd that all in the citie and country were in S. Iohns time converted For the fumme of the first exception is nothing but this that the Apostles ordeyned Preseyters for such an end as he supposeth yet it followeth not that the Churches were great cities the countries adioyning And he backeth it with this reason that the seed of the word in many places was thick sowne but came thin up and the heat of perseeution at that time burnt up the zoale and profession of many Which if it were too weak to justify the exception why doth he not take notice of confute it thinketh he his unpartiall readers will take it for a sufficient refutation to say it is a cavill not worth the refuting The second exception is of more moment because it serveth also to weaken the proposition of the Doctors owne argument before set downe For the ordeyning of Presbyters for whole cities and countries to labour the conversion of all that in those places belonged to God can never prove that they were appointed to the care and charge of diocesan Churches unlesse there be a necessitie that all which in time were to be converted by their Ministerie should be and remaine members of the same Church with them It shall not be amisle therefore to stay a while upon the examination of that which the Refuter hath sayd to justifie his deniall and the Doct. to mainteyn the affirmation of this necessitie Sect. â— In defense of the negative it was alleadged answ pag. 57 that it is very likely if not certeyne that they of Cenchrea received the gospell from Corinthe for Cenchtea was the port of Corinthe and not farre from it as Radcliffe or Lymehouse to London yet was it a distinct Church from that of Corinth for it is called the Church of Cenchrea Rom. 16. 1. The Doctor in his reply first layeth downe his own opinion touching this matter and then indeavoreth to wrest that example of the Church of Cenchraea out of his refuters handes His owne opinion or rather definitive sentence quast ex cathed a satis pro imperis he delivereth in this maner I say that they whose Ministerie was intended for the conversion of the citie and countrie to their care and charge both for the first conversion of them and government of them being converted the citie and country belonged And the Doctor onely saith it and dareth the Refuter or any of his vnlearned associates contradict it No verily they will rather assent to him so farre as truth and reason grounded on the truth of Gods word will permit them that is kat â—â— in parr but not aploos and in generall for it is most true that the Apostles and Evangelists whose Ministerie was intended eyther to begin or to bring forwards the conversion of any citie and country had the care and charge of the people in those parts aswel for the governing of them whom they did convert as for the labouring of their conversion at the first But how long and how was it for a perpetuitie or for a time onely till they might be furnished with their proper Ministery And when the faith spread it self from any of those cheife cities which first enterteyned it into the townes adjoyning that with such increase that the number of beleevers in those places were sufficient to make two or moe Churches or congregations did they all remaine still parts of one Church and was it esteemed by such as effected their assemblies Here lieth the pith and marrow of the present controversie wherefore if the Doctor doth resolutely hold the affirmative he should haue plainly contradicted the refuter and sayd there was a necessitie that all which were brought to the faith in any city and country adjoyning by the labours of any appointed for their conversion should remayn though never so many or farre distaÌ„t meÌ„bers of the citie-Church which first enterteyned the gospell Perhaps he thought his readers would expect some better proofe then his bare word I say it to conclude this necessitie And it was not easy for him to yeeld any sound reason for the justifying of such an assertion in wisdome therefore he judged it better to say and affirme that which though it beleffe pertinent yet might seeme more reasonable viz. that such as were converted by their labours that were appointed to indeavor their conversion should submit themselves to be governed by them and in stead of yeilding any pregnant demonstration to confute his Refuters exception to make a shewe of removing that which was alleadged by him To this purpose he addeth that though Cenchrea be called a Church yet was it not such a Church as we now speak of indued with power of ecclesiasticall government but subiect to the â—urâ—sliction of the Church of Corinthe Thus he faith but hath he any other reason then such as before I say it to shewe the subjection of Cenchrea to the Church of Corinthe No surely for though he often reiterateth this affirmation pag. 46. 105. 129. yet his best proofe is most certeynly so it was I doubt not therefore but with the indifferent reader the phrase of the holy Ghost equalling the beleevers in Cenchrea and those in Corinth with the same name calling the one the Church in Cenchrxa the other the Church in Corinthe Rom. 16. 1. 1. Cor. 1. 2. will argue our assertion to be more probable when we say they were distinct Churches alike indued with power of ecclesiasticall government then his denyall that hath no other confirmation then I say it or so it was for what authoritie hath he eyther to subordinate one to another or to confine in one ecclesiasticall body those societies which Gods word maketh distinct Churches Thus much for his Proposition his Assumption coÌ„meth now to Sect. 6. 2d pag. 65. be examined which he saith is confirmed by two arguments the one the end intended by the Apostles in appointing Presbyters in cities which was the conversion of the nation for which themselves first preached in the cheife
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
Iames we account these particulars 1. that the Iewes had in former ages many prerogatives above all other nations 2. that the church of Ierusalem was in some respect as is before shewed sect 3. the Mother-church of Christendome 3. that Iames was an Apostle principally to the Iewes 4. and that among the Iewes those of Ierusalem and the country round about did more specially belong vnto his oversight whiles Peter and Iohn who were also Apostles for the Circumcision Gal. 2. 9. were imployed in other places 5. lastly that during his presidency in the Councell Acts 15. he was superiour in order but not in degree vnto the rest of the Apostles But among things more doubtfull besides the question it selfe of Iames his election or assignement to the function of a Bishop at Ierusalem I reckon these positions 1. that a presidencie in honour or preheminence in order such as he speaketh of is intimated by S. Paul in setting Iames before Peter and Iohn Gal. 2. 2. that this precedence is there given him in respect of his episcopall charge at Ierusalem 3. and that in the same respect he had the presidencie in the councell Act. 15. 4. that he was alwayes after the time of his supposed election to his Bishoprick superiour in order to the rest of the Apostles when and whiles they remayned at Ierusalem 5. that this continuance of that superioritie in him appeareth Act. 15. 6. And that this superiority or precedence did growe from the prerogatives which that Church and people had above others To these particulars if the Doctor will have us to give our free assent he must first inform us by what authoritie or consequence of reason he is ledd to apprehend a truth in every of them and remove the probabilities which doe incline our judgments to the contrary For touching Gal. 2. are not the wordes of the Apostle ver 7. Sect. 7. 8. affirming that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto Peter much more plaine for his preheminence above Iames and Iohn in the Apostleship of the Iewes then the naming of Iames before them vers 9. can be for his primacie above all his fellowe-Apostles Is it not then much more frivolous and ridiculous in the Doctor to extract for Iames a preheminence in honour above Peter and the rest of the Apostles from that slender prioritie which Paul giveth him in naming him first then it is in Bellarmine to ascribe vnto Peter a preheminent dignitie above the rest because he is usually named in the first place Why therfore should not that did up the Doctors mouth that hath dammed up Bellarmines Sidrac inter adolescentes qui in ignem coniecti sunt primus numeratur neque tamen Sidrac socijs suis prefuit Sutclif de Pont. lib. 2. p. 105. Quando multi nominantur necesse est aliquem primum nominari c. Gravissime Erasmus Annot. in Math. 10. ex ordine recensionis non efficaciter intelligitur quis cui sit preferendus Whit. de pont p. 27. l. Adde we harevnto that which is of all observed in their answere to Bellarm. viz. that one order of names is not alwayes kept Peter which is first placed Mat. 10. 2. Marc. 3. 16. Luc. 16. 14. Act. 1. 13. is set in the last place 1. Cor. 1. 12. 3. 22. 9. 5. And Iames here first named being one of the Lords brethren cōmeth after the greater part of the Apostles 1. Cor. 9. 5. when he saith the other Apostles and brethren of the Lord Cephas Levissimum igitur argumentum hoc ordinis est as Mr Whit. saith pag. 274. 2. And if no preheminence can soundly be conveyed to Iames from this precedence in nomination is not the D. strangely deluded when he taketh it for a sure truth that the Apostle intended by naming him in the first place to teach us not onely that he had a prerogative of honor above the rest of the Apostles but also that the same did arise from his episcopall charge at Ierusalem for is there any one word in the whole epistle that giveth the least intimation of any such difference betweene him Peter Iohn as the Doctor fancieth when he maketh him properly a Bishop for some and them Apostles for others of the circumcision Doth it not rather appeare by the right hands of fellowship c. mencioned verse 9. that Imaes exercised among the Iewes the same and no other Ministery that Peter and Iohn did and that they joyntly were Apostles for the Iewes like as Paul and Barnabas were for the Gentiles 3. And here by the way observe that this distribution of persons or places where these were after this agreement to exercise their Apostolicall function bred no inequalitie or disparitie betwixt them in precedence or honour For if the ancient prerogatives of the Iewes gave any preferment to their Apostles above those by whom God wrought among the Gentiles as the Do. supposeth then Paul was in this respect inferiour to the other but the whole scope of his reasoning tendeth to mainteyne the contrarie viz. that as elswhere he faith he was meden busterekenai in nothing inferiour to the very cheife Apostles 2. Cor. 11. 5. 12. 11. Now if the prerogatives of the Iewes in generall gave not to Peter who had the Apostleship of the circumcision any preheminence above Paul the Apostle Teacher of the Gentiles how should Peter become inferior unto Iames by reason of any preheminence which the Church at Ierusalem might challenge above other Christian Churches Now concerning Act. 15. as I freely acknowledge Iames his presidencie Sect. 8. to be probably gathered from the text because he concludeth the disputation adn the definitive sentence of the whole Assemblie vers 19. 20. 28. 29. so I can by no meanes allowe this presidencie to growe unto him as his right in regard of his episcopall charge in that Church much lesse can we take the presidencie for a sufficient proofe of his Bishoprick there although the Doctor should tell us tentimes that it proveth it For what strings can knit the joyntes of this argument togither Iames was president or Moderator in the Synode at Ierusalem Act. 15. Therfore he was the Bishop of that Church Was S. Paul the Bishop of Ephesus because as Bishop Barlow saith in his sermon on Actes 20. 28. pag. 2. he fate as president in the Convocation when the Clergie of Ephesus were by his call come togither Or was Peter Iames his predecessor in the Bishoprick of Ierusalem because he was president in the choise of Matthias to succeed in the roome of Iudas Act. 1. 15 Surgit Petrus non Iacobus vt is cui presidentia discipulorum cōmissa erat Occumenius in Act. 1. 15. Loquitur sane primus tanquam Antistes c. Whit. de pout pag. 288. 2. But to come to that which he saith doth appeare Act. 15. viz. that Iames after his election to the Bishoprick was superior in order to the
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
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
to the readers sentence therein let us proceed to that example or supposall before mencioned the rather for that he most proudly insulteth over his Refuter as if he were a Brownist or Anabaptist or had broached sundry schismaticall novelties as I am not ashamed once againe to lay downe his wordes to the readers viewe so I doubt not but to cleare him from those â—oul imputations Suppose saith he a Democracy where the common wealth is governed by the people it must needs be that in such a place there are lawes for the choosing admitting ordering and consuring of officers and directing them how to behave themselves in their offices What if this government fall into the handes of the nobilitie which continue the same lawes still in the same cases What if some one mightier then the rest at the last make himselfe sole-governour still observing those fundamentall lawes which were at the first established is it to be sayd that those lawes were the very patternes and precedents of the Aristocraticall and Monarchicall government whereby the first maker of those lawes would inform in the one the nobilitie in the other the Monarchie and in them all other how to exercise that function The administration of Church matters touching ordination and iurisdiction was first in the severall Churches or congregatioÌ„s which by their Presbyteries had the managing of all Church-busines in processe of time it came to be restreyned to the Clergie onely the Bishop and his presbyterie of Ministers onely at last as things growe worâ—â— and worse the Bishop like a Monarch gâ—â—t the reignes into his owne hands Now though the lawes of ordiâ—aâ—im and iurisdiction remeine the same and the practise also in some sort yet are they not patternes and precedents eyther of the second or third kinde of government neyther were they given to instruct the Bishop alone or the Bishop and his Clergie togither These are the Refuters words now the Doct. having first solaced himselfe in an idle repetition of the particulars interlaced with scornfull gibes to shewe the unlearneder sorte the trim Idea as he pleaseth to speake of that discipline which the Refuter and his fellow challengers have forged he coÌ„meth at his leasure very gravely to refute his supposed novelties one after an other in this order First it is here presupposed saith he that every Church indued with power of ecclesiâ—sticall government was a parish c. which dotage I have before refuted Shall I say that we have before proved his assertion that the first Churches were properly dioceses to be a meere dotage I will rather say he might well have spared the mencioÌ„ of this controversy seing the Refuter doth not once mencion the word parish or parishonall The second supposed novelty he maketh this that the foruse of Church government at first was democraticall or popular the chief authority being in the people which by the Presbyterie did ordeine and censure all Church-officers His Refuters wordes are these The administration of Church-matters was first in the severall Churches or congregations which by their Presbyters had the managing of all Church-busynes And againe the right was in the Church and the execution in the Presbytery But doth the Doctor speak as he thinketh when he calleth this schismaticall novelty and for this esteemeth his Refuter a Brownist or Anabaptist Knoweth he whome he woundeth in thus censuring him his opinion hath he never observed in his reading the Centuries cent 2. Col. 134. this saying Si quis probatos authores huius sâ—â—uli perspiciat videbit formaÌ„gâ—bernationis propemoduÌ„ democratias similem fuisse Singulae enim ecclesiae parem habebant potestatem verbum dei pure decendi sacramenta administrandi absolvendiet excommunicandi haereticos scelerátos ministros eligendi ordinandi justissimas ob causas iterum deponendi c. The same wordes are recorded also in Catalogo test verit lib. 2. Col. 108. but more directly to purpose speaketh D. Whitgist in his defense pag. 180. In the Apostles times the state of the Church was popular And pag. 182 I therefore call it popular saith he because the Church it self that is the whole multitude had interest almost in everything Shall he be now with the Doctor a Brownist or Anabaptist for so saying And why shall not Thomas Bell a professed enemie to all Brownists and wholly devoted to the Prelates service be taxed of schismaticall novelty for teaching as he doth that excoÌ„munication precisely and cheefly perteyneth to the Church and that she hath authority to commit the execution thereof to some speciall persons fit for that purpose and chosen for that ende this he saith and this he proveth by Christes wordes Math. 18. 17. 18. dic ecclesiae tell the Church c. that is to say in his vnderstanding vnto the whole congregation see his regiment of the Church cap. 12. sect 4. If his credit be little worth which the Doctor yet me thinks he should be ashamed to justify the Rhemists and Bellarmin against Doctor Fulk and Doct. Willet who affirme that the right and power of the keies and so of excommunication belongeth vnto the Church and the Pastors prelates exercise it as in the name of Christ so in the name of the whole Church see Doctor Fulk answ to the Rhem on 1. Cor. 5. sect and D. Willet Synops cont 5. quest 4. part 2. But Mr. Beza if you will beleeve the Doct. making mencioÌ„ of one Morellius who pleaded in like manner for the popular government giveth him this stile Democraticus quidem fanaticus De Minist gradibus cap. 23. pag. 155. But Mr Bezaes wordes in that place doe shewe that he giveth that stile to Morellius for no other cause then this that he presumed by word and writing to reprehend that order which for election of Church-officers is religiously and prudently observed in the citie of Geneva Which is such as well accordeth with the Refuters doctrine for it alloweth the Church to be electionum sacrarum conscia et approbatrix to take notice and give approbation howsoever a prerogative is given to the Pastors Magistrates to goe before the people in the choise 2. Notwithstanding the Doctor asketh if it be not a phrensy to urge the peoples supremacie in Church government and whether there be any shewe in scripture or in reason that the sheep should rule their shepheard or the flock their Pastor Say as much should be graunted as his questions imply must he not first prove that his Refuter giveth supremacie of rule unto the sheep or people over their Pastor before he can conclude him to be ledde by a fanaticall spirit against scripture reason But is there not want of judgement rather in the Doctor that imagineth the Pastor to be ruled by the sheep or people when the Church which is the whole body hath the managing of all Church-affaires by her Presbyters which are the principall members Doth not Cyprian that holy Martyr say lib. 1. epist 4.
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
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
also they lived dyed I answer hath he not by as good proofs shewed Iames his assignement to the Church of Ierusalem and his living and dying there If then all this notwithstanding it be true that Iames was not properly a Bishop doth he not reason loosely when from such assignement of Timothy and Titus he concludeth them to be properly Bishops The refuters second answere is that it is manifest by Zuinglius his writings he neyther thought they were nor any other might be a diocesan Bishop Whereto the Doctor replyeth belike he spake otherwise then he thought and then addeth an other testimony of Zuinglius which saith that Timothy was a Bishop and that the office of an Evangelist and of a Bishop is all one where behold with what conscience the Doctor wresteth the words of his owne witnesse froÌ„ their meaning for there is nothing more evident to them that peruse Zuinglius his writings then this that with him every preacher of the gospell at this day hath as good right to the name of an Evangelist and of a Bishop as to the title of a presbyter or pastor vocat ad se Paulus Act. 20. presbyterâ—s i. episcopos Evangelistas vel ecclesiae ministros lib. de ecclesia fol. 48. And Tom. 1. fol. 115. in his parenesis to the cities of Helvetia affirmeth that the Bishop spokeÌ„ of 1. Tim. 3. was any Pastor or Minister of the Church Quo in loco saith he discimus omnes ecclesiarum ministros episcopos esse et dici eiusdem sententia assertorum habemus Hieromimum and fol. 117. having cited Tit. 1. 5. 7. to the same purpose he addeth Evidenter demonstrat bis locus c. this place evidently sheweth that a Bishop is no other then a Minister of the Church whom wee use to call parochum a parish preist or Minister But that the Reader may see how much Zuinglius misliked the large jurisdiction singular preheminence of Bishops at this day in use and that he was too great a favourite of the parish discipline to be wrested by the Doctor in defense of the monarchicall or rather in his judgment Tyranicall government of diocesan Bishops I praye the reader to have patience till we come to the first of the Doctors 3. arguments handled in the third part of this reply Chap. 11. Conteyning an answer to another of the the D. Arguments concerning the Bishopricks of Timothy and Titus handled sect 13-16 from pag. 98. to 104. FRom these two objections in the pursute whereof the Doctor Sect. 1. ad sect 13. pag. 98. fedd himselfe with a vaine hope to gaine some advantage he now returneth to give a fresh onset on his Adversary in this manner The supposed Evangelisticall function of Timothy Titus was to ende with their persons and admitted no succession as being both extraordinary temporary But the function and authority which they had as being assigned to certeine Churches viz. of Ephesus and of Creet consisting specially in the power of ordination jurisdiction was not to ende with their parsons but to be continued in their successors Therefore the function and authority which Timothy Titus had as being assigned to Ephesus and Creet was not extraordinary and Evangelisticall This argument layd downe serm pag. 79. his Refuter tooke to be opposed against the Antecedent of that objection which affirmeth Timothy and Titus to be Evangelists and who would not have so judged seing the conclusion denyeth their function authority to be Evangelisticall But he saith that the introduction premised before this argument hereof we may conclude thus sheweth that he intended not to deny or disprove that Antecedent but to bring a new supply of argument to prove that Timothy and Titus were Bishops of Ephesus Creet Which difference I referre wholly to the judgment of the indifferent reader not doubting but he will discharge the Refuter from all blame eyther of willfull or of negligent mistaking And whereas he flatly denieth that he doth deny they were Evangelists that he may not hide himselfe under a cloud I desire him plainely to answere us whither they remayned Evangelists after that calling which he supposeth they had to be Bishops If yea why doth he insinuate the contrary pag. 95. lin 24. c. when to justify this that they were not Evangelists but Pastors and Bps he saith that after they were placed the one in Ephesus the other in Creet they traveiled not vp and downe as in former tymes when they accompanied the Apostles but ordinarily remayned with their flocks If no why maketh he his Reader beleeve that in the conclusion of his argumeÌ„t above mencioned he neyther doth nor did intend to deny that they were Evangelists But as often before so here againe we must and will follow him in his owne way when he saith his purpose was from the former conclusion thus to argue The function and authority which Timothy and Titus exercised in Ephesus and Creet was eyther extraordinary and Evangelisticall as the disciplinarians teach or else ordinary and episcopall as the prelatists affirme But it was not extraordinary and evangelisticall Therefore ordinary and episcopall Here the assumption is the conclusion of the former argument and the proposition he taketh for granted as if it fully delivered the points of difference betweene us and him with his Associates in the cause he pleadeth Wherefore we must take leave to lay downe our owne opinion more clearely which is this in few words First we distinguish function from authority both which the Doct. coÌ„foundeth for though we affirme their function there exercised to be Evangelisticall and therefore extraordinary yet we doe not so avouch of their whole authority nor yet of that authority or power of ordination jurisdiction whereof he speaketh in the assumptioÌ„ of his former argument as the Doct. may perceive by the Refuters words whereof he tooke notice pag. 84. Againe we distinguish betwixt authority simply considered and in generall to performe the works of preaching and ordeyning c. And that particular or personall authority which for the exercise of these works was invested in their persons and gave them allowance in all places where they came to exercise the works of their calling And therefore though we grant as before is noted the authority it selfe in abstracto simply considered to be ordinarily and perpetually necessary yet we affirme their personall authority to be Evangelisticall because all the authority they had did flow from their Evangelisticall function For like as the Apostles preached and baptized by the authority of their Apostleship so did Timothy Titus both Preach and impose hands c. by vertue of their Evangelistship So then to make answer first to the D. disjunctive argument 1. as touching the function which Timothy Titus exercised in Ephesus and Creet we affirme it to be extraordinary and Evangelisticall and therefore in that respect utterly reject his Assumption 2. touching their authoritie consisting as
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
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
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
opinion which is so unlike to mine nothing hindreth but my arguments may be good though theirs be naught For those argumēts which demonstratively prove the episcopall function to be of Apostolical institution doe not straitewayes prove it to be divini juris Wherefore my opinion being so farr different from the popish conceite who seeth not that the judgement of our divines which is opposed to the doctrine of the Papists is not opposue to mine for though they hold not the episcopal function to be injoyned jure divino as being perpetually necessary yet what man of sound learning doth or dare deny that the first Bishops were ordeyned by the Apostles Thus we see how the D. hath ledd us along But notwithstanding the confidence of his speach observe wee the extreame povertie of his cause is he not neere driven think ye when to prove his great difference betwene his opinion and the Papists he is fayne to flye to the refuters acknowledgment of it in that 90. page where with the same breath he challengeth him to be contrary to himselfe seeminge at least to vnsay that in one place which he had sayd in another Doth he not remember that he hath often charged his refuter to affirme throughout his answere that he holdeth the episcopal function to be iure divino and to imply a perpetuall necessity thereof how then doth the refuters acknowledgement prove that the popish opinion is farre different from his Doth it not rather prove that in this very point wherein he layeth the mayne difference he he is fully knitt vnto them although forgetting himselfe as many Papists also do in their discourses he contradicteth at one time what he maynteyneth at an other But to let the world see how he jumpeth wth the Papists in this matter I wil relate his opiniō not in his ref words but in his owne The functiō authority saith he serm p. 79 which Tim. and T it had at Ephesus and in Crete cōsisting specially in the power of ordinatiō jurisdictiō was not to end with their persōs but to be cōtinued in their successors as being ordinary perpetually necessary not onely for the wel-being but also for the very being of the Churches For if whiles the Apostles themselves lived it was necessary that they should substitute in the Churches already planted such as Timothy and Titus furnished with episcopal power then much more after their decease have the Churches need of such governours Loe here his owne wordes now who seeth not that they closely implye that which he saith the Papists doe more impudently The D. closely implieth what the Papists impudently affirme affirme viz that where Bishops are not to ordeyne there can be no Ministers or Preists and consequently no Church Yet there is a freind of the Do. who pleadinge the same cause blusheth not among other propositions delivered to disgace the Presbyterian discipline and the mainteyners thereof to affirme in playne termes that all Ministers created and made by the newe Presbyterie are mere laye-persons and cannot lawfully eyther preach Gods word or administer the sacraments so saith Tho Bell in his regiment of the Church page 136 and then addeth this is already proved and a little afer concludeth with Ieroms wordes often objected by the Papists against the Protestants ecclesia non est quae non habet sacerdotem where there it no Preist or Minister there can be no Church But to returne to the D. seing all the reason he here bringeth to mainteyne his accusation is from the difference of opinion betwixt the Papists and him concerning the authority of Bishops it being made evident that there is no such difference as he pretendeth it will necessarily followe that this second vntruth how notorious soever here charged upon his refuter must be discharged upon himselfe For it is a truth so The 2. vntruth which the D. chargeth upon the Ref. returneth to himself evident as the D. cannot deny it that the judgement of our divines is wholly opposite to his in that they hold the calling of L. Bishops to be neyther divini nor apostolici juris neither as the Papists nor as the D. holdeth them if he did as he sayth so farre differ from them And putt case the difference betwixt the Papists and him were such as he saith yet what is that to the point in question I meane to prove the refuters assertiō to be a notorious vntruth nothing at all The D. in deed his opinion being so different as he fayth from the popish conceit asketh who it is that seeth not that the judgement of our divines opposed to the doctrine of the Papists is not opposite to his and I may ask him what meant he to ask that question Maye not the D yea doth he not agree with the Papists in affirminge the episcopal function to be divini juris thereby intending that it is a divine and not an humane ordinance though he should differ from them in the point of the perpetual and immutable necessity of the function And may not our worthy writers of whome the Refuter speaketh yea can the Doctor shewe that they doe not contradict the papists aswell in the former point as in the later Will he say and can he prove that they determine such Bishops onely as have such a calling as the papists mainteyne to be jure humano by the positive lawe of man onely doe they not generally conclude and determine the matter of all Bishops whatsoever that are superior to other Ministers or can they holde which the Ref. saith they doe and the D. doth not denie that the government our Bishops exercise over other Ministers is jure humano onely and yet hold it an apostolicall ordinance also or can they hold that so farre forth as there is a perpetuall necessity thereof it is onely jure humano and that so farre forth as it is not perpetuall but so as the Church may be a church without it it is an apostolicall and a divine ordinance Or doe our writers therefore determine against the papists that the government aforesaid is onely jure humano because they defend it to be perpetually necessary Or doe they determine onely against those reasons of the papists by which they prove this government to be perpetually necessary Will the D. affirme this Is not the contrary to all this most evident to them that read their writings Doe they not plainly and directly without any relation to this or that conceite conclude against all those reasons which papists bring that the goverment of Bishops over other Ministers is not an ordinance divine or apostolicall but humane onely directly contrary to the D. conclusion lett his reasons be what they be may And it were worth the knowinge what reasons those are that demonstratively prove as he saith the episcopall function to be of apostolicall institution yet prove it not to be divini juris and of perpetuall necessitie as also what worthy
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
And if one of our Bishops may in his visitation apply to alâ— the Ministers of his diocese those words of the Apostle Acts. 20. 28. that they should attende the whole flock c. as he saith lib. 2. pag. 105. then he must acknowledge all those Ministers to be properly Diocesan and not parishonall Pastors because the whole flock or Church in such a speach is properly a Diocese and not a parishe Moreover by the like consequence he must acknowledge that the Prophets Teachers mentioned 1. Cor. 12. 28. were for the extent of their authority equall with the Apostles that is all vniversall Ministers none affixed to any particular Church or Diocese because the Church wherein God is sayd to ordeyne them is the vniversal Church militant as he affirmeth lib. 1. pag. 227. lib 2. pag. 4. Also that Titus was properly a nationall Bishop and not Diocesan or provinciall because the Church of Crete whereof he was Bishop was properly a Nationall Church and not a province or diocese And that the Bishops of our owne Church whose function he will have to be of divine institution are properly nationall also and not diocesan or provinciall because the Church of England whereof they are Bishops is neyther diocese nor province but properly a nation or nationall Church Wherefore if the Doctor doth not willfully shut his eies against the light he may se that though he could prove those 7. Churches to be properly dioceses yet it will not followe as he supposeth that the Angels of those Churches were properly diocesan Bishops So that if he faile also of his hope to prove or â—ather boast in vaine of that proofe which he professeth lib. 2. pa 3. to have drawne from his text to shewe that the 7. Churches of Asia were properly dioceses then may he sit downe in silence with the losse of his cause till he hath found out a new text in case any other can be found to justify the functioÌ„ of our Diocesan Bishops His argument which as he saith sect 2. cap. 3. is grounded Section 3. Ref. pa. 53. D. lib. 2. cap. 3. pag. 43. sect 3. vpon the text was in his sermon pag. 17. 18. proposed to prove a more large Conclâ—sion viz. that in the Apostles times and in the age followinge the Churches whereof the Bishops were called Angels to wit all visibles Churches indowed with power of ecclesiasticall government were Dioceses properly and not parishes wherfore before we trie how wel he hath proved those 7. churches to be Dioceses let us first see how absurdly he dealeth in strayning his text to a larger extent I meane to justify that generall coÌ„clusion before mentioned The words which â—ay downe his argument are these For whereas our Saviour Christ writing to the Churches of Asia numbreth but seven naming the principall and some of them mother-cities of Asia saith Theâ— starres were the angels of those 7. churches it cannot be denied but that the Châ— whereof they were Bishops were great ample cities and not cities alone but also the Countries adioyning From the last wordes of which-sentence the refuter frameth this connexive Syllogisme If the Churches of Asia to which our Saviour Christ writâ— were great and ample cities and not the cities alone but also the Countries adioyning then they were Dioceses properly and not parishes But the Churches of Asia were such therefore they were Dioceses c. And addeth that the Assumption lieth pag. 18. and the conclusion pag. 17. whereby it appeareth that the last wordes of the proposition which is supplied viz. then they were Dioceses properly and not parishes must not be restreyned to the 7 Churches of Asia onely but rather understood of all the visible Churches which were in the world at that time and in the age following as the wordes of his conclusion before delivered doe shewe Notwithstanding because the reâ—uter rejecteth the consequence of the proposition and saith it is naught the Doctor finding himselfe vnable to make it good disgorgeth his stomach against his The D. vnable to make good his owne reasoÌ„ seeketh to make his Ref. logick naught Refuter and thinking to make his logick naught asketh pag. 43. sect 3. if he cannot frame a Syllogisme with hope to answere it vnlesse the proposition have a consequence which he may deny and as if he were a Puny that had not learned the groundes of logick intreateth him that the Proposition may be simple and afterwards charging him not to know what the hypothesis or thing supposed in a connexive syllogism is taketh vpon him Magistraliter to teach him how to know it and willeth him to dispose his connexive proposition into an Enthymem and giveth him to witt that what part is wanting to make vp a syllogism the same is presupposed as the hypothesis whereon the consequence is grounded and so goeth on along in instructing his Refuter in logicall pointes where I leave him And on the Refuters behalfe I answere 1. that though he is not perhapps so great a logician as Maister Doctor yet he is not ignorant how to reduce an Enthymem into a simple Syllogisme he hath often done it before the Doctor drewe him into his schoole as the reader may see in his answere pag. 9. 29. 70. 73. 109. 139. 145. 154. 155. 156 and so hath proved The D. a false witnes him to be a false witnes in saying as he doth pag. 44. and 45. that he knoweth not what is the hypothesis or thing presupposed in a connexive proposed in a connexive proposition and that he must unlearn that art if he will not be counted a Trifler of flinging all arguments into a connexive syllogisme that he may have a consequence to cavill with â— but doth not the D. himself frame many coÌ„nexive Syllogismes in this Defense See lib. 1. pag. 67. 84. 92. 101. 134. 165. 180. in the rest of his bookes many others may be found besides sundry Enthymemes which he leaveth void of that supply that should reduce to a perfect syllogism Wherefore if his Refuter be worthy so oft to be reproved as he is by the Doctor lib. 1. pag. 109. 146. and here et alibi passim for his connexive Syllogismes however another might doe it yet I may here tell the D. it becoÌ„meth not him to doe it Turpe est Doctori cum culpa redarguit ipsum But had the Doctor made none yet the use of such Syllogismes is common both with Divineâ— and Logicians of good account Doth not Aristotle often use them See Prior. lib. 1. cap. 40. lib. 2. cap. 2. Are they not by good Logicians commended as most firme apt both for confirmatioÌ„ of truth coÌ„futatioÌ„ of errour To passe by Polanus Log. l. 1. p. 92 Let the D. read that worthy Sadeel Tit. de verbo Dei scripto c. cap. 2. and 3. Vseth he not in his reasoning there both kataskevasticos anaskevasticos ten connexives for one simple
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.
answer is frivolous or a begging of the question of the question if he speake of such a judiciall licencing or silencing as Byshops in these daies exercise over other Ministers in their diocese But he will both prove that these false Teachers were subject to the censure of the Angels or Byshops remove that which his Refuter objecteth to the contrary The later he attempteth in this manner If they were not Presbyters he should say parts of the Presbyterie of that Church because they called themselues Apostles belike they were better men Is it not then against sense to deny that Presbyters were subject to the censure of the Byshop bycause he imagineth these who were subject to their censure were better men Is this the Refuters imagination or is not rather the D. conclusioÌ„ grounded vpon his own The D. cannot uphold his cause but by vntruthes imagination Why then may I not returne him his own wordes p. 124 Is the D. coÌ„science no better then stil to father vpoÌ„ the Ref vntruthes for his own advantage bewrayeth he not thereby what a cause he mainteineth that cannot be vpheld but by forgeries The Refuter to make good his deniall of that which the D. presupposed in the consequence of his reasoning vz. that the false Apostles were Presbyters and parts of the Angels Presbyterie affirmed that it was against sense to imagine that any such would assume to themselves the name and preheminence of Apostles and that any mans reason would rather give him that they were persons that came froÌ„ some other place Add hervnto that if they had been of the Ephesian clergie and so knowne to the whole Church to have imbraced an ordinarie calling and settled charge amongst them how should they with any colour perswade the same people to receive them for the Apostles of Christ Doubtlesse the very consideration of the knowne difference betwixt the extraordinary Ministery of the Apostles and the ordinary function of Presbyters might have been sufficient without any further search to discover their lying forgerie which being knowne to have place among the latter should usurpe the name authoritie of the former But the text sayth Apoc. 2. 2. they were found to be lyars by the wise and diligent care of the angel who examined or tried them it is therefore more probable that they were rather of the nomber of those wandring Prophets which as greivous wolves from without entred in to devoure then of those perverse teachers which springing up among them did drawe disciples after them See Aretius Beza and Marlorat in Apoc. 2. 2. And touching the false Prophetesse â—e zabell seing she is expresly said to be a woman though good Interpreters doe gather from hence that woemen were suffred to teach publikly in that Church see Marlorat and Mr Perkins upon Apoc. 2. 20. yet were it too grosse to imagine that any women were admitted to the office of Teachers or to the charge of Presbyters And though it should be graunted that they were men not woemen which are deciphered by the name of that woman Iezabell yet the very name argueth theire greatnes theire prevayling by their subtile perswasions no lesse then Iezabel did by her coÌ„manding power to drawe many vn to their wicked wayes And the title of a Prophetesse importeth yâ— they boasted of an iÌ„mediate calling of extraordinary revelatioÌ„s Neyther doth the Doctor contradict this onely he saith If they The D. trifleth were not presbyters belike they were better men A frivolous speach and an unlikely consequence For what likelihood is there that they were better men seing some of them were found to be lyars in saying they were Apostles Or how doth the deniall of this that they were parts of the standing Presbyterie argue that they were no Presbyters at all But say they were of an higher calling to wit Evangelists or fellowe-helpers sometimes to the Apostles yet now Apostates from the faith as was Demas and some other what will this advantage the D. cause For sooth because himselfe imagineth that these who were better men were subject to the Bishops censure therefore he deemeth it against sense to deny that Presbyters were subject to his censure To come then at lengthe to that which he first proposed the reason I meane which he urgeth to prove that the false Apostles Iezabel the false Prophetesse were subject to the Angels of the Churches wherein they usurped authoritie to teach he sayth If they were not subiect to them why is the one commended for exercising authoritie over them and the other reproved for suffring them For answere it shall suffice to ask why he assumeth for an apparant truth Yet the â—â—beggeth that which is rather apparantly false viz. that the Angell of Ephesus is commended for exercising authoritie over the false Apostles And why he pre supposeth in the coÌ„sequence of his reasoning that which he cannot justifie to wit that the false prophetesse of Thyatira was subject to the Angels censure because he is reproved for suffring her And thus wear lead as it were by the haÌ„d to see the falshood of the proposition of the arg before by himself coÌ„trived For a corrective power over Ministers cannot be firmely concluded eyther from the coÌ„mendation of the one that examined them which falsly called themselves Apostles or from the reproofe of the other that suffered false Teachers to seduce the people For put the case the D. were an Archdeaâ—on or which would please him better a Diocesan Lord that in the some parishes vnder his government corrupt teachers should â—ind free accesse to the pulpit but in other places by the carefull enquirie of the Ministers and Church-wardens finding what they are they should be restreyned me thinks in this case he should highely coÌ„mend the honest care of the one and sharply reprove the carlesse negligence of the other yet if a man should froÌ„ his coÌ„mendation or reproofe inferre that the persons so commended or reproved had the power of correcting and silencing Ministers I suppose the D. would rather deride the simplicitie of such a disputer then vouchsafe him a direct answer See the loosenes of the D. reasoning But to leave suppositions and to let him see the loosenes of his reasoning by a more direct answer it is cleare that the Spirit of God doth no lesse commend the men of Berea for their diligent sifting the Apostle Pauls doctrine Act. 17. 11. then he doth the Angel of Ephesus for examining them that falsely assumed the name of Apostles Wil the D. therefore acknowledge that they had a corrective power over that holy Apostle And who knoweth not that it is required of every private Christian to have their senses exercised in the word to discerne betweene good evill Heb. 5. 14. to trie the spirits of their teachers whether they be of God or not 1. Ioh. 4. 1. to bewarre of false Prophets and seducers Math. 7. 15. and 24. 4. to trie all
he knew not the signification and use of the words aggâ—los and Apostolos he bewrayeth his owne and that in diverse The Doct. discovereth his owne errors while he offereth to shew his ref ignorance particulars For to let passe now the repetition of any thing formerly spoken for the use of this phrase the angels of the Churches he had need to have a very favourable interpreter that shal excuse him of errour in saying the word Angels absolutely spoken as a title given to all Ministers sent of God for not to heap up places where it is put for the celestiall Angels I have before shewed that it is referred to messengers sent of men laÌ„ 2. 25. 2. And surely that text of RoÌ„ 16. 7. which saith that Andronicus and Funia were men of note among the Apostles cannot prove what he affirmeth viz. that besides Paul and Barnabas and the 12. Apostles there were sundry other Embassadours sent from God with authoritie Apostolicall 3. Neyther can he make good generally his last assertiÌ„on that the word Apostle used with reference to particular churches signifieth their Bishops For besides the places before questioned phil 2. 25. 2. Cor. 8. 23. it is apparently used with such reference 1. Cor. 9. 2. when S. Paul who was no Bishop over any particular church or Churches saith If I be not Apostle unto others yet doublesse I am unto you 4. As for the conclusion which he inferreth viz. that in the Scriptures the word Apostolos is not used to signifie Messengers sent from men nether is it to be translated otherwyse then Apostle I have already shewed sect 5. how much he wrongeth our owne Church governours besides many other worthy and sound divines who have taken the word for any messenger from men and so translated it Phil. 2. 25. 2. Cor. 8 23. Iohn 13. 16. And 2ly I have sufficieeÌ„tly discovered the falshood of his conclusion having mainteyned against all his exceptions the Refuters construction of the 2. former places and the reasons which he propounded in that behalfe Neyther is it hard to remove that which he objecteth touching the later all that he saith is this though our Saviour do seeme to speak indefinitely Iohn 13. 16. of the Apostle he should say any Messenger and him and that sendeth him yet it is evident that he meaneth himself who sent and the Apostles who were sent Doth he seeme onely to speak indefinitely And is it evident that he meaneth himselfe onely c What seeming reason or evident demonstration hath the Doctor to justifye this since he hath none it might be a sufficient answere to tell him eadem facilitate rejicuur quâ—asseritur the Refuter maie as easily deny it as he affirme it But for the Readers satisfaction this I adde The coherence of the text both here and elswhere where the like speach is used as Cap. 15. 20. Math. 10 24. clearly sheweth that Christ intendeth to teach his Apostles that they ought to imitate him in subjecting themselves both to beare the like afflictions which is the scope of the other 2. places and to performe the like services which he aymeth at in this place vnto another To effect this his purpose he argueth a genere in this manner no servant disciple or messenger is greater then his L. and Mr. or him that sent him But ye are my servantes disciples messengers and I am that Lord Mr. and he that sendeth you in Embassage Ergo you are not greater then I and consequently you ought to subject your selves both to doe and suffer what ye have seene in me I could alledge Interpreters old and new that thus understand the words of Christ in the generall and largest sense but it shal not be needful to them that consider how absurd it is to restreine so generall a sentence vnto one onely particular For if I may use the Doct. words Lib. 1. pag. 226. who shal dare to doe this without very good warrant The Doct. conclusion being thus removed out of the way I here again inferre as the Ref. did once before that he is deceived seeketh to deceive by the equivocation of the word apostolos which sometimes in a coÌ„mon and generall sense is given to any one that is sent as a messenger though usually ascribed to those that were imployed as were the 12. Apostles in an high extraordinary Embassage from Christ In the next place Mr. D. labour is to remove this objection that though it should be admitted that he was a Bishop yet it followeth not Sect. 11. ad sect 15. pa. 70. 71. that he was a diâ—cesan Bishop like to ours in the substance of his office therefore be dâ—ceyveth his reader with the like equivocation in the word Bishop which in the Apostles times by his owne confession was coÌ„mon to all Pastors though afterwards appropriated to some speciall persons ans p. 136. This is saith the Doct. as if he should have said I grant that which here you prove but yet that followeth not hereon which you intended not That the Churches were dioceses the Bishops diocesan c I proved before in the former part here I am so farre from inferring or proving it that I presupposed it as sufficiently proved before Wherevnto I cannot make him a better answer then to returne him his own a litle before spoken to the Ref. with a litle change This is written as the most of his 4 volumes to bleare the eies of the simple For I cannot think that the D. which vndertooke this course was so void of judgment as here he would shewe himself to be if he wrote syncerely What is the point I pray you which here he had in hand was it not to prove that the Apostles themselves ordeyned Bishops doth not the title upoÌ„ the head of every page of this chapter shew it what Bishops did they ordeyne in his vnderstanding were they parish Bishops or temporary overseers as were the Evangelists can he justify the caling of our Bishops to be of divine or Apostolicall institution vnlesse he prove that the Bishops or Pastors to whom the Apostles committed the care of particular Churches were like to ours for the substance of their office And to discend more particularly to the question which himselfe affirmeth to be debated in all this discourse pag. 65. viz. whether Bishops be mentioned in the scriptures vnder this name the Apostles of the Churches is it not to be vnderstood of such Bishops as ours are If he doe neyther prove this nor intend it but presuppose it or rather take it for granted without proofe and if he prove no more in this discourse touching Epaphroditus The Doct. trifleth deceiveth shifteth poorely then that which this objection admitteth to wit that he was a Bishop in the generall construction of the word doth he not shew himselfe to be a trifling deceiver and what else doth he but bleare the eyes of the simple when he saith it is
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
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
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
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
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
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
that which he seemeth to applaud in Zanchy on Ephes 4. 11. pag. 95 viz. that the former sort of Evangelists and the Prophets also did governe the Churches nowe one then an other For how should Churches be governed by them if they had not the like power and authoritie for government that Timothy and Titus had From the Doctors reasoning in defense of his owne assertion Sect. 7. ad pag. 96. let us passe to the answer yeelded by him to his Refut who argued in this manner Timothy and Titus were to exercise their Evangelisticall function in those places For Paul biddeth Timothy after he had bin at Ephesus to do the worke of an Evangelist Ergo they receyved no new authority at their placing there which they had not before neyther laid they aside but reteyned still their Evangelisticall function The Doctor denyeth the Antecedent and contradicteth the proofe thereof Whereas Paul willeth Timothy to doe the work of an Evangelist what is thee saith he but evaggelizesthai to preach the Gospell diligently c. the word Evangelist being there taken in the generall sense Here we are put to prove that the name of an Evangelist is here taken not in a generall sense but in a more speciall for the function of an Evangelist which may appeare by these circumstances 1. First the very phrase it selfe to doe the work of an Evangelist cannot in reason be cōstrued otherwise then q. d. to doe the work which an Evangelist is bound vnto by his particular function like as in the like phrase the work of an Apostle the signes of an Apostle the commandement of the Apostles and the foundation of the Apostles 1. Cor. 1. 9. 2. Cor. 12. 12. 2. Pet. 3. 2. Ephes 2. 20. the name of an Apostle is specially taken for the office of Apostleship 2. It is the Apostles purpose see Mr. Calvin upon the place by the honorable mencion of his office to provoke him to use the greater diligence therein thereby to gaine the greater reverence among those that should behold his zeale and faithfulnes in his calling But the speciall function of an Evangelist serveth better then the generall name of a preacher of the Gospel both to animate him vnto watchfulnes and to procure him authority amongst those with whom he conversed 3. Moreover since it is knowne and confessed that he was once an Evangelist if either he had ceased so to be or if he had borne at this time a more honorable office as the Doctor supposeth in all likelihood the Apostle would have givē him some other title least others should be led into an error by this name 4. Lastly if we looke to the use of the word evaggelistes in other places we shal find it no where carried in the Apostolicall writings to a generall signification as the Doctor fancieth but rather is appropriated to that extraordinary function of Evangelists which then was knowne by that name as Act. 21. 8. Eph. 4. 11. Wherefore since it is a firme vndoubted axiome in divinity that we are to receive that interpretation of any word or phrase which best accordeth with the scope of the place it selfe and the use of the like in other places I will hold it for a truth not to be gainsayd that the word Evangelist ought here to be takē not in the generall sense but for the speciall function of an Evangelist knowne by that name We now come to Zuinglius his testimonie alleadged by the D. Sect. 8. ad pag. 97. to prove that their being Evangelists did not hinder them frō being Bishops His case is very desperate it seemeth since he is drivē to crave releefe of one so well knowne to be a professed enemie to to the Lordly jurisdiction of Diocesan and Provincial Prelates But what Zuinglius forsooth that Philip the Evangelist who had bene one of the Deacons was afterwards Bishop of Caesarea and Iames the Apostle was Bishop of Ierusalem and divers of the Apostles when they ceased from their peregrinations became Bishops of certayne Churches Which saith the D may be much more verified of the Evangelists In deed if this last glose had bene Zuinglius his words his evidence had bene farre sitter for his purpose then it is and yet would it haue done him no service till he had proved that Timothy and Titus had given over their Evangelisticall traveiles which he will never be able to effect while he breatheth But now all that Zuinglius speaketh for him is such as if he rightly conceive his meaning he will be very loth I suppose to subscribe unto For he is so farre from affirming as the Doctor intimateth to his reader that Philip after his Deaconship was first an Evangelist and after that became the Bishop of Caesarea that he rather citeth those words of Luke Act. 21. 8. where he is called an Evangelist to prove him to be a Bishop for these are his wordes De ecclesiastica sive ratione et officio cōcionandi fol. 48. Quo in loco illud nobis primo notandum est Philippum hunc Caesariensis ecclesiae Evangelistam episcopum vel pastorem fuisse c. In which place that is first of us to be noted that this Philip the Evangelist of the Church of Samaria was Bishop or Pastor c. whereby it appeareth as also by the words afeerwards remembred by the Doctor constat iuxta Pauli sententiam idem esse episcopi et Evangelistae officium and by many other speaches in that treatise that he confoundeth the names of Evangelistes Prophets Pastors in one office But let us see how the D. removeth the Refuters answere First he saith that Zuinglius speaketh according to the phrase of histories other ancient writers who take not the name of Bishop properly when they give it to Iames or any other Apostle as Doct. Whitak hath rightly observed The Doct. reasoneth from that which is no cause c. deceitfully de pontif rom pag. 303 the Doctor replyeth 〈◊〉 that if Zuinglius spake according to the phrase of histories c. then and therefore he spake according to the truth from whence I inferre that if Zuinglius have spoken the truth in this matter then the Doctor is in an errour and reasoneth deceitfully a non causa pro causa For whereas he would perswade that Iames was properly a Bishop because the Fathers so intititle him Zuinglius saith expresly of Iames Hunc Hieron et omnes simul vetusti patres Hierosol episcopum nominant non aliam ab causam quam quod in ea urbe sedem fixam posuisset Ierom and with him all the ancient farhers call him Bishop of Ierusalem for no other cause but for that he had made his fixed aboad in that citie 2. The Doctor asketh Although it be true that the Apostles could not properly be called Bishops what is that to Timothy and Titus whom he hath proved to have bene particularly assigned to the Ch of Ephesus Creet where
he saith specially in ordinatiō and jurisdictiō if he take it personally for that which was invested in them by the ministeriall functiō which they there exercised then I reject the assumption also in that behalfe but if it be taken simply and at large for any authoritie to exercise the like works eyther in the same Churches or in any other then I disclaime his proposition For we are so farre frō affirming this authoritie to be proper vnto Evangelists that we hold it rather cōmō to every Pastor in his owne congregation Let the reader see what the Doctor observeth for this purpose pag. 79. 84. and what we have added cap. 8. sect 12 touching their preheminence above other Ministers and the continuance thereof in the presidents of Synods Now to come to his Argument first set downe and to passe by that fault of mencioning function onely in the proposition wheras Sect. 2. ad pag. 98. 99. authoritie is also joyned with it in the assumption and conclusion the Assumption which was denyed by the Refuter must for the clearing of his true meaning be divided into two mēbers the one serving properly for the plaine naturall assumptiō viz. that the function and authoritie which they exercised in Ephesus and Creete was not to end with their persons but to be continued in their successors the other serving eyther for the Medius terminus of a prosyllogism to cōfirm the former or at least for an explicatiō of his meaning therin viz. that the functiō authoritie which they had or exercised in those Churches was such as assigned them to the particular care thereof and consisted specially in the power of ordination and jurisdiction the refuter for brevitie sake omitting to distinguish these two differing propositions infolded in one fitted his answer to the later affirming as the truth is that therein he doth but begge the question in asmuch as he assumeth for The Doct. beggeth truth these two points before convinced of falshood viz. 1. that they were assigned to the perpetuall charge of those Churches 2. And that their authoritie was such a preheminent power in ordination and jurisdiction as he ascribeth elswhere to Bishops If prejudice or rather malice as it may be feared had not blinded the Doctor he might have aswell discerned this as some others have done that borrowed no light from the Refuter by any private cōference with him to finde out his true meaning and then he might have spared that outragious calumniation He roves and raves as men use to doe which being at a non-plus would faine seeme to answer somewhat But to answere his Assumption as he hath now nakedly propounded it viz. that the function and authoritie which they exercised in Ephesus and Creete was not to end with their persons but to be cōtinued in their successors I answer with the distinctiō before used to wit that their personall authoritie perished with their function and therefore in that respect the assumption is false howsoever there remayned unto perpetuall succession an authoritie to performe the same ministeriall works which they exercised by vertue of their temporary function So that if he will prove the assumption in that sense wherein it is denyed then must he prove the perpetuitie not onely of their authoritie in generall and for the works sake which they performed but also of their particular function and of that personall authoritie which they there exercised so as neyther the one nor the other did end with their persons but was continued in their successors the proofe therefore of his assūption must thus runne That function and authoritie which is ordinary and perpetually necessary not onely for the welbeing but also for the very being of the visible Churches was not to end with the persons of Timothy and Titus but to be continued in their successors But the function and authoritie which they exercised in Ephesus Creet is ordinary and perpetually necessary not onely for the wel-being but also for the very being of the visible Churches Therefore the function and authoritie which they there exercised was not to end in their persons but to be continued in their successors Here the Assumption was denied because however the power of ordination and jurisdiction be perpetually necessary yet there is no necessitie that there should be in every Church an Evangelist that is to say one indowed with that peculiar function personall authoritie which Timothy and Titus had for the good ordering and executing of that power The Doctor saith he did not affirme that which is denyed scz that there must be an Evāgelist in every Church neyther is he willing to see that his assumption doth both in effect affirm as much plainely avouche what he dareth not to justify to wit that the very function which Timothy and Titus exercised is perpetually necessarie not onely for the wel-being but also for the very being of the visible Churches To avoid this grosse absurditie he will needes now divide their Sect. 3. ad sect 14. pag 100. 101. function from their authoritie which hitherto he hath conjoyned For thus he explaineth his Assumption The function which Timothy and Titus exercised was ordinary and their authoritie perpetually necessary c. of which two points he saith his Refuter graunteth the later doth not touch the former as if the former branch could escape his touch when his whole assumption is rejected as false or there were no difference betwixt that power of ordination and jurisdiction in generall which the Refuter graunteth to be perpetually necessary and that peculiar authoritie which was invested in Timothy and Titus by reason of their particular function which was before denied to be continued in their successors But in truth as he hath O sweet D now distributed and construed the parts of his assumption in the second he idly affirmeth what was never denied and so leaveth untouched the point which he should have proved And in the first he offendeth more grosly for he borroweth the conclusion of his first argument to make good the Assumption of the same Before he proved the function of Timothy Titus to be ordinary episcopall because it was not extraordinary and evangelisticall And now to prove that their function was cōtinued in their successors and therefore not extraordinarie and Evangelisticall he telleth vs that it is an ordinarie function and the same which the Bishops that succeeded them did exercise And to make a mends for this The Doct. beggeth impudent begging he multiplyeth his default by heaping up many assertions whereof some are apparantly false and the rest no lesse doubtfull then the point which he indeavoreth to justify For first it is false which he saith of Timothy and Titus that in them there was nothing extraordinarie but their not limitation to any certain churches so is that which he addeth to prove it viz. that their calling to the Ministery was ordinary and their gifts attayned
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