in this case As touching the first saith he I have often wondred what our brethren meane to argue from the example of those Churches which were not divided into parishes to those that be But why doth he wonder where there is no cause of wonder Let him surcease his wondring The wonder is at the Doct. not at the Refuter till he shewe both where his brethren have so argued and why such an argument will not hold And 2. why giveth he all his freinds just cause to wonder at his proceeding that wandreth from his purpose or rather justifyeth his Refut in that which he vndertook to disprove For he doth afterwards clearely acknowledge that which now is closely implied sc that the ancient Churches remeyned for a time vndivided 3. Moreover to answere him in his owne words we may wonder what he meaneth to argue from the example of those Churches which were not divided into parishes to those that be and on the contrary from those that in later ages were divided to those which at the first were not The former may be sene p. 5. where to prove that the Christian people of an whole province or diocese though consisting of many particular congregations is rightly termed a Church he alleadgeth the pattern of those Apostolike Churches at Ierusalem and Antioche c. which in the Apostles times were not distinguished into parishes as himself acknowledgeth pag. 69. The later appeareth by this that his best reason to prove that each Church had froÌ„ the beginning the circuite of the citie country adjoyned is the practise of succeeding ages p. 49. 55. which after division of parishes combined them in one body vnder one Bishop As for his questions following though I see not how they will serve his purpose yet will I breefly touch vpon them and give him leave to make his best advantage of the answere 1. would they have saith he the Church of a City country belonging to it to be all but one congregation assemblinge ordinarily in one place I answere so long as the nomber of Christians in any City and Country adjoyninge doe not exceede the proportion of a popular congregation I hold it best they continue vndivided as the first Apostolike Churches did but when the people of any City and Country are so increased that their nomber will suffice for diverse severall assemblies it were absurde to binde them perpetually vnto an ordinary assembling in one place 2. Then tell me saith he whether we that doe and of necessity must consist of diverse congregations are to followe the example of any ancient Church as it was before it was divided or as it was after it was divided I affirme that wheresoever necessity requireth Church-assemblies to be multiplied the practise of the Apostles the ancient Apostolike Churches is to be imitated of us in giving to those new erected assemblies both the name and forme or constitution of Churches and the like power for government which those apostolike Churches so multiplied did enjoye Yf in this answere the Doctor can finde that which he desireth I shall gladly see what he wil hence inferre for the disproving of his Refuters assertion in any one branch thereof 3. He addeth They will say perhaps that eche congregation after the division was as that one before nothing lesse let them prove that and I will yeeld in the whole cause We say it in deed and will not shrinke from affirminge that in the Apostles tymes wheresoever the Christians of any City or Country which at first made one Church were distributed into diverse there eche congregatioÌ„ was in forme or constitution like to that one before and if it be not so why doth he not disprove it Why doth he againe put himself into the place of a respondent giving his reader just occasion to thinke that he hath nothing of any moment to oppose against us in this pointe As for the ages following in Constantines time or there aboutes when Bishops gained the over sight and government of all the Churches that were multiplied in the City and Country adjoyninge to it their example cannot be helde so fitte as the former to determine the questioÌ„ of divine institution eyther for the constitution of Church-assemblies or for the jurisdiction of Bishops and Presbyters wherefore the Doctor is much deceyved if he thinke that his testimonies from the decrees of councels c. before cited as he saith can convince or perswade the conscience of his opposites to holde their practyse for a divine or apostolicke ordinance But to what purpose doth he trifâ—le time in these By-questioÌ„s which make him forget what he promised to prove viz. that every of those 7. Churches was divided into severall ordinary assemblies Yet in one point more we must followe him sc when he indeavoreth to shew that the Apostolike Churches were Dioceses before they were divided for this had bin very direct to the main question in hand if he had added this clause that they were Dioceses such as ours are but he foresawe that this addition would have quite marred his market notwithstanding attendance shal be given to that he hath delivered in defense of the point which he mainteyneth It wil be said saith he that the Churches before they were divided were not Dioceses Whereto I answere that the circuite of the Church in Sect. 8. the intention of the Apostle or first founder of it was the same as well before the division of parishes as after Here for the better apprehending of his meaning if I should ask why or how the circuite was the same I suppose he would send us to those words which he hath within a few line after viz. that the circuit of every Church even from the beginning aswelas after the multiplying of perishes included not onely the citie but thâ— countrye thereto belonging And if this be his meaning as it must unlesse he will shewe himselfe vnconstant then behold how he is The D. mustâ— gg still inforced principium petere when from hence he inferreth the coÌ„clusion which himself setteth downe in the page following 50. sc that though the 7. Churches had not bâ—ne divided into severall congregations yet had they each of them bene Dioceses And because he cannot indure a connexive proposition in his Ref I wil assay to drawe his reasoning into a simple syllogisme and if he can beâ—ter the argument let him take his owne away Every Church whose circuite in the intention of the Apostle or first founder â—f it was the same as including not onely the citie but the country thereto belongiâ—g aswell befâ—re the division â—f Parishes as after every such Church I saw was a Diocese from the beginning though not divided then into several Câ—ngregations But such was the circuite of the 7. Churches in the intention of the Apostles or their first founders herefore they were Dioceses from the beginning though not yet divided into many severall congregations Now let
of that worthy yongue King Edward the 6. writeth his letters missive and mandate to Edmund Bonner then Bishop of London for the abolishing of candles ashes palmes and Images out of the Churches with a direct charge that he should impart the contents of those letters unto all other Bishops within the Province of Canterburie aâ—d Bishop Bonner did accordingly write see his letters Act. Monuments pag 1183. last edit May I ask the Doctor nowe whether this doe strongly prove that the rest of the Bishops in the Province of Canterburie were subject vnto the Bishop of London and conteyned within his Churches jurisdiction at that time If he know the contrary then I hope he will confesse that Christ his writing to the 7. Churches what he would have imparted to all the rest doth not necessarily argue the rest to be subject vnto these 4. Yet to make the weaknes of his collection the more apparant let him weigh the worth of these consequences followinge It was Christs intent in speaking as he doth to Peter Math. 16. 17. 18. 19. Luc. 22. 31. 32. Iohn 13. 8. 10. 21. 15 that the rest of his fellow-Apostles should take notice of all that he spake to him for the iâ— instruction and consolation Ergo the rest were in subjectioÌ„ to Peter Againe the Angel informeth Marie Magdale and the other Marie of Christes resurrection and gave them charge to tell his disciples that he was risen Math. 28. 1. 5. 7. Ergo the Apostles were subject to the jurisdiction of those weomen Paul in writing to the Church of God at Corinth writeth also to all the Saints that were in all Achaia yea to all that every where did call on the name of the Lord 1 Cor. 1. 2. and 2 Cor. 1. 1. And what he writeth to the Church at Colosse he willeth them to cause it to be read in the Church of the Laodiceans Col. 4. 16. Ergo the Church of Laodicea was in subjection to the Church of Colosse And to the Church of Corinth was not onely all Achaia but all other Churches in the world subject to her jurisdiction But who seeth not what absurd conclusions may be multiplyed if a man should proceed in this veine of reasoning 5. As for that Epiphonema which concludeth each epistle directed severally to the Angell of each Church Let him that hath an eare heare what the Spirit saith to the Churches if he had not first conceived that it would be some advantage to his cause to perswade his reader that those 7. Churches did every one of them conteine many severall congregations within their circuite he would never have dreamed of any such construction of those words as he now coÌ„mendeth to us viz. that what Christ writeth to the Angel he writeth to the Churches that were vnder his charge For as he hath no ground for it either from the coherence of his text or from any interpreter old or newe so it seemeth to have vnadvisedly slipped from him seing as it is confuted by himselfe so it overthroweth one maine part of his building Confuted it is by that himselfe setteth downe in the ende of his table pag. 5. of the signification of the word ecclesia where he taketh the word Churches in the conclusion of each epistle indefinitely for any company of Christians not defining eyther the place or societie whether of a nation or citie c. whereas now he taketh it difinitely for the congregations which were parts or members of that citie-Church which is mentioned in the 14. a Double contradiction in the D. beginning of each epistle And if there be a truth in his construction of those words viz. that what Christ writeth to every Angel he writeth also to the Churches that be vnder his charge then those Churches were interessed with the Angell in all that which is coÌ„mended or reproved in him And hence it will followe that if a correcting power over Ministers may be rightly gathered as he conceiveth serm pag. 49. Def. lib. 3. pag. 135. from the coÌ„mendation or reproofe given Apoc. 2. vers 2. 20 then the Daughter-churches distinguished either in City or Country adjoyning were partners with the Mother-Church and the Angel or Bishop thereof in that corrective power over Ministers which he laboureth in the places before alleadged to establishe in the hands of one Bishop or Angel onely Thus we see how he fareth in the defence of his proposition In Sect. 21. ad sect 10. D. pag. 57. 62. the assumption the Refuter observed two vntruthes in asmuch as it cannot be proved either that all other Churches in Asia were written vnto as within the circuite and jurisdiction of those 7 or that any of the 7. was a Mother-City To make the vntruthes of the former apparant he reasoneth disiunctiuely from the diverse acceptions of Asia distinguished by historians into Asia Major Asia minor and Asia more properly so called Concerninge the first because it is vnlikely or rather impossible that our Saviour writing to that third parte of the World which was not much lesse then both the other should subscribe and send his epistles onely to those 7. that are in one little corner of it the Refuter professeth he will not once let it come into his thought to imagine that Mr. Doct. would have us beleeve that all the Churches in Asia Major which conteined the great Kingdome of China with the East-Indies Persia Tartaria and a great part of Turky should be parishes belonginge to some one or more of these 7. Churches Secondly to restreine it to Asia minor because the Scripture recordeth many Churches to be in it as Derbe Lystra Iconium Antioch in Pisidia Perga in Pamphilia and diverse Churches in Galatia he supposeth that none is so much bewitched with the love of Diocesan Churches as to imagine that all those famous Churches were but dependantes on these 7. Thirdly therefore to come as lowe as may be and to vnderstand by Asia that which is properly so called and otherwise Sarrum even there also or neere we finde diverse other Churches as those of Colosse Hierapolis Troas meÌ„tioned in the Scriptures to let passe Magnesia and Trallis recorded in other writers which did not belonge to any of these 7. and therefore he taketh it to be cleare that our Saviour intended not to write to all the Churches of Asia but onely to those 7. that are named Loe here the sum almost the words of the Ref. answer touching the first parte of the D. assumptioÌ„ now let us see the parts of his reply First he chargeth him either to be a man of no learning or else to â—â—vill against the light of his conscience seing he could not be ignorant but that by Asia mentioned in the Apocalyps is meant onely Asia properly so called SecoÌ„dly he saith he maketh a great flourish partly to shew some small skil in Geography but cheifly to dazell the eâ—es of the simple in shewing how vnlikely it is
such an office as the Apostle vnderstandeth by the word Byshop in his writings And though the assumption be true rightly vnderstood yet is it false in the D. vnderstanding both words appropriated to one that is principally interressed above other Ministers of the word that are his helps and assistants in the feeding and oversight of any particular congregation Wherefore however the Doct. indeavoureth to wring out of his Refuters answere 2. conclusions directly as he saith contradictorie to some other his assertions yet as he hath not effected his purpose so hath he discovered falshood and deceit in his owne reasoning Sect. 6. And thus at length are we come to his first question wherein he would knowe of his Refuter 1. what reason he hath to forsake the grammaticall sense in vnderstanding by the Angel in each inscription more thâ—n one And secondly where the Holy Ghost speaketh but as of one how he dare without good reason expound him as speaking of more then one There were of the Iewes who having seen many great signes wrought by Christ yet as if he had never yeelded any signe at all saide vnto him we would see a signe of thee Math. 12. 38. and 16. 1. and what signe shewest thou Iohn 6. 30 And the D. is not vnlike them herein Could he be ignorant that his Refuter answ pag. 3. yeelded reasons why he interpreteth the word Angel in the inscription of each epistle not literally for one person but by a syneâ—doche for the whole companie of Angels in each Church Yea though he twise taketh notice of his reasoning this way pag. 31. 33. he hath not once put one finger towards the removing of that which is objected in this behalfe Wherefore there is reason to demaund of him 1. with what face he dareth suggest so false a conceit into the mynde of his readers viz. that the Refuter hath either no reason at all or at least no good reason to vnderstand by the Angel in the inscription of each epistle more Angels then one And 2. why he should so stiffly urge the literall sense when he hath not answered that which is urged to infringe it Notwithstanding to move him once againe to enter into the consideratioÌ„ of this point I here tender him one of the Refuters reasons in forme of argument thus If there were more then 7. Angels in the 7. Churches then the word Angel in the inscription of each epistle must not be taken literally for one onely person but synecdochically for more then one But the first is true as that place of the Act. 20. 17. 28. concerning the Church of Ephesus sheweth for there it appeareth how there were more Angels or Bishops then one in the Church at Ephesus and therefore more the 7. in then 7. Churches Therfore the word Angel in the inscription of each epistle must not be taken literally for one onely person but synecdochically for more then one And seing the D. here reasoneth with his Refuter for the superiority of Bishops froÌ„ the name Angel as Hart doth w th D Reinolds for the sovereigntie of the Pope or of one Preist from the name Priest it shall not be amisse to fit him with the same answer that D. Reinolds gave Hart. Not so saith D. R. p. 252. The name of Preist in Deut. 18. 3. this law signifieth the Preists c. The law giving sentence against him that disobeieth the Pieist meaneth the Preists according to a kind of speach wherin the whole iâ— noted by the part And giving the reason why he so interpreted the singular by the plural he saith It is cleare by reason that the punishment of the transgressor hath relation to the lawe and the lawe willeth Deut. 17. 9. men to goe to the Preists If D. R. for that cause had reason to forsake the grammaticall sense why not the Ref. here seing the scripture sendeth us to diverse Byshops in one Church Act. 20. 17. 28. But to proceede in the refutation of his assertion or aunswere before expressed since it is graunted there were more Angels or Byshops then one in each of those 7. Churches the reader is to be advertized that now the controversie is come to this issue whether the singularity of the word Angel be a reason of more weight to carrie it to one onely person then the plurality of Angels in each Church is to interprete it by a synecdoche for the whole company The D. affirmeth the former and to countenance his cause putteth this difference betwene the name of an Angel or Byshop in generall and the Angel of this or that Church that where there are many Ministers in one Ch. though every one be an Angel yet one onely that hath prehemeneÌ„ce above the rest is to be honored with the name of the Angel of that Church On the coÌ„trary I affirme the later therfore wil vndertake to prove that where there are many Ministers or Angels such as he acknowledgeth to be in everie of the 7. Churches they have everie of them in regard of their function equall right to be called the Angel of that Church and thus 〈◊〉 reason If all the Angels or Ministers in each Church had equall right to be called the Angel of that Church wherein they administred then this title the Angel of the Church ought to be vnderstood synecdochically for the whole company and not literally for one onely But the first is true Therefore also the second The assumption is thus proved All Gods messengers sent to oversee and â—â—ed his flock have equall right to be called the Angels of that Church wherein they minister All the Angels or Byshops in each of the 7. Churches were Gods messengers sent to oversee and feed his flocke Therefore all the Angels or Byshops in each of the 7. Churches had equall right to be called the Angel of that Church wherein they minister The proposition is the D. owne assertion serm of the digni of the Ministers pag. 61. The assumption is his owne also in the next section pag. 34. The conclusion therefore I hope will passe for currant Moreover it is no lesse absurd to say that this or that Minister is an Angel or Byshop but not the Angel of the Church which he overseeth then to saye he is an Elder or Minister but not an Elder or Minister of the Church c. 2. yea to yeeld the name of an Angel simplie or the Angel of the Lord to agree fittlie to everie Minister of the word yet to restraine this title the Angel of the Church to one that hath a preheminence above other Ministers is to deceive himselfe and others by a mistaking of the cause why the Ministers represented by the Starres are called the Angels of their Churches rather then the L. Angels for the onely true cause is to distinguish them from the heavenly Angels who are more usually called the Angels of the Lord. 3. And if these 2. titles be coÌ„pared
thinkes he answereth it in the third part by his own practise when he sayth he shall make all cleare in his book c. the which how well he hath performed wil appeare in the examination of the particulars in the meane time it seemeth his sermon made not all cleare So much for the first argument A second the Doct frameth of the Ref words thus The doctrine is vtterly false because it is contrary to the judgement practise of the primitive Churches next after Christ and his Apostles To let passe the wrong he offreth herein to his Refut The D. againe wrogeth his Ref. in making more arg of his Ref. words then he ment in making it by it self an argument contrary to his meaning let us heare his answere to it I cannot tel saith he whether to wonder at more the blindnes or the impudencie of the man And why so because saith he I have made it manifest that the government of the Church by Bishops hath the ful consent of antiquity and not one testimonie of the auncient writers for their iudgement or one example of the primitive Churches for their practise to be alleadged to the contrarie c. I am sory I shall trouble the D. with so many questions where I pray hath he made this so manifest in his sermon or in the defence of it hath not the refuters as much if not more reason to wonder at the D. blindnes and impudencie seing if he made it cleare in his sermon is he not blind in not seing that he hath made this his own defence needlesse is it not his owne argument that things manifest need not be disputed nothing needeth to be argued or disputed but that which is not evident But his excessive The D. practyce coÌ„tradicteth his speach travell in mainteyning that sermon and the strange fitts he falleth into in his defence thereof doe shew that in his sermon he made not the matter so cleare as he talketh of Where then in his defence so it seemeth he meaneth And be it so yet was it not so before no not in his owne eyes for then this defence by his owne reason had been needlesse What reason then hath he to argue his refuter eyther of wonderfull blindnes for not seing that which was not then to be seene or of impudencie for affirming the contrary which if he hath not clearely proved is yet in quaestion May we not rather wonder and wonder in deed at the Doct. that counteth it woderful ignorace or impudencie for any to deny or disprove whatsoever he sayth seemeth to himself manifestly to prove though in saying as he sayth here he doth but crave the questioÌ„ And yet out of the same passioÌ„ he proceedeth asketh his ref The D. againe beggeth the questioÌ„ forgetteth him self and the part in question how he durst mention the judgement and practise of the primitive Church for the triall of the truth in question seing there is not one testimonye nor example in all antiquity for the pretended discipline c and offreth that if his Ref. shall bring any one pregnant testimony or example he will yeeld in the whole cause Not to tell him agayn that he is still in begging the questioÌ„ I praye him to tell his Ref. what should feare him from mentioning that which he vndertook to justify and proove and whereto his large defense serveth if his Ref. hath not at least in shewe proved as much as he mencioneth or not brought so much as one testimony or example to the purpose the D. in his passion forgatt himself and the point in question surely he could not els but knowe that diverse testimonies of the Fathers are brought to prove the function of the Bishops in question to be jure humano not divino As for his offer to yeild in the whole cause yf but any one pregnant testimony or example be produced by pregnant he meaneth certeinly such as are subject to no wresting or cavillation but pregnant in his owne judgment not in the judgment of all or the most sound orthodoxall divines in the world otherwise testimonies pregnant enough have bin already produced But what so pregnant that Cavillers such especially as have the sword by their side cannot with some colours or others elude and thereby delude the eyes of the simple which is all they care for In the next place where the Ref sayth that his doctrine is contrary Sect. 3. pag. 4. of the ref 4 of the Doct. to the iudgement of all the reformed churches since the reestablishment of the gospel by the worthies in these latter times the D. chargeth with an vntruth saying It is not a strange thing that a man professing sincerity should so overreache seing a farre greater part of the reformed Churches is governed by Bishops and Superintendents then by the Presbyterian discipline as I have showed in the later ende of this book How the Doct. hath proved his assertion here shal be sene when we come to that later ende of his booke but if he there proveth it no better then he here proveth his Refut to have overreached I will turne the Doctors owne words one or two exchanged vpon him saye Is it not a strange thinge that a man of the Doctors title should so overreach Nay may I not apply it to him before I proceed any further For how proveth he that his refuter hath so overreached in this place Forsooth becaâ—se a farr greater part of the reformed Churches is governed by Bishops and Superintendents c. The which for the time present let vs suppose to be true though by reformed Churches the Ref meaninge as he elswhere sheweth soundly reformed Churches it is not true But graunt it yet that which the D. saith is false viz. that The D. untruely char refuter to overreach is himself too ready to over-reach therefore his refuter overreacheth here For may not reformed Churches be governed by Byshops or Supreintendents and yet the same Churches denie that the calling of our L. Bishops is jure divino which is at least as the Ref. vnderstandeth it the maine doctrine of the sermon and that whereto all other particulars doe homage and service When the D. hath proved that the Bishops and Superintendents of all reformed Churches are such for the substance of their calling as ours and doe hold or exercise their functions jure divino not positivo lett him charge his Refut with overreaching In the meane time he sheweth himself too ready to overreach for if he looke over his Bishops and Superintendents mentioned in the later ende of his book he maye see if he shutt not his eies that they held not their Bishoprickes or SupreinteÌ„dencie by the D. new-found claime and tenure to whom at this tyme onely I will add one or two more not mencioned by him Iodocus Naum vpon Rom. 12. distributeth the Church-officers ordeyned by GOD into Prophets and Deacons the Prophets into
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
upon this ground we may safely affirme that the function of DiocesaÌ„ Bps. is truely ascribed to the institutioÌ„ of that monkish Pope Dionisius 266 yeares after Christ or therabouts For however Bishops were ordeyned of the Apostles and sett over particular Churches as parish Ministers are at this day yet there could be no Diocesan Bishops till Dâ—oceses were distributed and parishes multiplyed in each Diocese Wherefore it is neyther error nor blasphemy to affirme that the function of Diocesan Bishops is Antichristian if that may be rightly termed Antichristian which had the first institution from the Bishops of Rome in the third centurie of yeares after Christ If the Doct. shall contradict this position it will easily be made good from the grounds of his owne manner of disputing For in The Ref justified by the D. own grounds affirming pag. 12. of his praeface that the function and discipline of our Bishops though truely Catholike and Apostolicall is of his opposites termed Antichristian he offreth us this disiunction The functions and government of Diocesan Bishops and Provinciall Arch Bishops are eyther truely Catholik and Apostolical or else rightly termed antichristian He cannot weaken this disiunctive proposition vnlesse he will overthrowe his owne reasoning lib. 1. pag. 60. 61. and confesse himself to be as ignorant in logick as he would make his refuter to be If therefore it may appeare that the functions and government of Diocesan Bishops and Provincial Archbishops are not truely Catholike and Aposticall it wil then inevitably followe that their functions govermeÌ„t are justly termed AntichrstiaÌ„ But the function and government of Diocesan Bishops being first instituted by the Pope Dynosius cannot be truely Catholike or Apostolicall much lesse can the function and government of Provinciall Archbishops be truely catholik or apostolicall if that be true which himself holdeth for a truth not to be denied viz. that there were Diocesan Bishops such as ours be before there were any Metropolitans or Provinciall Primates because they followed upon the combination of Dioceses subordination of divers Churches togither with their Bishops in the same province vnto the metropolitane as their Primate lib. 3. p. 20 21. lib. 4. p. 7. Wherefore the Doct. hath no just cause to blame his ref if he shall hereafter hold the calling of DiocesaÌ„ provincial Bishops to be AntichristiaÌ„ 4. Especially seing he hath not at all touched the main grouÌ„ds which prevayle with those who have affirmed the degrees functions of Diocesan Bishops Archb to be Antichristian viz. 1. that the bringing in of these degrees by litle and litle made way for the man of sinne to climbe up to the top of his greatnes to seat himself in that chaire of Luciferian pride wherein he sitteth at this day as shal be seene in the answ to his lib. 4. cap. 5. sect 10. 2. And as he stil leaneth on their shoulders so his kingdome cannot stand without them for they are his assistants without them they can have no preists so no Church as the D. acknowledgeth pa 7. 12. of of his preface wheras on the contrary the true Churches of Christ may as the Doct. also holdeth as he sayd before page 2. and 7. of his preface very well want them as they did in the purest times viz the first 200 yeares as shall appeare in answere to his lib. 4. cap. 1. sect 4. and 5. and doe in some places at this day florish in more peace and sinceritie witnes the broiles of the Church after the first 200. yeares and the peace of the reformed Churches at this day then those Churches which formerly did and now doe imbrace them 3. But specially this is to be noted that sole ruling Bishops such as are ours diocesan and provinciall Lords for which see the state of the question lib. 2. chap. 3. 4. could never gaine any generall applause or place in the Church till Antichriste having first gotten possession of his vsurped vniversal headshipp to proportionate their estate in some degree like to his owne did procure for some of them principallities and for all of them Baronnies and allowed every one of them to domineire as petty Monarches in the exercise of their spirituall jurisdiction as shal be proved in the proper place hereafter To goe on therefore vnto that which remayneth The D. thinketh Sect. 7. D. pag. 13. 14. it strange that the doctrine of his sermon concerninge Bishops alone should vpholde the Popishe Hierarchie from the highest to the lowest aswell as our owne and calleth it a shameless vntruth because the Papists reckon 5. orders vnder Deacons But we with the primitive Church reckon but. 3. onely Bishops Presbyters and Deacons But intreating him The Doctmust take his shameless vntruth to himself to take the shameless vntruth to himself as his owne proper in this point aswell as in the rest I wish him witt that it is not strange to them who see and knowe that many arguments now vrged in our Church for the popish ceremonies reteyned by us as crosse c doe by a like coÌ„sequeÌ„ce plead for oile salt c. which we have abolished And therefore we have more cause to thinke it a strange thing that the Doctor should be ignorant that many of his arguments intended for the defence of his Bps alone with the change of an AssumptioÌ„ may serve as fitly to justify those inferior degrees which are vnder the Deacons in the Romish Synagogues And yet it is more strange that he should challenge conformitie with the primitive Church in reckoning 3. degrees of Ministers and neyther more nor lesse seing the same authors that he alleadgeth for that purpose serm pag. 29. c. doe reckon other degrees which wee have refused and the Papists reteyne though in a more corrupt course as all other Church functions are and some more ancient doe reckoÌ„ two onely as his refuter in answere therevnto shewed Lastly it is more then a wonder in the Dect eyes that the very same reasons which are brought to justify the Apostolical goverment of our Church should also serve to prove their Antichristian Hierarchy because their Bishops are subordinate to the Pope and receive jurisdiction from him but ours not so But if his reasoning be of any worthe it may well be more then a wonder to his readers if the example of the auncient Apostolical Presbyters should justify our parish Ministers at this day For the former were all one with the Bishops in the Apostles times received their jurisdiction aswell as their function from Christ or the holy Ghost Act. 20. 28 but ours now are subordinate to Bishops and receive their jurisdiction from them Nowithstanding if the Doctor had advisedly considered that the question is of functions onely and not of accidentall circumstances he would have The D. exciption both idle and frivelous spared this exception of his as judging it both idle and frivolous As for his
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
those 16. positions by the Refuters words whereof he tooke notice pag. 38. 41. that they subject their Pastor and every of their ecclesiasticall officers to the body of the congregation and their censure if there be juste cause he doth wittingly add vnto his former vntruthes these 2. false and shamelesse positions viz. That their Pastor is a pettye Pope The D. addeth to his former vntruthes 2. false and shamelesse positions in regard of that supremacy which they ascribe vnto him and that were it not that he had a consistorie of Elders joyned to him as the Pope hath of Cardinals he would be more then a Pope True it is they say that the Pastor of a particular congregation is the highest ordinary ecclesiasticall officer in every true constituted visible Church of Christ But they speake onely of such Churches and Church-officers as were specially instituted in the new-Testament And if the D. judgement be demaunded which is the highest ordinary Church-officer in such a Church let him thinke with himselfe whether he must not be inforced to affirm asmuch of his diocesan Bishop or at least of his Archbishop For if all the visible Churches planted by the Apostles and indowed with power of ecclesiasticall government were dioceses properly as he confidently saith and if he dare not resolutely affirme and for a certeine truth as he dareth not but thinketh onely lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 114. that Metropolitans were I say not instituted but intended by the Apostles why may it not be concluded that in his opinion the diocesan Bishop is he highest ordinarie officer ecclesiasticall in every true visible Church instituted in the new testamet Wherefore since it is apparant by the tenor of his sermon specially by pag. 44. 45. 90. that he giveth to the Bishop a peerelesse power of rule aswell over the presbyters as the people of his diocese that maie be truly affirmed of his diocesan Bishop which he falsly saith of the parish Bishop that he is a petty Pope in regard of that supremacie which he ascribeth vnto him If he had rather bestowe this honor vpon his Metropolitan Bishop because to prove that no Church in the world is more agreable to the forme and government of the most ancient and Apostolicall Churches then this of England he saith in that 114. pag. lib. 2. that at the first Metropolitans were autokephaloi heades by themselves of their provinces and not subordinate to any other superiour Bishops as it must needes be granted him that the title doth beseeme him much better because the supremacie of his jurisdiction is farr larger so it The D. falleth into another vn truth in denying any of our Bishops to be the supreme ecclesiasticall officer in his Church To say as he doth pag. 45. that our Bishops are guidded by lawes which by their superiors are imposed on them maketh no more for them then the like subjection in the parish Bishop But why say I the like Since it is farr greater he being subject not onely to the King his ecclesiasticall lawes and the meanest of his civil officers but also to the censures of his fellow-elders and the congregation whereof he is a member But that which is further added touching the Pastours with their elders and people viz. that they have as the Pope saith he hath a supreme immediate and independent authority sufficient for the government of their Churches in all causes ecclesiasticall and therefore for mâ—king of lawes ecclesiasticall c. and that as the Pope doth not acknowledge the superiority of a synode to impose lawes on him no more doe they I yet see not with what windelace he can drawe from thence that which he intendeth viz. that the title of absolute popelings agreeth better to their parish Bishops then to his Diocesan Bishops For is not that power of government which the Doctor giveth to every Diocesan Church by divine and Apostolicall institution as immediate independent and sufficient for it self as that which they give to every parish Else why doth he for the confuting and supressing of their parishonal government set downe this assertion namely that the visible churches such as he speaketh of indowed with power of ecclesiasticall government were Dioceses properly and not parishes The comparison therefore standeth much better betweene the Pope and the Diocesan Bishop in this manner As Papists say their Pope hath an independent and immediate authority from Christ over all the Pastors and people within his charge which is the Catholike Church or vniversal societie of Christians throughout the world a power sufficient for the ecclesiasticall government of all Churches every where so siath the Doctor and his associates that every Diocesan Bishop hath an immediate and independent authority from Christ over all the people of his Diocese which is his charge and sufficient for the ecclesiasticall government of all Churches within his jurisdiction see pag. 14. of his answere to the preface serm pag. 52. As for Synodes if they be lawfully called well ordered and their constitutions by royall authority ratified the Doctor can give neyther more honour nor obedience to them then they doe as their protestation sheweth Art 8 12. 13. 14. If they want regall authoritie to assemble or to ratify them they thinke that by divine or apostolicall ordinance their decrees or canons ought not to be imposed on any Churches without their particular and free consents See H. I. in his reasons for reform pag. 31. And if this also be a papall priveledge how will he exempt his Diocesan Bishop from being like herein to the Pope when he had nether Archbishop not provinciall Synode to impose any lawes on him Or the Archbishop and primate of all England who at this day acknowledgeth no superiority of any synode to impose lawes vpon him Thus much shall suffice to be spoken in defense of those later disciplinarians from whom although in some thinges I confesse I dissent yet I cannot cosent to the D. taking away of their innocency Wherein we see how the more he striveth to remove the title of popelings from the diocesan or provinciall Bishop the more he inwrappeth either the one or the other vnder a just and due title therevnto And since it is and shal be proved that he giveth both The D. getteth nothing by striving let him take home his plaine lye sole and supreme authority to Bishops in their Churches he must will he nill he take home to himself that same plaine-lye which he giveth his Refuter in the next section pag. 47. because he saith that his wordes doe there imply and afterwards plainely affirme a sovereigntie and supremacie in Bishops over other Ministers for in the Refuters vnderstanding sovereigntie is nothing but sole and supreme authority What more there is the Refuter is content to saye as the D. in the section following willeth him to say in another case ou manthano ad sect 12. pag. 47. I understand
or by the nature of their office might not continue longer And the Doctor might aswel say that these two worthies doâ— make the office of the Pastor which is perpetual aÌ„nual for the case may so fall out that it may doth last but a yeare with some such is their demeanour therein And to conclude the very lawes of Geneva which conteyne the order of that Church whereunto the D. appealeth saying pag. 9. That in the end of the yeare the Elders shal be presented to the Seniory to know if they be worthy to continue in their office or to be discharged because it is not expedient that they be changed without a cause shal be Iudge However it be it resteth still an untruth vpon the Doctors owne head neither shall he ever be able to remove it in that he faith They hold the Presbyters of those Churches mentioned in his text which were not Ministers to be annuall or lay-Presbyters Asmuch may be sayd concerning the third point viz. that they The Doct. standeth out in an untruth make those angels nothing else but Presidents of the Presbyteries then which the Doctor saith nothing is more plaine I say nothing is lesse plaine or true then that it is plaine they say so For 1. neyther Calvin nor Beza nor T. C. nor the Author of the ecclesiasticall discipline do confound those ancient Bishops the D. speaketh of with these Angels as he doth He produceth them all 4. as if he would strike it dead and they all agree in one yet never The Doct. 4. authors agree in one but never a one with him some of them against him a one with him Three of them speake neyther of these angels nor of the times wherein they lived but of other persons times very sweetly therefore doth the D. from them conclude for these Angels and their times Beza in deed Annot in Apoc. 2. 1. speaketh of these Angels but it is cleare he maketh them such Proestoâ—es praesidents of the assemblies to moderate the meetinges of the rest of the Ministers as that also they were Ministers of particular Churches or congregations with whom the rest of the Ministers were equall in authority after the end of that assemblie over which they were for order sake chosen sett yea he directly disclaymeth both in that Annotation and in his answere to Saravia those presidents or Bishops which were nothing else but presidentes of such Assemblies having no particular Churches vpon which they did reside and over which they watched not togither with the rest of the Ministers of equall authority with them 2. It is also evident by the writings both of Calvin and Beza for as for the other noted in his Margine I know not to what ende he should send the reader to them vnlesse for his discredit in quoting them idlely Instit lib. 4. ca. 4. sec 3. and De gradib Minist ca. 22. pa. 133. that even those ancient Bishops which lived after the time of these Angels for of them onely they speak which moderated the assemblies of the reste of the Pastors and presbyters in any Towne or Citie were themselves by their office Pastors et suae pareciae preerant and governed their owne parishe yea they laboured no lesse much more rather then other presbyters in the dispensation of the Word and Sacraments ill favouredly therefore doth the D. conclude from them for the Apostles times But to help at a dead lifte and to colour the falsehood which he could The D. to colour his vntruth foysteth in a sentence which yet doth him no good not but see of that his assertion he now in this defence foysteth in these words in respect of their superiority and telleth us that they make the Angels of the Churches in respect of their superiority onely presidents of the presbyteries And so reasoneth very profoundly in this manner They make the Angels of the Churches in respect of their superiority above other presbyters onely praesidents of the presbyters Ergo they make those Angels nothing else but presidentes or moderaters of the assemblies As if a man mought by rules of logick conclude Mr. Downam to be nothing else but a Doctor in divinitie because by degres in schooles he is a D. in divinity though he be also Pastor of great Which is his best stile if he were so well advised as to take his degree of honor from the word of God c. As for the fourth since the Ref. acknowledgeth answer pag. 7. Sect. 13. ad sect 17. p. 52. 53. that those wise and learned divines doe judge that their presidencie in classicall or Synodall meetings was but of a short continuance as occasion required the D. might have spared his labour in proving this point If he would directly have contradicted him he should have proved from their writings that they are of opinion that the president might not by the nature of his office continue longer then for a weâ—ke or a moneth this was it which the Refuter denied but herein he justifieth him rather For in the very places quoted by him pag. 141. 153. though Beza saith that the presidentes of the presbyters were at first by course of short continuance yet he affirmeth that that order was not essentiall or immutable but accidentall and variable and that it was afterwards thought fit to settle it constantly vpon one But whereas the D. lib. 2. pa. 141. telleth us that as there cannot be one instance given but that alwaise the president of the presbyterie in the primitive Church was perpetuall so it was in Calvins time and Beza misliketh it not but sometimes wisheth it were restored what else doth he but justifie his Refuter in that The D. justifieth his Refuter in that where in he would coÌ„demn him must take home his 4. untruthes wherein he would condemne him Wherefore let the D. be intreated to take these 4. vntruthes to himself again their own home where for ought I know they were bredd and borne and there let them rest till he can bring which wil be ad graecas calendas a better discharge from their writings to justify those particulars Now touching those calumniations of vnmannerly ignorance cuÌ„â—ing rudenes wrangling c. which he objected against his Refuter I overpasse them as vnworthy any answere it was the best he could doe to outface and salve his credit but ill will it doe it with them that are wise judicious But whereas he twice affirmeth pag. 47 53. that the Refuter craftily concealeth or cunningly seeketh to conceale the division which is among our selves it is a slaunder not of ignorance The D. wittingly slandereth but against his owne knowledge for he could not but see that he sayd pag. 5. of his answere that all men are not resolved of the truth of every of them yet the division is not so great as he would perswade the world nether are the pointes so newe or so generally contradicted
his reasoning Sect. 2. ad sect 18. 19. p. 54. 57. whether it were so farr disordered by his Refuter as he would perswade his reader or rather be not perverted and put out of frame by himself It is a truth by himself confessed in the last section of this chapter pag. 57. lin 33. 35. that the body or frame of his sermon concludeth one and the same question but he is very angrie with his Refuter for reducing both the assertions which he proposed to be distinctly handled into one syllogisme For though he granteth that some such syllogisme as his Refuter framed â—aie be gathered out of diverse places of his sermon yet he denieth that it answereth to his intent The syllogisme is this The function of the Bishops of the 7. Churches is lawfull and good The function of the Bishops of the Church of England is the function of the Bishops of the 7. Churches Therefore the function of the Bishops of the Church of England is lawfull and good Both the premisses are clearely gathered from the 2. page of his sermon for the proposition is implied in the 2. assertion which saith That the office function of Bishops here ment by Angels is in this text approved as lawfull and commended as excellent And the assumption is thus propounded in the first assertion ibid. The Angels of the 7. Churches or the Pastors or Bishops of those Churches vnderstood by the angels were Bishops for the substance of their calling such as the reverend fathers of our Church are But let vs heare the Doctors censure of the refuters syllogisme Against the assumption he excepteth nothing wherefore I must take it for graunted that it is as his refuter affirmeth all one with his first assertion In like manner he graunteth the conclusion to be the same with that which he calleth the doctrine collected out of the text viz. that the colliâ—ge of diocesan Bishops is lawfull and good which he setteth also for the conclusion of both the syllogismes which himself frameth pag. 58. neither denieth he the proposition to be in effect all one with that which himself taketh for the proposition of his first syllogism viz. that the calling of such as are here meant by Angels is lawfull and good Let us view his syllogism and compare it with the Refuter and this it is The calling of such as are here ment by Angels is lawfull and good Diocesan Bishops are such as are here ment by Angels Therefore the calling of diocesan Bishops is lawfull and good What difference in the proposition betwene function and calling Bishops of the 7. Churches and such as are here ment by Angels What difference in the assumption betwene the Bishops of the Church of England and diocesan Bishops Are they not in the Dâ—â—ense all one if so what difference in the conclusions And wherein then hath the Refuter offended if his syllogism be for the sense and meaninge of each parte though the wordes and phrases doe a little vary one and the same with the first of the D. owne framing Forsooth the Doct. will tell you because he would against sense make the Reader beleeve that the proposition of his syllogism is that last assertion which was propâ—unded pag. 2. concerning the quality of their function But goeth not the Doctor rather against all sense yea against his owne conscience in labouring to make the reader beleeve that the conclusion of the Refuters syllogisine is that assertion or doctrine as he calleth it which pag. 2. sheweth the quality of their function For doth the Doctor speak of the Bishops of the Church of England and not rather of the Bishops of the 7. Churches in Asia when he promiseth out of the words of the text to shewe that the office and function of Bishops there meant by angels is in the same text approved as lawfull and commended as excellent And are the Bishops there meant by angels the Bishops of the Church of England and not the Bishops of those 7. Churches Behold how a greedy desire to quarrell with his Refuter without cause carieth The D. coÌ„ mitteth 3. foul faults to colour a falshood him at vnawares into these fowl faultes not onely of coÌ„tradicting coÌ„mon sense his owne knowledge but also of giving the lie to the holy ghost the author of the text And all this is done to colour that falshood which before he had forged sciz that his 2. assertion propounded pag. 2. was this viz. the calling of Diccesan Bishops is lâ—wfull and good A falshood sufficiently before discovered and by himself inconsiderately no doubt yet plainly acknowledged when he saith of the conclusion of the first Syllogisme p. 58. which is verbatim the same that before he called his doctrine that he did not expresse it being implyed in the collection of the doctrine out of his text So this one sentence the calling of the diocesan Bishops is lawfull and good is propounded as a doctrine collected out of the text pag. 2. and yet is not expressed neither is it the doctrine but implyed onely in the collection of the doctrine How slippery is his memorie that The Doct. in one pag grossly coÌ„tradicteth himselfe in lesse then one page contradicteth himself so grossely But pardoÌ„ we him this slip for it is his coÌ„mon though a false Tenent that the later of his two assertions propounded pag. 2. of his sermoÌ„ is the doctrine which he collecteth from the text the former serving to prove the later which he saith lib. 4. pag. 2. doth much coÌ„mend the methode of his sermon But the reader by that saying may see how ready he is notwithstanding his disclayming of it with indignation lib. 1. cap. 1. to apprehend a slight occasion to blase his owne commendations and how needful it was he should discarde that second assertion which was first layde downe serm pag. 2. and in stead thereof tender vs that which every where in his defence he termeth his doctrine For if his 2. assertions taken in the very words which first expressed them be so knit together that the former shall prove the later the Enthemem which they will frame is this and no other The Pastors or Bishops meant by the angels Apocal. 1. 20. were Bishops for the substance of their calling such as the reverend fathers of our Church are Therefore the office and function of Bishops here meant by angels is in this text both approved as lawfull and commended as excellent Now to make good the consequence of this collectioÌ„ this must be added for the proposition The function of such Bishops for the substance of their calling as are the reverend fathers of our Church is in this text approved as lawfull and coÌ„mended as excellent Doth not this kind of reasoning think you very highly commend the Doctors methode in disposing his two assertions to his best advantage For however he begg the maine question in the proposition or The D. beggeth the main
question consequence of his Enthimeme for graunted yet he may rest securely in this that the conclusion of his argument will never be impugned But if his Refuter had thus disorderly turned the frame of his sermon vpside downe or given the least intimation that he indeavoured to prove a Diocesan Bishoprick to be lawful in the angels of these 7. Churches because it is lawfull in the Lord Bishops of England there had beene some cause for him whereas nowe there is no colour of a cause to complaine as he doth pag. 56 57 that by a forced Analysis not answerable to his Genesis the frame of his sermon to let his racking and taintering speeches alone is put quite out of frame Wherefore since the Doctor chargeth his Refuter with the fault whereof The D. is guilty of the fault which he chargeth his refuter with himself is guilty it shall be no great wroÌ„g done to return him some other of his own words p. 56. nimia est miseria doctuÌ„ esse hominum nimis behold to how great trouble too much learning wil put a man For if his skil had not bene extraordinary I say not in analysing his owne treatise but in changing his two first assertions and bringing in other two in their stead all this stirr had bin needlesse But the stirre or strife is not yet at an end the Doctors greatest Sect. 3. ad sect 19 p. 56. quarrel against his refuter is yet behinde namely the censure which he passeth upon those 5. points which he prosecuted in the body of his sermon where he saith answ pag. 9. that the first the last are to litle purpose and that the other three doe not directly prove the point in question I will not here trouble the reader with the Doctors termes wherein he sheweth in what rage he was hereat let us rather examine how just or vnjust this the Refuters censure is the which that it may appeare let it be remembred that the Doctor acknowledgeth in the former section pag. 54 that the first 4. points must be referred to the proof of his first assertion the last of the fyve to the second Now this being so whosoever taketh his second assertion in the words wherein he delivered it serm pag. 2. shall easily discerne that it is labour bestowed in vaine to spend time in the proving of that which is cleare enough of it self For who ever doubted but that the office and function of those Bishops which are in his text meant by angels is there approved as lawful and commended as excellent Wherefore if his 5. point serve for none other vse then for the proofe of this The D. 5. point is idle assertion the D. hath no cause to blame his Ref for affirming he might well have spared that labour But albeit he could not indure so milde a reproofe his patience must now be tryed with a sharper Be it therefore knowne to him that he reasoneth absurdly if he The D. reasoneth absurdly referr his 5. point to the fortifying of his 2. assertion pag. 2. for thus then his enthymeme standeth The calling of Bishops such as ours are or at least such as the Bishops of the auncient Churches are affirmed to be serm pag. 7. is of apostolical and divine institution Ergo the function of Bishops meant by angels Apoc. 1 20. is in the same text approved as lawful and commended as excellent As for that difference which is betweene the later terme or praedicatum of the antecedent and of the consequent in this argument I will take no exception against it for though every apostolicall or divine institution findeth not approbation in this text Apocal. 1. 20 yet the honour of such an institution cannot be denied vnto any function which in this text receiveth approbation Wherefore he shall with good leave if he will exchange the later terme of his conclusion thus Ergo the function of Bishops meant by Angels Apoc. 1. 20. is of apostolicall and divine institution But how will the D. cover the shame of his disorderly reasoning when in stead of justifying our Bishops by the calling of those Angels he doth contrariwise inferre their calling to be of divine institution because our bishops have deryved their function from divine or apostolicall ordination Is not this to set the Cart before the Horse to laye that for the foundation which The D. laieth that for the groundsell that should serve for the ridgepole should serve for the roofe or highest parte of his buylding It will not serve his turne to tell us that we mistake his 2. Assertion for it is already shewed that himself putteth a changling in place thereof when he delivereth vnder that name this conclusion that callinge of diocesan Bishops is lawfull and good Notwithstanding since he will needes have this which the falsely calleth his 2. Assertion to be the doctrine whlch he intended to prove not onely by the explication of his text comprized in his first assertion but also by that 5. point wherein he bestowed his greatest labour if he have sufficiently fortified the former 4. pointes which serve to vpholde that explication which concludeth his doctrine what offence was it for his Refuter then or now againe for his reader to say that his labour in the last point was needlesse and might well have bin spared May he not well think that one argument soundly concluded from the canonicall text will more prevaile with the wise then many conjectural reasons drawne froÌ„ mere humane testimonies But may a man prove his patience yet a little further that with an harder sentence viz. That he contradicteth himself in urging The D. coÌ„tradicteth himself that 5. point as a distinct proofe to conclude the doctrine I speak herein nothing but the truth and that I received from his owne mouth For this 5. point to wit that the function of Bishops is of epostâ—licall and divine institution which he now pag 54. 58. maketh a proofe of the doctrine arising out of the text is expressely affirmed serm pag 93. to be the doctrine it self which ariseth out of the text and by way of explication of the text is proved And who so well observeth what lawfulnes and goodnes or excellencie he ascribeth eyther to the function of those Bishops which are meant by angels in his text assert 2. pag. 2. or to the calling of all other Bishops answerable to his description pag. 51. with 54. 54. he may plainly perceive that it is no other then such as hath institution from God and approbation from the text it self under the names of starrs angels wherefore if he himself had beene as carefull to observe the transitions which he vseth in his sermon as he is ready without cause to blame his refuter for not observing theÌ„ he might have discerned his doctrine handled in his sermon to be the very laste of his 5. pointes and not so diverse from it as
assumption and conclusion on this manner If the primitive Churches were governed by diocesan Bishops then not by such presbyteries as they stand for But they were governed by diocesan Bishops Ergo not by such presbyteries as they stand for The proposition of this argument is absolutely necessary for such presbyters and such diocesan Bishops as ours are cannot stand togither And if the Assumption be denied he is already provided of a disiunctive argumentation sufficient to confirm it So that he may daunce as in deed he doth lib. 4. cap. 1. pag. 35. the round The Doct. daunceth the round betwene these two and need not seek any newe prosylloâ—isme to conclude that which is to be proved But 2. what meaneth the D. to take that for graunted which his refuter flatly denieth Doth he not plainely tell him answer pag. 10. that though at were so as he supposeth that there were no other Elders in the primitive Church bâ—t Ministers of the word yet that it would not follâ—w that the Bishops were Diâ—osan because a Presbyterie of Ministers such as the D. himselfe coâ—fsseth The D. taketh for graunted that which is flatly denied were then in use might be ioyned with the Bishop in the government of the Church and that the whole congregation might have as great an hand in the government as he for so some of our opposites do graunt it had some times and therefore the sole government of Diocesan Bishops may well fâ—ll though there were no sole governing elders to over turne them It is therefore plaine that the Refuter disclaymeth this dâ—siunctive proposition as not necessarily true and that the Doctor wittingly how wittily soever concealeth from his reader both that division which is among the favourites of the Hyerarchie some acknowledging the state of the Church in the Apostles times for the outward forme and government thereof to be popular as Archbishop Whitgift in defence of his answer pag. 180-182 which the Doctor esteemeth pag. 41. a Brownistâ—call and Anabaptisticall dotage and The D. coÌ„tradâ—cteth his owne doctrine that contradiction which is found in his own writing since he now putteth the reynes of Church-government into the hands of the Bishop to rule as ours doe without the advise of the presbyters whereaâ— he formerly acknowledged sâ—rm pag. 1â— that in the primitive Church the Bishop vsed the advise of certeyne â—raâ—e Ministers and in Church causâ—s did nothing almost without them A thing now growne altogither out of vse and in the opinion of â—ome whose judgemeÌ„t ought to sway much with the Doctor that kâ—nâ—e of government which the aunciâ—nt Presbyteries and their Bishops exerâ—ised is now transferred to the Mâ—gistrate to whome it is due aâ—d to such as by him are appointed sâ—e D. Whitgifts defense pag. 747 Howsoever therefore it may be granted that in the question delivered by the Doctor the disiunct on which his proposit on expresseth is impliâ—d yet it followeth not â—ay it is an apparaâ—t vntruth to affirm hâ—t the disâ—unction is on both sides presupposed necessarie which the Doctor must confesâ—e vnlesse to use his owne words he will confesse himselfe to be ignorant in logick seing his disjunction and question doth not sufficiently enumerate their opinions which have debated this question in generall viz. what the forme of government was which was first practized in the most ancient and Apostolik Churches So that if I would treade in the D. stepps I might justly repay him with some such marginall notes as pag 47. 53. without cause he hath sett down to disgrace his Refuter to witt that the D. and his Consorts at this Day doe pleade against the discipline which Arch-Bishop Whitgift other learned Protestants yea the most ancient freinds of the Hierarchy acknowledged to be practised in the apostolike Churches and that the Doctor mistaking the question and craftily concealing the division that is among them of his owne side is bold to affirme that to be graunted which he knoweth to be denied 3. I know that for his defence he saith that his Refuter acknowledgeth the question to be such as he proposeth but he doth both the Refuter and the reader the more wronge in so saying In deed when the Refuter intended to shewe that our diocesan Bishops maye be proved absolute popelings by the same reason that the D. urgeth to cast that name on the parishe Bishops for which they whom the D. calleth a new secte doe as he saith stryve he then affirmed that the question betwixt the Doctor and them not betwene the D. and us for those words the D. hath evilly put in to make his owne cause good was this whether the Churches should be governed by Pastors The Doct. chaungeth the Refutâ— words and Elders or by diocesan Bishops But how doth it followe that he acknowledgeth the first of his two questions before mencioned to be rightly and fully delivered in respect of the parts of the disiunction He that hath but half an eye may see the inconsequence of his reasoning specially seing the question expressed by the refuter hath more reference to the second quaestion de iure then to the first de facto Moreover hath the Doctor forgotten that at his first meeting with this question he enterteyned it so well that pag. 41. The D. coÌ„tradicteth himselfe he intreated the reader to store it up for future use Shall I therfore now inferr that he contradicteth himself in saying that his assertion is falsified in the later part of the question 4. But what need so many words to thewe the weaknes of the Doctors disiunctive argumentation or to prove that there is not any presupposed truth in his disiunctive proposition I hope he wil graunt for he is a Doctor and cannot lightly so farr forget his logick rules but he must knowe that the question which he debateth in the first part of his sermon must holde proportion with that assertion which is to be concluded from the 4. first points of his five seing the first part of his sermon is comprehended in them Now the assertion which is to be proved by these 4. pointes is eyther this which his disiunctive argument concludeth viz. that the primitive Churches were governed by Diocesan Bishops or rather that which before he set downe pag. 58. for the assumption of his first syllogisme viz. that Diocesan Bishops are such as are here meant by angels But which soever of these two he chooseth certeine it is his question Sect. 4. wil not yeeld him any such disiunctive proposition as he now draweth from this which he tendreth For his quaestion must be a single one and not compounded of two members viz eyther this whether the primitive Church was governed by Diocesan Bishops or no or rather this whether Diocesan Bishops be vnderstood by the angels or no And this last coÌ„meth somewhat neare the mark though it misse of the right tenour of wordes which it ought to have kept viz. whether Bishops
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
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
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
in his proposition to let passe the Church of London which in Q. Maries time comprehended all the true Christians aswell in the Country adjoyninge as in the City yet was not a diocese but rather a parishe assembly 1. I object his owne wordes Cap. 2. p. 39. Viz. That as with us Bathe and Wells Lichfeild and Coventry London and Colchester so in the primitive Church more Cityes theÌ„ one with the countries adjoyning made but one diocese And for instance in this case he saith that the Bishop of Heraâ—lea had bothe it and Panion the Bishop of Bâ—â—e had also Arcadiopolis c. he addeth page 40. that the whole nation of the Scythians having many Cities Townes and Castles had all of them by ancient custome one onely Bishop and therefore was but one diocese From hence then thus I reason Here with us the Christian people of these 4. Cities Coventry Litchfield Colchâ—ster London with their Countryes or Shires adjoyning doe not make each of them a â—everall Diocese the same may be sayd of the auncient Christians in the cities of Heraclea Panion Bize and Arcadiapolis and in the severall cities of the nations of the Scythians Every Church therfore whose circuite conteyneth an whole Citie with the Countrye adjoyning is not a Diocese And consequently he wrangleth against the truth knowne to his owne conscience when he asketh pag. 47. how is it possâ—â—e that those Churches should not be Dioceses which conteyne ample cities with the countries such as we call Shires belonging to them And to manifest the more fully the falsehood of his proposition Sect. 6. I here renew that reason which his Refuter objected answer pag. 54. against the consequence of the proposition by him framed sc Because it doth not appeare neyther is it true that every one of those Churches was divided into diverse severall ordinary assemblies all of them depending upon some one as the cheefe without power of ecclesiasticall government a part in themselves For since every of our Diocesan Churches is so divided till this appeare how can he conclude every of those Churches to be properly such a Diocese as are the Dioceses subjected to our Bishops which is the pointe that he must prove as is before shewed NotwithstaÌ„ding the D. in his reply p. 47. 48. insulteth over his Ref in this maner Is this the deniall of any thing but the conclusioÌ„ is not the denial of the coÌ„clusioÌ„ an evidence that the answerer is coÌ„founded is not coÌ„fusioÌ„ a manifest signe that he writeth against his conscience resolved not to be perswaded though his conscience be convâ—ctâ—d Wherevnto I answer 1. If the Refuters words be nothing but the deniall of the conclusion Eyther the D. rayleth slaundereth or els contradicteth himselfe his maine assertion then in the D. opinion a Diocese and a Church divided into diverse severall ordinary assemblies c. are one and the same thing so that none other Church then that which is so divided can properly or truely be called a Diocese and consequently when he saith pag. 30. that though those Churches had not bene divided into severall congregations yet had they each of them bene Dioceses his meaning must be this q. d. though none of those Churches had bene a Diocese yet each of them had bene a Diocese In like manner when he affirmeth pag. 69. that in the Apostles times the Churches were not divided into several parishes his meaning must be this and no other q. d. In the Apostles times the Churches were no Dioceses Which is to contradict and condemn of falshood the very maine assertion which in the second parte of his sermon he vndertooke to prove And when he argueth there in this manner The Churches in the Apostles times were not divided into severall parishes and therefore the presbyteries in their dayes were appointed not to parishes but to Dioceses his purpose is to reason very profoundly to this effect q. d. in the Apostles times there were no Dioceses therefore in their times the Presbyteries were appointed vnto Dioceses Behold we what the Doctor hath gayned in avouching his Refuters reason to be nothing else but a deniall of the conclusion Are not the consequences of this assertion cleare evidences that it is himselfe that is confounded and that writeth against his conscience as one resolved not to be perswaded though his conscience be convicted 2. For to returne to the point in hand as the D. knoweth well enough that his Refuters words are bent against the consequence of his argument for his meaning is clearely nothing else then this q. d. though it could be proved that every of these 7. Churches was a great and ample citie c. yet it followeth not that they were Dioceses such as ours are because it doth not appeare that every of those Churches was divided into divers several ordinary assemblies c. and upon the same ground the proposition of his argument considered in the sense before explayned is still to be rejected to witt because to make any Churches dioceses such as ours are it is not enough to shewe that their circuit comprehendeth a City and the Country adjoyning he must also demonstrate those 3. branches which he observeth in the Refut words viz. 1. that the Church is divided into diverse ordinary assemblies 2. that all of them depend upon some one as the Cheife 3. and that they have not any of them the power of ecclesiasticall government a parte in themselves But the Doctor not willingly directly to contradict his Refuter Sect. 7. in these particulars perverteth the drifte of his words as if he had intended to prove that those 7. Churches were not dioceses because they were not so divided c. And therefore forgetting what parte himself and his Refuter doe beare in this controversye he urgeth him as if he were the opponent to prove his assertions holding iâ— sufficient for him to deny them till proofe be made of theÌ„ Yet knowing forsooth that none of his Opposites are able to prove any of them desyring from his soul to satisfye them in this cause as brethren he wil breifly disprove them Who would have thought that he would have bin so kinde to an adversary so froward yea convicted and resolved as he saith not to be perswaded Perhaps he taketh this paines for some others sake of whome he hath better hope Well let us listen to his discourse and having first observed what he vndertaketh to disprove we will waie the force of his arguments with as indifferent an hand as we can The first point wherein he contradicteth his Refuter is that he saith It doth not appeare neither is it true that every one of those 7. Churches was divided into diverse severall ordinary assemblies The which if he will disprove he must make it appeare to be a truth that every of those Churches was divided into diverse ordinary assemblies now let us heare what he hath to say
the Doctor and his dearest friends compare this syllogisme with the maine argument which himself contrived and is before set downe sect 5. and if they can finde any such materiall difference in the medius terminus and the premisâ—es as may give the D. a discharge froÌ„ begging the questioÌ„ let them shew it Meane while I doubt not but every unpartiall reader will perceive his povertie in this dispute especially seing he supporteth the Assumption of his principall argument with the same answere pag. â—4 For who that denieth any of the Apostolike Churches to comprehend the whole citie and country adjoyning as Dioceses in succeeding ages did will beleeve that the circuite of those Churches was the same when there were but fewe that it was when many yea all were Christians and who that denieth as the Refuter doth the circuite of a citie and country adjoyning to be sufficient to make a Church a Diocese vnlesse it be divided into many congregations will not take him for a very trifler which to make good the contrary shall yeeld him none other argument then this that a Church not yet divided into severall assemblies is notwithstanding a Diocese If the founder thereof did intend that her circuite should include citie and country as a divided Diocese doth Wherefore to give the Doctor a direct and Both premisses of the Doctor argument are vnsound downeright answere to his argument last contrived I at once reject both the promisses as erroneous and unsound First touching the proposition since the Doctor placeth the very essence and life if I may so speak of a Diocesan Church in her circuite including both citie and countrye adjoyning so long as the truth thereof remeineth questionable as it doth with the Refuter who accounteth such a circuite the materiall cause onely estemeth the very forme that giveth being vnto a Diocesan Church to be her distribution into many assemblies as meÌ„bers of one body a meane logician may see that in a direct and orderly course of proceeding he should have yeelded us some one or other Medius terminus which might have served to prove that such a circuite maketh a Diocesan body although it have no parish assemblies to be members thereof But nowe in arguing as he doth that the ancient Churches though yet vndivided were Dioceses because their founders intended that their circuite should extend over citie and countrie as the later Diocesan Churches did the errour of his reasoning is no lesse grosse and absurd then if he had said Those Churches were Dioceses intentionally Therefore they were Dioceses properly or The D. reasoning is grosse and absurd actually For all men knowe that whatsoever Church is properly a Diocese as he saith all the first Apostolicall Churches were the same is actually and in very deed a Diocese and therefore hath actually and in deed the circuit of a Diocese but if it have the circuit of a Diocâ—se onely in the intention of the founder and not actually it is impossible it should be a dioceâ—e actually or properly but intentionally onely especially in their opinion who place as the D. doth the very forme and being of a diocesan Church in the circuite of her jurisdiction conteyninge both City and Country adjoyning Let the D. here call to minde what he sayd pag. 18. of his sermon mainteineth in the next chapter of his defence p. 65. viz. that when the Apostles first preached to the cheife Cities of any nation they intended the conversion of the whole nation and that when having by Gods blessing converted some they placed presbyters in any of those cheife Cities their intent and hope was by their ministery to converte aswell in the Countries adjoyning as in the City so many as did belong vnto God He addeth in his defence that they whose ministery was intended for the conversion of the City and Country he should have-sayd of the whole nation to their care or charge the people of that City and Country or nation belonged both for the first convertinge of them and for the government of them being converted Whence it is also that he saith lib. 4. pag. 131. that it was from the beginninge intended that the Bishop of the mother City should be the cheif in the Province notwithstanding he constantly holdeth lib. 2. pag. 114. lib. 3. pag. 21. lib. 4. pag. 7. 31. that the Bishops appointed by the Apostles over Mother Cities were at the first actually but Bishops of their owne Dioceses not actually Metropolitanes vntill diverse Churches being constituted and Bishops ordeyned in the severall Dioceses of the province there was a consociation and subordination of them vnto one cheefe primate Now if the intention of the Apostles in the constituting of Churches and presbyters or Bishops in Mother Cities thereby intendinge the conversion of the whole nation and the multiplying of Churches and Bishops as the light of the Gospell should spread it self into the severall Dioceses if this intention I say cannot perswade the Doctor to take the firste Churches and Bishops in Mother-Cities to be actually Mother Churches or Metropolitan Bishops Surely then he might think us very Idâ—otes if we should take his bare word wheÌ„ he disagreeth with himselfe for a fit proofe to perswade us that the like intention of erecting a Church in any citie or Diocese vnder an hope of subjecting the people thereof to the obedience of the gospel can make that Church actually or properly a Diocese till there be distribution of particular assemblies subordinate to the jurisdiction of the Church and ministery first erected in the citie Secondly to come to the Assumption if there be any truth in it his Refuter may make more advantage by it to conclude those Sect. 9. Churches not to be Dioceses properly or actually For No Church whose circuite includeth the citie wherein it is seated the Country adioyning onely in the intention of the first founder but not actually or in execution is a Diocese actually and properly if therefore the 7. Churches were Churches whose circuit included the cities wherein thâ—y were seated and tho countryes adioyning onely in the intention of the first founders but not actually or in execution Then it followeth that The 7. Churches were not Dioceses actually or properly The Proposition is grounded upon that difference which the Doctor himselfe putteth betwixt the actuall being of Metropolitane Bishops or Churches and the intention of those that first foâ—nded Churches in Mother-cities And the Assumption is in effect the Doctors owne assertion as he explaineth himselfe pag. 69. 73. 128 for in the last place quoted he saith expresly that the Counâ—ries subject to the civill jurisdiction of any citie were actually under the Bishops charge after theire conversion and intentionally before wherefore without contradiction to himselfe he cannot rejecte the conclusion So that if his Defense of Diocesan Churches shall holde proportion with the groundes of his disputation he must The Doct. in his next must
writinge but by tradition It is strange a matter of such consequence for the well-orderinge of all Churches to the worlds ende should be committed to such an happ-hazzard 2. And how hath the Church informed the Doctor of their vnderstandinge hath he received it also by tradition or from the writinges of the The D. first reasoÌ„ confuted by himself Lords worthies in all ages Why doth he not either quote us their bookes wherein they affirme it or give us the catalogue of such as have from hand to hand conveied it to him Till he hath given satisfaction in these particulars let him not thinke but his reader will deeme his first reason to be a speach voyde of reason yea a moÌ„strous vntruth confuted by himself as shall well appeare in the examination of his reasons followinge His second reason he laieth downe thus saying Secondly because that division of Churches which was 300. or 400. yeares after Christe with their limits and circuites was ordinarily the same which had bene from the beginning as before hath bene testified by divers auncient Councels Ordinarily and from the beginning So he saith in deed But 1. doth any Councell that he hath alleadged pag. 22. 37. or elswhere testify the circuites of the Churches to have bene from the beginning of their planting by the Apostles the same that they were in their owne times Is not all the question in those Councells of Country parishes or such partes of any Country as neither desyred to have a Bishop or were challenged of diverse Bishops The beginning therefore whereof they speake must be taken for the time of erecting Churches in Country villages and subordinating them to the Bishop of the City adjoyninge Neyther yet doe they ascribe this to any ordinance or intention of the Apostles or first founders of the Church in the Citie but to ancient custome as the words of the Ephesin Councell shew which he hath set downe Can. 2. pag. 37. ratified by ecclesiasticall lawes and Canons falsly called Canons of the Apostles 2. But why saith he the circuites were ordinarily the same Meaneth he it was no coÌ„mon use to alter them Or that it was against order and vnlawfull It cannot be the later since he confesseth pag. 23. that if there were cause sc for the greatnes of the Charge and nomber of people c. the circuites of Dioceses were lessened newe Bishoprickes erected Beholde then howe worthily the D. reasoneth The division of Churches with their circuites remayned till 400. yeares after Christe the same which it had bene from the beginning of erecting Churches in the remote parts of any Diocese and subordinatinge them to the Bishops of the Cities adjoyninge vnlesse the greatnes of the charge required the circuite to be lessened a new Bishoprick to be established Ergo it was the intention of the Apostles that the Churches which they planted should have the same Circuite before the division of parishes that they had after May not the contrary with much more probability be thus argued When the charge of an whole diocese after the distribution of parishes grewe over greate for one Bishop the nomber of people in some partes desyred to have a newe Bishop the Circuites of Churches or Dioceses were altered Ergo it was never intended by the Apostles or at least the Fathers of those times were ignorant of any such intention that the Circuite of every Church should alwayes continue the same aswell when all in City and Country were converted as when there were but a fewe But let us heare his third reason Thirdly saith he because it is confessed by Beza and testified by D. Reynoldes and others that the distribution of the Church did usuâ—llâ— fellowe the division of the CoÌ„mon wealth in so much that those Countries that were subjected to the Civill jurisdiction â—xercised in any City were also subject ordinarily to the ecâ—lesiasticall c. Is not the Doctors plenty think ye turned into mere penury when the testimony of ancient Fathers and Councells faylinge him he is gladd to seeke releife at their handes whose judgement otherwyse ordinarily and usually he rejecteth And yet alas for pity they whome he meaneth cannot yeeld him any comfort For what say they Forsooth that in the distribution of dioceses provinces and patriarchall preheminences the state ecclesiasticall followed the civill And when did the Church take up this Course Doe they say that the Apostles began it or intended any such matter No it was thought a convenient course by the Byshops after the Apostles daies for the better managing of church-Church-causes in their Synods and Meetings that as for civill justice so also for ecclesiasticall affaires recourse should be had to the Cityes and Shire-townes Neyther was this order vniversall or perpetuall as the Doctor himself acknowledgeth in Pergamus and Thyatira pag. 63. yea he affirmeth that by ancient custome the whole nation of Scythians having many Cities townes and Castles made but one Diocese and that the Churches throughout a large Province were but part of one Paraecia or diocese as may be sene pag. 10. 40. of this his defense Wherefore this reason of his doth also coÌ„fure and not confirme his fantasticall conceite of the Apostles intention And it argueth he spake directly against the light of his conscience when he sayd that the whole Church of God ever since the Apostles daies vnto our age hath so vnderstood as he doth the intention of the Apostles and the first founders of the apostolike Churches Wherefore since he hath no better ground for his bolde affirmation that the circuite of each Church in the intention of the Apostles or first founders was the same before the division of parishes that it was after we may well take his conclusion which he inferreth thereupon to be layd in the sand of his owne vaine immagination viz. that though those Churches had not bin divided into severall congregations yet had they each of them bene dioceses But now to returne to the point froÌ„ which he hath longe wandred Sect. 11. ad sect 6. page 50. at his pleasure to little purpose he addeth that at the time of writing the Revelation it is more then probable that they conteyned diverse congregations If it be more then probable then I hope his argumentes whereon he buildeth are more then probabilities even firme and invincible demonstrations But if there be not so much as a shadowe of probabilitie in any thinge he hath alleadged no man can justly blame his Refuter if he say It is more then probable the Doctor is deceived and seeketh to deceive with his vaine braggs of proving what he avoucheth Let vs therefore examine his best probabilities The first is That when Paul had continued but two yeares at Ephesus the holy Ghost testifieth Act. 19. 10. that all which inhabited Asia so properly called did heare the word of the Lord. And having both placed many Presbyters amongst them and continued with theÌ„ for the space
the â—aith which were as his Refuter truely avoucheth neither can the Doctor deney it but a fewe like to the nomber of Christians which was in London and the townes about it in Q. Maries daies or which now is in Paris or some Cities in Fraunce Wherefore to say as he did that the Churches were great Cities c. might better serve his turne as the Refuter judged to dazell the eies of the simple that they might thinke the people of those Churches to be well neere if not altogither as many The Doct. useth cunning in his purgation but yet in raine as the cities conteyned Now the D. to purge himselfe from so foule an imputation thanketh God that he â—s free both from desire and intent of dazaling the eies of the simple but this notwithstanding let the reader observe the cunning which he useth in this purgation The intent of dazeling he disclaymeth but he contradicteth not that which his reâ— objecteth vz. that he would have his reader to think that those Churches contayned as many people as the cities did onely he quarrelleth with him pag. 54. for strayning his words to The D. quarrell is fond and causlesse this meaning as if he had sayd that all the people in the citie and country had bene aâ— that time Christians which is in deed a causles quarrell a fond cavill seing in the D logick divinity here is a great difference betwene these two speaches All the people of the citie country were Christians and the Church conteyned within her circuite all the people of city and countrey for though he reject the former as absurd yet he maintayneth the latter for a sound position Else why doth he not interprete himselfe to have spoken according to an vsuall metonymy of the christian people onely q. d. The 7. Churches were the christians which then inhabited the cities and countries adjoyning Why doth he rather choose pag. 53. to explaine his meaning thus The Churches were that is contayned not onely the cities but the countrie and to illustrate his interpretatioÌ„ by such an instance as this A man is not onely body but soul also that is man consisteth of body and soul or whole man conteineth these two parts for if every of the 7. Churches doth so contayne citie and countrie or consist of those two partes as a man conteineth or consisteth of soule and body then both the whole citie and the whole countrie adjoyning must necessarily concurre to the very essence or being of the Church consequently in his estimation and vnderstanding none of those Churches did consist of or containe onely a fewe of the people as a parte of citie and countrie but rather all in generall Wherefore if he will cleare himselfe of that foule imputation which he semeth so farr to abhorre let him deale plainely and disclaime his construction he now inforceth of conteyning both citie countrie and stick to the usuall metonymie of the christian people in citie and countrie So his arguments will stand in this forme Whatsoever Church in S. Iohns time was or contâ—yned the christian people of an whole citie and countrie adjoyning the same was properly a dioâ—ese yea such a diocese as ours are But every of the 7. Churches of Asia was or contayned in S. Iohns time the christian people of an whole citie and countrie adjoyning Therefore every of those 7. Churches was properly a diocese yea such a diocese as ours is If it please the D. in his next to give allowance vnto this forme his assumptioÌ„ will perhaps be allowed to passe with some connivence till there be some good cause of calling it into question but he will finde it a labour surpassing all his skill and strength to make good the propositioÌ„ Wherefore I have litle hope that he will make this exchange seing he indeavoureth his best to justify aswell the words as the matter of his first assumptioÌ„ agaâ—nst his refuâ— exceptions Concerning the words first is it saith the D. so strange a thing with our learned Refuter that the name of the citie should be given to the Sect. 14. ad sect 8 pag. 53. Church Let him looke back to Apoc. 1. 11. he shall find that the 7. Churches were Ephesus Smyrna c. I answere the Ref how vnlearned soever in the eies of the D. hath no need to learne at his hands that the name of a citie may be and with ecclesiasticall writers is put metonymicè for the Church which was in that citie yet will it not be very easy for the D. to shew us that the Apostles used this phrase of speach in their writings For when they speak not of the place or citie it selfe but of the Church seated in any citie they usually explaine theÌ„selves by some such words as these The Church which is in Ierusalem or Antioch c. Act. 8. 1. and 11. 22. and 13. 1. 1. Cor. 1. 2. Apo. 2. 12. 18. and 3. 1. 7. The Church of the Thessalonians Smyrnians c. 1. Thess 1. 1. Apoc. 2. 8. and 3. 14. The Saints at Ierusalem Lidda c. Act. 8. 13 22. Ephes 1. 1. Phil. 1. 1. 2. As for the words of Apoc. 1. 11 wherevnto he sendeth his Refuter to learne that the 7. Churches were Ephâ—sus Smyrna c. let him know that he hath learning enough to see that the D. glosse hath no warrant froÌ„ the text The words are kâ—ipempson tais eâ—clesiais tais en Asia eis Ephâ—son The D. glosse is without warrant of the text kieis Smurnan c. And send to the 7. Churches which are in Asia at Ephesus and at Smyrna c for it is no strange thing to finde â—is put for en and our latin translators as the vulgar Vatablus Beza c. doe with one consent turne eis Epheson c. Ephesi vel Epheso Smyrna c. I wish the D. to see whether the Holy Ghost himselfe the best interpreter of himself doth not turne eis Epheson eis Smyrnan c. Apoc. 1. 11. by en Epheso en Smyrna c. Apoc. 2. 1. 8. 12. 18. and 3. 1. 7. 14. And as little skill as the Refuter hath in the tongues yet hath he observed thus much that when the Apostles in their writings doe note the persons to whom any letter or mesâ—age is sent they doe either use the dative case as here tais â—câ—lâ—siais so elsewhere humin apestale to you is the word of salvation sent Act. 13. 26. hon epempsa humin I have seÌ„t Timothe to you 1 Cor. 4. 17. see the like Phil. 2. 19. Math 20. 16. Apoc. 11. 10. or else they take the preposition pros as when Paul sent Tychicus to the Ephesians Colossians he saith hon epempsa pros humas Ephe. 6. 22. Colos 4. 8. see the like Luk. 7. 19. Ioh. 16. 3. Acts. 19. 31. and 23. 30. Tit. 3. 12. As for the proposition eis in embassages c. it doth alwayes note the place and
of all Asia to be conteined in the circuite of those 7. Churches Notwithstanding if this be his meaning he playeth the Sophister in his induction For by citie countrie in his conclusion which is the assumpon of his principall syllogism he meaneth paroikian et â—horan which are the partes of a Diocese and his meaning must be the same in the two last Churches Philadelphia and Thyatira Wherefore well hunge together his argument hangeth togither in this fashion Of the 7. Churches 5. conteyned Mother cities the Provinces subject to them the other two conteyned Diocesan cities the countries to them belonging Ergo every of those Churches were of a like circuite and constitution in conteyning a Diocesan country togither with the citie But if that be true which he saith of Philadelphia and Thyatira that the one was subject to Sardis th' other to Pergamus then were the Churches of Philadelphia Thyatira conteyned within the circuite of Sardis and Pergamus as partes of the Country Province subject to those cities And hence it will followe that these 7. Churches were not of one forme and constitution but of differing condition some being onely Diocesan the rest metropolitan or provinciall Churches So that like as his first speach generally delivered of all 7. that they were great and ample Cities is now limited to those 5. mother Cities pag. 45. so in his next defence he may doe well to restreine vnto the same 5. Metropolitaine Churches that which now he affirmeth of all 7. viz. that they comprized within their circuite all the Churches that were in Asia whether in the Cities or in the Countries therevnto belonginge But since the spirit of God giveth equall honor to every of those Churches no prerogative to any one above another his proofes had need to be very pregnant demonstrative that shall perswade the contrary And this may suffice to shew how little cause he hath to bragg as he doth p. 52. that he hath made good his assumption The D. braggeth without cause by necessary proofe for in both his proofes first joyntly and then severally his antecedent is false and his consequence sophisticall Let us now cast a look a little vpon his dealing with that frame of argument to which his Refuter reduced the proofe of his assumption Sect. 20. ad sect 9. pag. 56. And first because he denied both proposition and assumption he complaineth and very justly that his hap was so hard that scarce any one proposition or assumption in his reasoning might be acknowledged to be true But he comforteth himselfe in vaine as the issue hath already I doubt not wil hereafter shew when he sayth his refuters happ is so hard that he is not able to prove any one eyther proposition or assumption of his to be untrue To infringe the proposition it is answered that though it were graunted that our Sauiour wrote those epistles to all the Churches of Asia yet it will not follow that all the rest depended as children vpon the mother For put the â—ase the Emperour finding some abuse commonly reigning in Asia should have written to those principall and mother-cities for the reforming of those abuses with intent that all other cities and townes should be warned by his reproofe of them might a man coÌ„clude thereupon that all other cities and townes of Asia were subject to the government of those 7 The D. reply is that this put case is worthy to be put in a cap case and therefore that all his readers may see he deserveth to have the â—loak-bagge he putteth a new case in this manner But say I quoth he put the case the Emperour should so doe with that intent that what he writeth to them might by and from them be notified to those towns villages which were within the circuite of their jurisdiction would it not strongly prove that all those other townes villages were subject to theÌ„ As if he had sayd grant me but thus much that all the rest of the townes and villages in Asia Will thâ— D. never cease craving were within the circuit of the jurisdictioÌ„ of those 7. Churches or cities then I can strongly prove that they were subject to them He addeth some experiment from our selues when the King or his Councell would have any thing intimated to all his subjects in certaine countries their warrants are directed to the Leiftenants of ech countrie and from them the high to constables c. And when the Archbishop would have any thing imparted to every parish he directeth his letters to the Byshops the Byshops to the Archdeacons and they to their officers in every Deanry c. which sheweth a subordination of officers in greater and lesser circuite of jurisdiction even so saith he by Christ his writing to the 7. Churches what he would have imparted to all the Churches it may be gathered that the rest of the particular Churches were subject to them And it may well be that when our Saviour writing to every one of the Angels severally and concluding each epistle with this Epiphonema Let him that hath an eare heare what the spirit saith to the Churches would have it vnderstood that what he writeth to the Angel he writeth to the Churches which were vnder his charge To all which I answer 1. to make his similitude cleare and sutable in the later part to the former he should have sayd that Christ intending to admonish or reprove all the Churches in Asia directeth his letters to the provinciall or metropolitan Churches they to the diocesan the diocesaÌ„ to the particular congregations vnder them Or else that what he wrote to the Angels of the metropolitan Churches they imparted to the diocesan Bishops the Diocesan Bishops to Parishe-Presbyters But then he should have assumed that which he cannot prove neyther by Scripture nor tradition wherefore it is plaine that his similitude halteth downe right 2. The D. similitude halteth And since the 7. Churches are equally written to and the Angells of each Church are equally honoured with a several epistle directed to them we may very well perswade our selves that none of those Churches or Angels was subordinate or subject to the other And therefore it was never intended by our Saviour Christ or his Apostles that the ecclesiasticall state should follow the civill or that the Churches planted in Mother-Cities or Shire townes should conteine within the circuite of their jurisdiction the townes villages or Country subjected to the government of the City 3. I also â—dd that though he could prove that the Angels and Churches specially written unto by Christ did impart the letters unto other Churches and their Ministers yet would it not strongly but strangely conclude the rest of the Churches and their Ministers to be subordinate or subject to those 7. Churches their angels For come we for triall hereof unto our selves and our owne stories The Archbishop of CaÌ„terburie in the dayes
rather angels of the Churches therfore to be received as angels For as herein they are like to angels p. 56. that they are sent forth unto the Ministerie for their sakes that are heires of salvation Heb. 1. 14. so they seeme to have some preheminence in respect of their Embassage and spirituall authoritie seing the preaching of the gospell is coÌ„mitted to men and not to angels as appeareth by the story of Cornelius Act. 10. 6. c. Neyther hath God sayd to any of the angels at any time that which he speaketh to his Ministers Iohn 20. 23. whose sinnes you â—orgive they shal be forgiven c. Wherefore as the D. cannot without check of conscience so neyther can any other without apparant gainsaying the truth eyther deny the names titles mentioned in his text to be coÌ„mon to all true Pastors of particular congregations or restreyn any one of them to Diocesan Bishops Having thus layd open the strength of the Ref objectioÌ„ I come Sect. 9. now to examine the force of the Doct answere I answere saith he p. 34. that all Ministers who have charge of souls are in a generall sense called Angels Pastors Bishops because they are messengers sent from God to fâ—â—de and oâ—â—rsee his flocke But yet where there are many Ministers so called if there be one but one who kâ—t hexochen is called the Angel the Pastor the Byshop of that Church he is plainely noted to have a singular preheminence above the rest whereof see more in my answer sect 12. to page 6. Here let it be 〈…〉 against the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 or 〈…〉 to insinuate yet 〈…〉 â—â—pressy 〈…〉 that it is an honour proper onely to diocesan Byshops and 〈◊〉 coÌ„mon to other Ministers to be called the Angels of their Churches But it is already shewed that the honour of this name or title cannot be denyed vnto any Minister that hath charge of soules since it is a truth and so acknowledged that all such Ministers are messengers sent from God to oversee and â—eed that part of his flock whereof they have the charge 2. And whereas he câ—nningly slideth from the text which he proposeth to haÌ„dle The D. slideth froÌ„ his text to the inscriptions to the inscriptions of the 7. epistles Rev. 2. and 3. he is againe to be advertised that though he could justify the preheminence of one Minister above others from those inscriptions yet it will not follow that diocesan Byshops are onely meant by the Angels of the Churches in the text he made choyse of But 3. not to stand upon this advantage where he saith that where there is one and but one who kat hexochen is called the Angel Pastor or Bishop of that Church he is plainely noted to have a singular preheminence above the rest it nothing justifieth his cause but discovereth rather the weaknes thereof seing he no otherwise proceedeth then he began I meane in assuming The D. still beggeth for graunted what he should have proved and in pressing us with weake consequences to stand in stead of invincible arguments Before he affirmed there was but one in every Church called the Angel of the Church now being inforced to acknowledge that there were many other Angels or Byshops he will needs have that one to be called kat hexochen the Angel or Bishop of that Church so froÌ„ thence inferre that the same one Angel is plainely noted to have preheminence above the rest The strength of which reasoning may appeare by these goodly consequences following 1. There were others with Paul whome he might rightly call his fellowes and helpers wherefore he entitleth Titus kat hexochen his fellow and helper on the behalf of the Corinthians 2. Cor. 8. 23. and so plainely noteth in him a preheminence above the rest 2. In like manner seing there were others who in a generall sense might be called Apostles or messengers they whome he calleth in the same place the Apostles or messengers of the Churches were so called kat hexochen to note in them a preheminence above the rest 3 The same may be sayd of Paule when he entitleth himselfe a prisoner of Christ Phil. 1. and Epaphroditus his fellow-ptisoner Vers 23. Timotheus a brother Col. 1. 1. a Minister of God 1. Thes 3. 2. likewise of Peter intitlinge himselfe a fellow-Elder and a witnes of Christs sufferings 1 Pet. 5. 1. 4. And why then may not Bellarminargue froÌ„ Math. 16. 19. Iohn 2. 15. 16. that though others in a generall sense may be authorized to feed the sheep of Christ to guide the keies yet these things are spoken kat hexochen to Peter and doe there plainely note in him a preheminence above the rest 5 Without all contradiction the diocesan Byshopprick of Epaphroditus wil be dashed in peeces with this argument following if the D. former reasoninge have any validitie in it There were some others at Philippi who were in a generall sence yoak felowes to the Apostles wherefore when he speaketh precisely to one singular person I beseech the faithfull yâ—ke felow c. Phil. 4. 3. this one is called kat hexochen his faithfull yoake fellow and consequently this title noteth in that one an episcopall preheminence above the rest But what if we should graunt asmuch as his words doe ascribe vnto that Angel of each Church viz. that this title is given to one onely and plainely noteth in him a preheminence above the rest will he from hence inferre that because one angel in each Church had some preheminence above others therefore that one was a diocesan Byshop If so as he must to cleare the maine controversy now in hand surely he fayleth grosly in that fault whereof The. D. faileth in the fault imputed by him to his Refuter he accuseth his Refuter chap. 9. pag. 200. how justly let the reader judge in reasoning from the genus to a fained and Platonicall Idea or Poeticall species and that affirmativè for seing there are diverse sorts of preheminence viz. of order or oâ— dignity and in gifts or in degree of Ministerie or in charge and power of jurisdiction it is a sillie and simple argument to saie In each of the 7. Churches one Minister had some preheminence above the rest Therefore he had preheminence above them in degree of office or Ministerie But when he inferreth Therefore he had the prehemineÌ„ce of a dioâ— Bishop it is no lesse ridiculous then if he should say it is a byrd therefore it is a black swan But since he referreth vs to his answere to pag. 6. which Sect. 10. lieth sect 12. pag. 46. following there to see more of this matter I will search and see what he there hath for his purpose after that I have given the reader to understand upon what occasion he fell into the debating of this point The Refuter perceiving that the Doctor addressed himselfe to shewe what was the preheminence of these Bishops in respect whereof they are called the
rather then to set out and to laye hold vpon a slender advantage rather Sect. 1 ad D. lib. 2. cap. 7. sect 2. Ref. pag. then to leave his diocesan Lords no footing in his text If an eminent superioritie cannot be gathered from the name of an Angel yet such a presidency as is given to one above others in every well-ordered society shall suffice to convey a diocesan Byshopprick to these Angels And if bâ—tter evidence fayle the confession of the Presbyterians shall serve to give them a Presidencie And though comonly he refuse the syllogismes which his Refuter reduceth into forme yet finding one handsomly framed to his hand though himself intended as he saith no such argument he is wel pleased to make use of it and to stand forth in defense of every parte of it The syllogisme runneth thus The Presidents of the Presbyters were Diocesan Bishops The Angels of the 7. Churches were presidents of the presbyteries Therefore the Angels of the 7. Churches were Diocesan Bishops Concerning the Assumption it hath bene already shewed upon what reasons we hold it questionable whether these Angels were 7. onely persons of cheefe place in these Churches But here because the D. grounded himself upon the confession of the Presbyterians his refuter answered him by a distinction of a two fold Presbyterie mentioned in their writings the one a Presbyterie of governing Elders assisting the Pastor of each congregation th' other a Presbyterie of Ministers set over diverse churches Now because the former could yeeld the Doctor no colour of help to coÌ„vey a Diocesan Bishoprick to these angels he had expressly meÌ„tioned the later in the last wordes of the point before handled serm pag. 21. his Refuter signified his dissent from him in the assumption if his meaning were to give those angels a Presidencie over a colledge of Ministers assigned to sundry particular congregations And this he added that he knewe none that did confâ—sse the angels of the 7. Churches to be some of those Presidents Now the Doctor taking those testimonies of Calvin and Beza whom he hath often vâ—lified in other parts of his defense for plentifull proofe of his assumption he referreth us to that he hath alleaged out of their writings lib. 1. cap. 2. sect whether if we goe we shall finde just nothing to the purpose For Mr Calvin hath not one word touching those Angels Instit lib. 4. cap. 4. sect 1. 2. And since he there expressly affirmeth that the presidencie which one Minister in caâ—h citie called a Bishop had over other Ministers his colleagues was brought in by humane consent and for the necessity of the times there is no likelihood that he held those angels in S. Iohns time to Humano consensit pro tempoâ—â—â— necessitate be Presidents of such a Presbyterie Yea his words doe shâ—w◠〈◊〉 1. that he speaketh of that forme of government which took place under the. Bishops that flourished after the Apostles and before the papacâ—e was discovered And though Mr Bâ—za doe affirme the Angel of the Church at Ephesus and so the rest each of them in his place to be the President of the Presbyterie there Annotat. in Apoc. 2. 1. yet hath he nothing neither there nor de Minist grad pag. 160. that can be drawen to shew that he estemed the Presbyteries or College of each Angel to be all of them Ministers of the word and Pastors of severall Churches But what need words be multiplied in so plaine a case Affirmeth he not himselfe serm pag. 22. that the parishes were not yet distinguished nor Ministers assigned to their severall Cures And must he not then vnderstand those Presbyrerians with whome he pretendeth to have agrement to speak of such a Presbyterie as had the charge of one onely Church not yet divided into severall titles Howsoever then he make a shew of justifying his assumption against the Refuters denyal thereof yet The D. subscribeth to his Ref. and proveth what was not gainesayd indeed he subscribeth vnto it and indeavoureth to prove it in a sense which now was not coÌ„tradicted for it is no disadvantage to us in the mayn question to give way to the assumption in such a sense as Mr. Beza avoucheth it since such a presidency as he alloweth to those Angels can never conclude them to be diocesan Byshops such as ours To come therefore to the proposition because the Refuter rejected it as false I will make good his censure both by removing Sect. 2. the D defence thereof by proposing some other just exceptions against it And 1. he cannot prove every president of a Presbytery in the Apostles times to be a Byshop much lesse a diocesaÌ„ Byshop in the usual construction of the word opposed to other Ministerial functions For if some Presbyteries were a company of Apostles Apostolicall men who were more then Byshops as he acknowledgeth serm pag. 38. and def lib. 3. pag. 81. needs must their president be more then a Byshop And who doubteth but that as Iames the Apostle was president not onely of the Synode Act. 15. but also of the standing Presbyterie Act. 21. 18 And Timothe an Evangelist president among the Presbyters at Ephesus for the time of his staye there by S. Paules appointment 1. Tim. 1. 3. so also every Apostle and Evangelist in the absence of the Apostles was the president of any Church where they made their residence though but for a short continuance Thus was Paul the president of that Presbyterie which imposed hands on Timothe 2. Tim. 1. 6. cum 1. Tim. 4. 14. of the Ephesian Presbyterie during his aboade amongst them Act. 20. 17. 31. And the like presidence even at Ephesus S. Iohn reteined doubtlesse when after his exile returning thither ibi denuò sedem ac donâ—icilium rerum suarum collocavit as Eusebius reporteth eccles Hist lib. 3. chap. 15. For it were absurd either to seclude him from all consultation with the clergie of that Church or to make him inferior vnto any of them And since the D. acknowledgeth that so longe as there remained any Apostles or Evangelists or Apostolical meÌ„ they were the governors of the Churches lib. 4. pag. 72. we have reason to thinke that he cannot without contradiction affirme in generall of all the presidents that moderated the first Presbyteriâ—s that they were properly Byshops for he accounteth none of the Apostles to be properly Byshops lib. 4. pag. 57. and he subscribeth serm pag 86. to the saying of Tertullian de prescrip adv haereâ— that in the Apostolick Churches they re first Byshop had for their founder and Antecessor one of the Apostles or Apostolik men Now if all the presidents of Presbyteries were not properly Byshops how could they all be diocesan Byshops yea such as our Diocesans are 2. Certeinly the verie name of a president that had a Presbyterie adjoyned to him for the managinge of Church causes doth strongly argue the forme of Church-government then to
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
and their haereticall doctrine of which he laboured what he could to disburden the Church But however this be taken there is little reason for any man to thinke that those false Apostles were in open consistorie convâ—nted and censured as the Doctor imagineth And yet were it as cleare as he could wishe how will the second point be manifested which the Doctor presupposeth rather then proveth viz. that the power of conventing and correcting false Teachers was the peculiar right of one Bishop here called the angell of the Church To tell us that he hath before proved that by the Angel of each Church one onely Bishop is meant will be no sufficient defense seing his proofes are already disproved cap. 3. sect 1. 2. 3. c. and reasons yeelded for the contrarie viz. that under the name of one Angell the whole colledge of Ministers or Elders is vnderstood Wherefore if a corrective power over Ministers may be rightly gathered from that course of proceeding against false Teachers mentioned Apoc. 2. 2. 20 we maye very well retort the Doctors argument against the preheminent power of Bishops for the joynt authoritie of Presbyters in this manner They who are eyther commended for examining and not suffring or reproved for suffering false Teachers in their Church had a corrective power over other Ministers But the Angel of the Church of Ephesus was commended for the former Apoc. 2. 2. and the Angel of the Church of Thyatira was reproved for the later veâ—s 20. Ergo those Angels which are before proved to be the whole Colledge of Ministers and Elders in each Church had the corrective power over Ministers And since it appeareth by the commandement which Iohn had to write vnto the 7. Churches Apoc. 1. 11. that the praise oâ— dispraise of every angel belongeth in part unto the whole Church a truth acknowledged by the best Interpreters Calvin Beza Marlorat Aretius Perkins c. though it should be graunted that one Minister to wit the cheife Pastor or President of the Presbyterie is principally aymed at in the name of the angel of each Church yet will it not follow that the whole power of correction was his pâ—culiar right nay rather it will follow that so farre as his fellow angels and not they onely but the whole Church did partake with him in the praise or disprayse ascribed to him so farre also they had theire part in the power of judiciall proceeding Wherefore if the Doctors meaning be in his assumption to restreyne the praise or dispraise mentioned Apoc. 2. 2 20. vnto The D. wresteth the text or must yeeld the cause one onely person whom he reputeth to be the Bishop his Assumption is to be rejected as an erroneous wresting of the text contrarie to the true meaning thereof But if he assent unto this explanation of his assumption viz. that in the praise or reproofe of the angel the rest of the Ministers or Elders and the whole Church did partake with him then must he subscribe to this conclusion to wit that the rest of the Elders and the whole Ch did partake with the Angel of each Church in the power of administring the Church-censures And this may suffice for answere to all that he hath alleadged from his text or any part of the holy scripture in defense of the explication of his text viz. that the Angels of the 7. Churches were 7. Bishops for the substance of their calling such as ours are We are in the next place to see what strength there is in that argument whereby from the title of Angels in his text he laboureth to vphold the title of Lord given to the Bishops Chap. 6. Concerning the Title of Lord given to Bishops comparing the same with the Title of Angels in the Doctors text handled by him Lib. 3. pag. 150. c. against the Refuters answere pag. 105. 106. LEt us now see what force there is in that argument which the D. frameth from this title The angels of the Churches to justify Sect. 〈◊〉 the titles of honour which in this age are given to Diocesan and and Provinciall Prelates his argument is this The H. Ghost giveth Bishops a more honourable title in calling them the angels of the Churches then if he had called them Lords Therfore we should not think much that they are called Lordes The consequence of this argument lieth in this propositioÌ„ That vnto whoÌ„soever the holy ghost giveth a more honourable title to them we may without scruple give any title that is inferiour which is not vniversally true as the D. I suppose wil confesse in many particulars For the name or tiâ—le of Maior Bayliffe Alderman Constable c. I might say King Dukâ— Earle c. must needs be in his understanding by many degrees inferiour to the titles that he acknowledgeth to be given by the Holy Ghost in coÌ„mon to all Ministers of the word sermon dignitie and duetie of the Ministers pag. 60. 61. 62. such as are Co-workers and Stewards of God c. But to give the former unto Ministers were to bringe confusion into the Church to overthrow that difference which the lawes of God man have set betwene civill eccles functions And though a man should offer to salve this mischeife with the like distinction of civil and ecclesiasticall Majors or Kings c. by which the D. excuseth the title of Lords giuen to Byshops yet I perswade my selfe he would not easylie admit of this disorder yea doubtlesse he would thinke it a great disparagement to his reverend Fathers spiritual Lords that everie painefull Minister of Christ should be equalled with them in those honorable titles which doe now lift them vp above their brethren And yet by his owne confession pag. 61. and 62. last mentioned they have all right to those titles of Doctors Fathers Pastors and Saviours of their brethren which are more glorious then that name of Angels of the Churches which he now appropriateth vnto Byshops We may take it therefore for an evident truth that there is no truth at all in the consequence of the D. The D. consq is not true argument no not though he should limit himselfe to titles of the same nature I meane such as declare the same kind of honor either civill or ministeriall For I make no question but the D. would judge it as vnbeseming his diocesan Byshops to beare the name of Archdeacons Officials or Curates c. as for Kinges Emperors to be called Dukes Captaines or high Constables And I judge it much more absurde to argue as he doth from titles in holy scripture given to Ministers to shew the dignitie of their function vnto titles of civill honour apperteyning vnto great personages that excell in externall pompe and worldly glorie And this is the exception which the Refuter tooke to the D. argument when to shewe the inconsequence thereof he said that Sect. 2. the titles which the D. compareth togither
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
termes Spirituall and temporall then the difference must be this that Bishops have besides their civill Lordships and temporall Baronies common to them with the Lords temporall an ecclesiasticall Lordship or Lordlike rule in spirituall causes in respect whereof they are denominated Lords spirituall However it be since he denyeth them to be civill Lords and acknowledgeth the name Lord to be given them in regarde of the same government which is implied vnder the name of the angels of the Churches he should in reason derive the Lordship of Byshops rather from Christs Lordship which is spirituall then from the dignitie of Lords temporall which is meerely civil For if that be true which he conceiveth Byshops have no more affinitie with noble personages in the name of Lords then they have with all civill Magistrates in the name of Pastors Both may be called Pastors of the people as he saith serm of the dig of Min. pag. 53. but the Magistrates are Pastors of their bodies the Ministers of their soules In like manner our nobles and our Byshops doe agree in the name of Lordes but the one are civill Lords the other not so but spiritual Wherefore as he affirmeth serm pag. 62. Ministers to partake with Christ in the name of Pastors because as he is the Pastor of our soules so they are Pastors not of mens bodyes but of their souls so he maketh or at least might from the like ground affirme Bishops to have the name of Lordes coÌ„mon to them with Christ seing as he is a spirituall Lord so are they also Lords spirituall and not civill Wherefore if wee may measure the greatnes or smallnes of that honour which any titles convey vnto Ministers by the greater or lesse excellencie of the persons with whom they in those titles are compared then have wee good warrant to conclude the honour included in the name of Lordes attributed unto Bishops to be by so much greater then that which is implied in the other title of the Churches Angels by how much our Lord Christ is greater then all angels But no staied building standeth upon so â—andy a foundation for as men shall please to vary the things with which they may by any title compare the Ministers of Christ so theire honour shall rise or fall at their pleasure and that vnder one and the same title For compare the name of Pastors or shepheards given to Ministers Ephes 4. 11. with Christ the cheife Pastor and great shepheard of the sheepe 1. Pet. 5. 4. Heb. 13. 20. then is it a name of farr greater honor then the name of Angels or Angels of the Churches but it is by many degrees more base if it be referred to the shepheards that watch attend on their flocks in the feilds from whence in truth it was at the first derived Wherefore it must be confessed that there is a manifest falshood infolded in the consequence of the Doctors reasoning And this serveth wel to justify the later pointe before proposed Sect. 4. scz that the Doctor is deceived in judging the name of Lord being coÌ„mon to Bishops with Lords temporall to be a title of lesse honour then the name of the angels of the Churches that hath reference to the caelestiall Angels We may with much more probabilitie affirme that by how much it is a greater honour to have a Lord-like government in any Church then to have a tutorship or Guardianship therein by so much the name of Lorde given to Bishops in respect of their government is a title of greater honour theÌ„ the other which expresseth their Guardianship which in some respect is allowed to the Churchwardens of every parishe For why should we not measure the height of that honour which titles doe imply rather by the nature of that government which 18. The Doct. contradicteth himselfe the names import then by the condition of the persons or things with which the titles doe compare the persons so entituled To end this dispute let the reader observe here a shrewd shewe of a plaine contradiction in the Doctor for whereas nowe he graunteth the name Lord to be given vnto Byshops in respect of theire government and authoritie a little after pag. 153. he denieththe title to be given them with relation but as a simple title with honour revereÌ„ce For how can it be a simple title of honour used without any relation or reference vnto those that are governed by them if it be given them in respect of their government And thus much for answer to the argument drawen from the name of Angels in his text to justifie those honourable titles of Lord and Lordship given to Byshops Chap. 7. Concerning two new arguments produced by the D. lib. 4. pag. 40. c. to prove the angels of the 7. Churches to be Byshops like to ours There remayneth some what alleadged by the D. to shew that â—â—e 7. angels were Byshops for the substance of their calling like to ours as yet vnanswered but it is from humane and not divine evidence He promiseth indeed serm pag. 61. to prove both by scripture and other evidence that the government by Byshops was used even in the Apostles times and not contradicted by them His scripture proofe is nothing but this The 7. Angels were the Byshops of the 7. Churches as all confesse and for the substance of their calling like to ours as I sayth he have proved Which proofes because his Refuter had removed before he came to that part of the sermon he therefore tolde him that he had brought nothing to prove his assertion but what was already answered now the D. telleth us that this is vntrue For saith he I bring two new arguments to prove that the 7. Angels were Byshops That they were Byshops why that is to prove what he knoweth to be of all confessed he should therefore say and make his saying good that he hath two new arguments to shewe that they were Byshops like to ours but so to affirme were to avouch an vntruth wherefore he wrongeth his Refuter to charge him with an vntruth in saying he brought nothing but what was before answered Which wrong is the greater because he could not but see by his Refuters words following answ pag. 128. that in so saying he had an â—ie to the D. proofes from scripture which was the thing promised bâ—t not performed Wherfore he may very wel againe be once tolde that â—ayling in his proofes froÌ„ scripture which onely is sufficient to make good his assertion how much soeverhe say besides he must be beholding to his reader if he be perswaded by him Notwithstanding let vs not refuse to heare what those his arguments be wherein he resteth so confidently The former sayth he though this great Analyser eyther did not or would not see it is this That two of these Angels were Policarpus and Onesimus Policarpus the Byshop of Smyrna and Onesimus the Byshop of Ephesus Policarpus the Byshop of Smyrna
and Onesimus the Byshop of Ephesus and what is sayd of two is to be vnderstood of the rest Indeed the Refuter saw not this last clause for how should he see it before it came into the D. head to deliver it and now he might well have spared it vnlesse he had better explaned his meaning For would he have us to think that as two of the angels were Policarpus and Onesimus so also the other five were Policarpus and Onesimus If this be not his meaning why doth he tell us that what is sayd of two the same must be vnderstood of the rest If his meaning be that as he nominated two so we must beleeve he can nominate the rest if he list he must pardon us in case we intertayne not the thought seing he he is not likely to have concealed theire names if he had ever mett with any evidence that revealed them But why doth this great disputer who maketh so many and great protestations of his vpright dealing so falsely and yet wittingly charge his Refuter whom in scorne he termeth the great Analyser not to see or not to mention this his first The D. falsly yet willingly slandereth his Refuter argument Doth he not expresly pointe vnto it when he saith pag. 128. that the summe of all that the D. hath is comprized in 3. points 1. that Policarpus was the Byshop of Smyrna and Onesimus as it may well be supposed the Byshop of the Church of Ephesus 2. that from the 7. angels c. Had the Refuter put the word Angel in steade of the word Byshop which he used the D. had had no colour of cause as he had no cause to quarrel with him but the old proverbe is verifyed wranglâ—rs will play at small game rather then sit out and men sett to pick quarrells will take holde of small occasions rather then want some colour of just cause to complaine But to leave his evill and idle wandrings and to examine his Sect. 2. argument the first standeth thus in forme Two of these angels were Policarpus and Onesimus But Policarpitâ— and Onesimus were Bishops he should say By-shops like to ours Therefore two of these angels were Byshops like vnto â—urs And the second thus From the 7. angels a succession of Byshops was continued in those 7. Churches vntill thae councill of Nice and afterwards Therefore those 7 angels were Byshops like to ours To both these joyntly the Refuter answereth thus that the Byshops so called in the Apostles times were not diocesan as they were which followed in succeeding ages The D. Replyeth pag. 43. that if ever there had bene within the compasse of a diocese more Byshops then one at once since the Apostles times or if it could be truely alledged that the circuite of the Byshops charge was inlarged from a parish to a diocese then there were some colour for this exception but these conceits sayth he I have disproved before and therefore doubt not most confidently to conclude that if the successors of these 7. Byshops were in the ende of 300. yeares diocesan Byshops then were theire first prâ—decessors such For answer wherevnto in a word I say 1. That it is besides the present question now to enquire whether there ever were within one diocese any more Byshops then one at once c. 2. since the D. upon his bare word denieth those things to be so he hath little reason to think that we will blindly subscribe to his confident conclusion inferred vpon his naked presumptions to make no worse of them For first it is no hard matter to make them false presumptions What saith he to Epiphanius cont Haeres lib. 2. haeres 68. contra Milet doth not he affirme that there were diverse Byshops in one Church or citie though not in Alexandria nunquam Alexandria duos habuit episcopos velut aliae urbes Secondly as touching his owne testimonies which he produceth to shew that Policarpus was Byshop of Smyrna Onesimus Byshop of Ephes in S. Iohns time I desire him to take notice how he still contradicteth himselfe as he may easily discerne if he compare his words lib. 2. pag. The D. contradicteth himselfe 62. with serm pag. 62. and lib. 4. pag. 40. togither In theÌ„BCH 4168-0138 the thing promised bâ—t not performed Wherfore he may very wâ—l againe be once tolde that fayling in his proofes froÌ„ scripture which onely is sufficient to make good his assertion how much soeverhe say besides he must be beholding to his reader if he be perswaded by him Notwithstanding let vs not refuse to heare what those his arguments be wherein he resteth so confidently The former sayth he though this great Analyser eyther did not or would not see it is this That two of these Angels were Policarpus and Onesimus Policarpus the Byshop of Smyrna and Onesimus the Byshop of Ephesus and what is sayd of two is to be vnderstood of the rest Indeed the Refuter saw not this last clause for how should he see it before it came into the D. head to deliver it and now he might well have spared it vnlesse he had better explaned his meaning For would he have us to think that as two of the angels were Policarpus and Onesimus so also the other five were Policarpus and Onesimus If this be not his meaning why doth he tell us that what is sayd of two the same must be vnderstood of the rest If his meaning be that as he nominated two so we must beleeve he can nominate the rest if he list he must pardon us in case we intertayne not the thought seing he he is not likely to have concealed theire names if he had ever mett with any evidence that revealed them But why doth this great disputer who maketh so many and great protestations of his vpright dealing so falsely and yet wittingly charge his Refuter whom in scorne he termeth the great Analyser not to see or not to mention this his first The D. falâ—ly yet willingly slandereth his Refuter argument Doth he not expresly pointe vnto it when he saith pag. 128. that the summe of all that the D. hath is comprized in 3. points 1. that Policarpus was the Byshop of Smyrna and Onesimus as it may wâ—ll be supposed the Byshop of the Church of Ephesus 2. that from the 7. angels c. Had the Refuter put the word Angel in steade of the word Byshop which he used the D. had had no colour of cause as he had no cause to quarrel with him but the old proverbe is verifyed wranglars will play at small game rather then sit out and men sett to pick quarrells will take holde of small occasions rather then want some colour of just cause to complaine But to leave his evill and idle wandrings and to examine his Sect. 2. argument the first standeth thus in forme Two of these angels were Policarpus and Onesimus But Policarpus and Onesimus were
us to acknowledge that all the people which in an whole citie countrie belonged to God as being ordeyned to life and in time to be converted were to be reckoned one parish For it is flatly denyed that they did before their conversion belong vnto any parish or visible Church at all And it is a blind fancie in the Doctor to think that because they belonged to God in his election therefore they belonged to the Citie-church for how should they be members of any visible Church or congregation which yet were drowned in atheisme and insidelitie yet as if he had sufficiently fortified the proposition or consequence of his owne argument he leaveth it indeavoreth to take from his Refuter the ground where on he standeth in contradicting his conclusion for he seemeth to grant that at the first all the Christians in the Citie and Countrie being assembled togither could make but a small congregation but he demandeth how they could be of one parish before there was any parish at all doe you not see the Doctor is wise enough to make his bargaine well for his own advantage when he hath a foole in hand that will give him all that he asketh for in effect he saith grant me The Doct. beggeth but thus much that there was not any parish at all in the Apostles times and then I can justify my deniall of your consequence when you thus reason that all the Christians in one citie the countrie adjoyning at the first were but as one parish because they were but a small congregation when they were all gathered togither His last refuge is to tell us he hath before proved that the circuite of the Church and of the Bishop or Presbyteries charge was the same in purpose and intention at the first when they were but a few which it was afterwards in execution when all were converted but this discovereth the nakednes of his cause that inforceth him to lay hold on so bare a covering as I have shewed this to be in the answer to his third Chapter and 6. section We have seen how weak his staies are whereon his proposition Sect. 3. leaneth but for his assuption he provideth much more weakely It is that saith he which the Refuter himselfe boldeth But this defense say I is such as the Doctor himselfe contradicteth pag 74. The Doct. coÌ„tradicteth himself and proveth to be a soule vntruth delivered not of ignorance but against the light of his owne conscience For there he acknowledgeth that in his assumptioÌ„ the Refuter findeth one error repeated which was before noted concerning the end of the Presbyters ordination chargeth also the maine points in it to be altogither void of truth But let us heare what it is which he saith his Refuter holdeth Forsooth that there were not in any Church many parishes in the Apostlestimes Wel but can he froÌ„ hence conclude that his Refuter joyneth with him in his whole assumption Nay rather we may see a threefold trick A 3. folde tricke of cunning in the D. of cunning in the Doctor namely in changing the first braunch of his assumption in justifying it by his Refuters allowance and in concealing the other parts of his assumption 1. he changeth the first braunch because he could neyther challenge any allowance of it from his Refuter nor yet yeild any sufficient reasoÌ„ to justify it against him in that sense that he taketh parishes in this controversy For he knoweth that his Opposites define a parish to be a particular ordinarie or set congregation of Christians assembling in one place to the solemne service of God see pag. 4. of his sermoÌ„ And that his Refuter holdeth the ancient Churches to be parishes because although their multitude were great in some places yet each of them was one distinct assemblie guided in ecclesiasticall matters by their owne Presbyters see answer pag. 58. and this Defense lib. 2. p. 74. Wherefore to say that there were no such parishes distinguished in the Apostles times is all one as to deny that in their times there were any distinct congregations or assemblies which ordinarilie if they were not by sufficient causes hindred for this exception himself taketh notice of Def. pag. 83. assembled togither in one place to the solemne service of God c. he thought it wisdome therefore to let goe this point and to tender another in stead thereof which might passe without controlment viz. that in the Apostles times the Churches were not divided into severall parishes But this argueth against rather then for the D forseing Churches which are not divided into severall parishes or titles and cures for these are one and the same in the Doctors phrase of speaking doe make but one ordinary congregation of Christians they must needs be parishes to the Refuters vnderstanding yea to the Doct. also as he delivereth the state of the questioÌ„ serm pag. 4. 2. But why doth he relie for the proofe of his owne assertion upon his Refuters approbation Is it not because in his owne judgment there is no generall truth in it which may appeare by his own exception for in excepting the church of AlexaÌ„dria he much weakeneth not onely his assuptioÌ„ but his whole argument For if his study for this defense hath brought him to know what he knew not when he made the sermon as he acknowledgeth pa. 93. to wit that parishes were distinguished in Alexandria long before Euaristus his dayes whom he supposed to have been the first author of that ordinance why may not his traveile for the next bring him to find out some better evidence then he hath yet atteined to for the like distribution made in some other Churches yea he hath already told us pag 50. that it is more then probable that the 7. Churches of Asia at the time of writing the Revelation conteyned diverse congregations see for this point also sect 14. And among other reasons to make good that probability he observeth that besides the Churches and Presbyters that Paul Petâ—r had setled in Asia S. Iohn also preached the gospell in those parts for many yeares ordeyned Bishops and Presbyters where need was But if there be any truth in that which his argument presupposeth to wit that in the Apostles times the Presbyteries were not appoiÌ„red to parishes because there was not in any church many parishesin their daies why then should there not be some probability sufficient atleast to weaken the consequence of his argument in the contrary assertion viz. that some Presbyteries might be appointed unto Parishes seing some Churches as that of Alexandria for certaintie and those 7 in Asia in very great probabilitie were even in the Apostles times distinguished into several parishes 3. As for the rest of the branches of his Assumption when he should make proofe of them he wholly silenceth them not of ignorance or forgetfulnes but of purpose because he found it easier to wrangle with his Refuter
Dioceses But however the D. may at his pleasure wholly leave out the age following or wander for his proofes beyond that coÌ„passe to Constantines daies and the ages following his time yet his Refuter must be bound to the stake precisely to conclude that the Churches were not onely in the Apostles times but also in the age following Parishes properly not Diocesâ—s Yea even then when he discerneth pag. 100 that two rancks of Instances are produced to prove the conclusion which himselfe tendreth the former taken out of the scriptures the later out of the fathers he would faine inforce him to streatch his scripture testimonies to the whole terme of 200 years A thing vnreasonable and such as argueth his seeking rather by some evasion to elude then by direct answer to infringe that which is objected But seeing the questions are distinct and require confirmation by testimonies of a differing nature for the scriptures must determine what was the forme or constitution of Churches instituted by the Apostles and we must search after humane testimonies to find out the first orginall of multiplying of parishes in cities of combyning many congregations in one diocesan body I will therefore with the Doct. leave first take a view of that which is objected answered touching the state of the Churches which were of greatest note in the Apostles times To begin then with the objection which himself propoundeth Sect. 2. 2d pag. 79. it seemeth by his owne Enthymem pag 79. his purpose was to contradict not the maine question though he so affirmed but the conclusion of his 2. last argumeÌ„ts which he reduced to the maine conclusion pag 64. And because he shall have no cause to think that his Refuter carried it to the principall question to make it more strong for his advantage I will apply it to the point whereat he aymeth with a supply onely of those words which are by him suppressed yet necessarie to be added The Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles togither with the presideÌ„ts of the Presbyteries were assigned each of them but to one particular ordiâ—â—try congregation assembling togither in one place Therefore they were assigned but to a parish and not to a diocese To the consequent I add these words but for a parish to make the contradiction the more full because his conclusion affirmeth that the Presbyteries ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed not to parishes but to dioceses And for the same cause I also add to the Anâ—ecedent these words ordâ—yned by the Apostles The consequence of this Enthymem relieth upon this inference One particular ordinarie congregation assembling togither in one place is a parish and not a diocese Therefore what is provided but for one such congregation the same is provided but for a Parish and not for a diocese This latter connexion cannot be impugned The consequent or conclusion is the proposition which was presupposed in the consequence of the former Enthymem The Antecedent is a truth agreed upon on both parties in this controversy as appeareth by the D. laying downe of their assertion against whom he disputeth serm pag. 4. and in affirming here def pag. 79. that for brevities sake he first omitted this argument desyring in few words to bring our obiction to the issue he giveth allowance to the consequence thereof Onely he disliketh that confirmation delivered by the Refuter for clearing the consequence of his proposition when he saith that he had before shewed that a diocese must consist of distinct congregations For saith he iâ— proposition have no better hypotheses to support it I may deny it seing I have proved before that there were dioceses in the first conception of the Churches before distinction of parishes But I answere that if he hath no better argument to impugne the proposition or consequence thereof then so slender a proofe as that is whereof he boasteth I need not seek any new propp to uphold it it shall suffice to referr him to that which is already sayd in the former chapter sect 9. where he may if he shut not his eyes see it proved by the escope of his owne reasoning that the Apostolike Churches before the division of parishes in the city Country annexed could not any otherwise be properly dioceses then a childe in the wombe can be perfict man before his body have the distinct members so that to returne him his owne phrase the addition of this answere hath made his cause somwhat worse then it was before Now to proceed to the confirmation of the Antecedent before Sect. 3. ad 79. mencioned viz. that the presbyteries and their presidents ordeyned by the Apostles were assigned each of them but to one particular ordinarie congregation assebling togither in one place the Doctor hath no cause to blame us though we should refuse to mainteyne the argument which he framed for us for I suppose none of our side were so foolish as to deliver for the proof thereof that assertion which he tendreth to us to wit that in the first 200. yeares all the Christians in any one great citie made but one such congregation Wherefore till he produce his Authour from whom he received this argument I will pray leave to think he forged it for his owne advantage that his reader might judge he hath gotten the conquest though he onely threwe downe a rotten post of his own setting up For to conclude the former Antecedent it might suffice to assume thus much to wit that all the members of those Churches wherevnto the Presbyteries were ordeyned by the Apostles made but one particular ordinary congregation assembled togither in one place Against which proposition rightly vnderstood of the time when the Churches received their Presbyteries and presidents by the Apostles ordination I find no just exception taken eyther in his sermoÌ„ or this defense seing in both he wandreth beyond the Apostles dayes to the age following whereof he had not spoken one word in all that he hath urged hitherto for the justifying of his mayne conclusion Seing then the question is what the number of Christians was at the time of giving presbyteries to them if we say they exceeded not one congregation is it not a frivolous cavill to answere that they farre exceeded the proportion of one congregation in the next age following and the later part thereof It is apparant therefore that these clauses in the first two hundred yeares in the age following the Apostles were inserted into this question by the Doctor both here and afterwards pa. 100 onely to give him some colour of a just exception against his Refuters reasoning and some excuse for his sliding from the state of the Churches in the Apostles times to the ages following But let us see how he impugneth the argument framed by him sect 4. 2d 79. 80. selfe in this Enthymem In the first two hundred yeares all the Christians in any one great citie made but one particular ordinarie congregation assembled
the whole or proper charge unto which the Presbyterie with their President seated in any citie was assigned by the Apostles Ergo the whole or proper charge unto which the Presbyterie with their President seated in the citie assigned by the Apostles made but one particular ordinarie congregation assembled in one place The conclusion is the same in effect with the consequent of the Enthymem before delivered and the proposition here is the former Antecedent rightly vnderstood according to the explanation where of the D. taketh notice pag 83. Onely that clause of Apostles times is inserted to prevent his wandring beyond the principall question vnto the ages that followed the first assignment of Presbyters to the charge of those Churches which the Apostles planted And because it hath very neere agreement with that Assumption which the D. afterwards impugneth cap. 6. pag. 102. c. the defense of that wil be sufficient confirmation of this For if it may appeare as I doubt not but it shall that the Churches of Corinth Ephesus and Antioch in the Apostles times were each of them no more then one particular ordinary congregation then will it follow that the rest of the Churches planted in cities by the Apostles made also but one congregation the Doct. himselfe being Iudge who granteth this consequence pag. 101. At this time therefore passing by the proposition I will take in hand the Assumption which comprizeth the consequence of the former Enthymem and unto all already sayd for removall of the D. exceptions I add this one argument following The whole or proper charge unto which the Presbyterie with their presidēt seated in any city was assigned by the Apostles is cōprized in those instructions which in the Apostolicall writings concerne the office of Bishops and Presbyters But this onely charge is there comprized to wit the charge of all the Christians which in those times dwelling in or about the towne or city that enjoyed such a Presbyterie were called the Church of that place Ergo this onely charge to wit the charge of all the Christians which in those times dwelling in or about the Town or City that enjoyed such a Presbyterie was the whole charge to which the Presbytery with their president seated in any city was assigned by the Apostles The proposition cannot be doubted of seing the Apostle testifieth the scripture to be sufficient for the direction of every Minister of God and perfecting of him in the work of his calling 2 Tim. 3. 16. 17. And th'assumption is evident by these and the like places Act. 20. 28. 1. Tim. 3. 1. 5. 1. Thess 5. 12. Heb. 13. 7. 17 which shew that the persons committed to the charge of Bishops or Presbyters were none other then those Christians which were members of the particular churches wherein their labours were imployed For none other but such christiās can properly be vnderstood by the shock or Church of God which they in the 3. former places are charged to feed to care for by the persons which are in the two later comanded to know love and obey such as laboured amōg thē c. And if the Doctor can yeild us any text of holy writ that stretcheth the charge of Bishops and Presbyters over an whole diocese or countrie to labour the conversiō of all that within such a circuite belonged to Gods election I will most gladly listen to it In the interim to end this point I argue with him a concessis in this manner A visible Church indued with power of ecclesiasticall government was the proper and whole charge of each Presbyterie ordeyned by the Apostles in any citie that imbraced the Gospell But the company of Christians which in the Apostles times dwelt in and about any citie and were called the Church of that citie was a visible church indued with power of ecclesiasticall government Ergo such a company of Christians was the proper and whole charge of each Presbyterie ordeyned by the Apostles in any city that imbraced the Gospell The proposition is in effect all one with that which the supplieth to his Enthymem Cap. 4. sect 1. pag. 64 where he affirmeth that the Presbyters ordeyned by the Apostles were appointed to visible Churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall government And the Assumption receiveth approbation from that description of a church in generall and of a visible Church in speciall cap. 1. pag. 3. 5. 6. I could make these points more clears if I thought it needfull but I hope he will rather subscribe to the conclusion then strive in vaine against the streame Wherefore I proceed to the Refuters argument urged to prove that the visible Churches indued by the Apostles with the power of ecclesiasticall government were parishes Chap. 5. Proving that the visible Churches planted by the Apostles as the Church of Corinth Ephesus Antioch c. were each of them in the dayes of the Apostles one onely particular Congregation ordinarily assembled in one place Which is handled in the answer pa. 66. and in the defense lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 100. c. True it is that the Refuter cleaving close to the wordes of the Sect. 1. ad cap. 6. sect 1. p. 100. 101. Doctors assertion serm pag. 17. setteth downe the question these wordes Whether in the Apostles times and in the age following the visible Churches indued with power of eccelesiasticall government were parishes or no Hence Mr Doctor taketh occasion to advertise the Reader that he is to conclude that the Churches were each of them for the whole terme at the least but a parish c. yet looking towardes his proofes he consesseth as the truth is that his argumentation conteyneth two ranckes of Instances the former taken out of the scriptures the Later out of the fathers Wherefore I hope the indifferent will conceive that his scripture instances are not to be carried beyond the Apostles times and that the fathers are to speak for the age following and consequently will judge it but an absurd evasion in the Doct. to hold as he doth the former instances and the argument which induceth them unto the whole terme of 200. yeares specially seing he acknowledgeth pag. 102 that his cheife proofes are bounded within the Apostle Pauls time The Refuters Argument therefore shall come forth once againe in that plaine forme that was first given unto it Onely I adde the Church of Ierusalem to the other three that he mentioneth because that which the Refuter urgeth touching it is bounded also within the Apostles times as appeareth pag. 64. of his answere for which cause I referre the handling of his 4 6 7 8 sect cap. 5. concerning Ierusalem to this place And so it lieth thus If the Churches of Corinth Ephesus Antioch and Ierusalim being visible churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall government were each of them but one parish then the other visible Churches indued with the like power were also each of them but one parish But the first is true
hath his Refuter sayed that those Churches of Corinth Ephesus c. were parishes before the division of parishes or why doth he father on him such a senslesse assertion as this is For in his owne understanding it is all one as if a man should say that those Churches were parishes before they were any parishes at all as appeareth by his descanting upon this point pag. 69. and 70. But let us see how the Doctor fortifyeth each part of his argumentation First touching his assumption to prove that those churches were not such as were the parishes that followed the division he urgeth 3. differences betwixt the one and the other 1. parishes after their division had not a Bishop and a Presbyterie as those Churches had but onely one preshyter assigned to them 2. the Pastor of the Parishes was not a Superintendent as was the Bishop of those Churches over other Pastors 3. neither was any of them intended as each of those Churches was to be a Mother-church These differences being nakedly affirmed The Doct. argueth like a Sophister may with a bare deniall be repelled but the answere at this time shal be rather this that he playeth the Sophister in arguing a dicto secundum quid ad simpliciter For say that he could as he cannot mainteyne these differences those Churches might be yea were notwithstanding such churches as the parishes were after the division that is alike in the point which himselfe taketh notice of pag. 4. of his sermon as the substanciall point of the agreement intended the former being aswell as the later each of them one ordinary congregation assembled in one place But if his meaning be that they were not such in all points we may well demurre upon the matter till the question be debated which belongeth to another tract what manner of parishes they were which received their originall from the division of one citie Church into many parish-assemblies In the meane time to come to the consequence of his proposition whereas he saith it may not be denied specially by them that would have all parishes framed to the constitution of the first Churches I wil be so bolde as utterly to contradict this speach and say the contrary to it that it may very well be denyed even by such as would have the parishes so framed For in as much as they desire not the abolishing of parishes but the reducing of them to the patterne of the first churches it is evident that they in their judgment hold two kindes of parishes the one differing from the other agreeing with the forme and constitution of the first Churches And whosoever will in any sort undertake the defense of that conclusion which the Doctors argument throweth upon his Refuter he must needs distinguish in some respect or other betwixt the parishes that had their being before and those that began after that division of parishes whereof he speaketh and therefore must of necessitie contradict the Doctors consequence say that the first Churches which were parishes in asmuch as they were but one congregation before that division of parishes which followed when those Churches by reason of their multitude hugely increased were parted into more particular congregations were not in all points such Churches as the later parishes were Thus is the stroake of his first reason warded let me come now Sect. â— to encounter with the second If saith he that assumption was false which denied Parishes to have been distinguished in the Apostles times then these Churches were not onely many congregations but many parishes also But the Refuter sayd before that that assumption had no truth in it here also must I adde the conclusion Ergo those Churches were not onely many congregations but also many parishes Vnderstand this to be meant of each Church severally q. d. Ergo each of them was not one onely congregation or parish but many And marke what followeth These two just exceptions saith he I have against his consequence So you may discerne how just cause he giveth me to take up against him his owne fashion of reply pag. 72. Good Sir what is this to the Refuters consequence Where doth he say that each of these Churches was but one congregation and not many and where that each was but one parish Is not the former his Antecedent or assumption and the later the consequent or conclusion Therefore to use his owne words pag. 73. when you would seeme to deny the consequence you do not so much as touch it but by taking a supposed advantage against some other assertion of his you deny the principall conclusion I might proceed therefore to rowse him up with the sweet sound of his owne bâ—lls pag. 47. and ring this peale into his cares Is not the deniall of the conclusion an evidence that the Doctor is confounded c but I spare him the rest of his speach and return to the matter His argument is no other then such as he before objected pag. 73. and 76. and is already answered cap. 3. sâ—ct 10. and 15. to this purpose viz. that the refuter in affirming parishes to be distinguished in the Apostles times cannot contradict his owne assertion which mainteyneth the Apostolike Churches to be parishes because in his understanding every particular congregation is a parish And if it be not so also in the Doctors perswasion why doth he so often use the wordes indiffâ—rently viz. severall parishes or congregations for one and the same thing Yea since he coupleth congregations and parishes togiâ—her in this very argument of his to contradict his conclusion and so to justify our owne I tender him for reqâ—itall this that followeth If that assumption be true which denieth the Churches to have been divided into severall congregations or parishes in the Apostles tâ—me then the Churches oâ— Corinth Ephâ—sus c. Were in that age each of them but onâ— onely congrâ—gation or parish But that â—ssumpâ—ion â—s by the D. maintâ—yned to be true pag. 69. and 73 let him therefore disclaime that AssumptioÌ„ or give way to this conclusion Therefore the Churches of Coriâ—th Ephesus c were each of them in the Apostlâ—s â—imâ—s but one onâ—ly congregation or parish and not many But let us heare what it is that withholdeth his aâ—sent from the Antecedent or assumption of the Refuters bâ—forâ— set downe Though I deny not saiâ—h he bâ—t â—hat â—t the first and namely in the Sect. 5. ad sect 3. pa. â—04 time of the Apostle Pâ—ul the most of the Churches so soon after their conversion did not each of them exceed the proportion of a pâ—pulous congregation yet â— cannot yeild to all his proofes Even so but why doth he not answere directly to the point by approving or contrarying that which is sayd of those three churches Corinth Ephesus and Antioche If it be false in his pâ—rswasion what maketh him affrayd or abâ—sht to dâ—scover the falshood thereof if true why doth he not plainly acknowledge it
to be one particular congregation seing it were absurd to entitle any Church a particular coÌ„gregation which is knowne to consift of many particulars And for the same cause who can with reason judge otherwise then that D. Bilson also took the Church of Ephesus to be one congregatioÌ„ when he alleadgeth Act. 20. 28. to shew that the Church in the new Testament is put for the congregation of the faithfull not for the Preists alone Wherefore whereas the D. in the conclusion renueth his challenge that our new writers are childishly alleadged what else doth he but shew himselfe to be set to outface all The which the more appeareth by that his taxe layd upon his Refuter for alleadging Mr Tindall which as he saith was not a childish mistakeing but a wilfull misalleadging of him in both places there being in the former no such thing and in the later a falsifying of the testimony and to aggrevate the offence chargeth it upon him as coÌ„mitted againe lib. 4. cap. 7. sect 9. But if any fault be here coÌ„mitted save the mistaking of pag. 135. for 133. it is in the Doctor who mought also have amended that mistaking seing he could not but see it when he patched up his owne allegation out of both those pages but it seemeth he had rather make two faults then mend one And that it may appeare how he falsely accuseth his Retuter let the reader consider that as the words set downe by him are not Mr Tindals words at large but a breife of them so they are a true breife of them For proofe whereof it is cleare 1. that he maketh Bishops Preists and Elders all one pag. 53. 54. 251. 345. 2. He saith that by their office they were alwayes abiding in one place to governe the Congregation there pag. 251. And 3. however the Doctor saith he maketh the word CONGREGATION as large as the word ECCLEST A CHURCH yet he maketh the word Church or Congregation whereof a Bishop Preist or Elder had the charge no larger then one particular coÌ„pany assembling in one place as appeareth both by his exposition of Math. 18. 17. pag. 345. and by his words at large which the D. could not but though he would not see when he overskipped them pag. 133. where speaking of the 2. officers ordeyned by the Apostles for the governing of the Church he saith The Apostles disguished no man but chose men annoyâ—ted with the same spirit viz. wherewith Christ annointed them one to preach the word whom We call after the Greek tongue a Bishop or Prust that is in English an overseer or an Elder how he was annointed thou readest 1. Tim. 3. c. This Overseer becanse he was taken from his own business labour to preach Gods word to the parish bath right by the autboritie of his office to challendge an honest living of the parish c. Likewise in every congregation chose they another after the same ensample as is to be seene Act. 6. whom after the grword we call Deason that is in English servant or Minister whose office was to help and assist the Preist to gather up his duty and to gather for the poore c. But of Mr Tindalls judgement and words we shall heare more at large when we come to that place where he saith his Refuter falsifyeth his testimony againe in the meane time let the reader judge with what face the Doctor so charged his Refuter Thus much shall suffice to shewe how the Doctor sought but startingholes in all his exceptions against the refuters testimonies For when he hath done wrangling with all his proofes he returneth to his deniall of the consequence pag. 111. viz. that though it were graunted that each of the Churches for a time did not exceed for their number the proportion of one ordinarie congregation yet it would not prove them to haue been parishes As if he could deny them to be each of them one parish that is one coÌ„-gregation yet graunt theÌ„ to be one onely ordinary congregatioÌ„ Having done with those 3. Churches of Corinth Ephesus Antioch Sect. 11. ad cap. 5. sect 8. pa. 89. we are to proceed to that which the D. answereth coÌ„cerning the Church of Ierusalem viz. to the assumption of that syllogisma which affirmeth Cap. 5. sect 8. pag. 89. the Christians of lerusalem to have coÌ„tinued one assembly meeting togither in one place during S. Lukes storie Act. 2. 1. 2. 6. 44. and 6. 2. and 15. 22. 25. and 21. 22. This saith the D is false because the Church of Ierusalem never was a parish so farre was it from continuing so still c. and the D. dwelleth wholly in a maner upoÌ„ this answer but the Reader is to be advertised that he doth but trifle quarrell with words rather then impugne the maine point of the argument for when the Refuter affirmeth that the Christians at lerusalem continued one parishonall assembly meeting togither in one place the later clase is the explication or rather confirmation of the former q. d. they continued one parish-assembly in asmuch as they met togither in one place Wherefore the principall question here for Ietusalem like as before for the 3. above named Churches is whether the Christians there might did meet togither in one place to this purpose those places out of the Acts are quoted and if the D. can make the contrary appeare his labour is well spent otherwise he doth but beat the aier It is not probable saith he that the Church of Ierusate afeer they came to the number of 5000. did ordinarily meet all in one place Belike he holdeth it probable that before they arose to that number they did ordinarily meet togither in one place so that when he striveth to wrest from his Refuter the places alleadged out of Act. 2. he doth here as before is observed sect 5. rather quarrell with his proofes then contradict the thing thence collected But let us take the particulars of the thing as they lye in order Wee read saith he of some Panegyricall meetings as it were in Salomons porch and in the temple such as be the meetings at Pauls crosse and at the Spâ—tle but their ordinary and as it were parishonall meetings were by companies in more private places It is true wee read of diverse meetings some in more private houses as Act. 2. 1. 2. 46. and 4. 31. 5. 42. and some in more publique places as the Temple Act. 2. 46. 5. 12. 42. but that one were Panegyricall and the other Parishonall whether simply or as it were I for my part never read authour that hath gone before the Doctor in this distinction neither doth he yeeld us any shredd of probabilitie to grace his apprehension The maine point now stood for viz. that the Christians at Ierusalem were but one ordinarie assembly gathered into one place is apparant enough by the scriptures before quoted though in the Doctors eyes they seeme to be
by them Ergo none other forme of Church-government save that which the Apostles ordeyned is lawfull and good The proposition in both these Arguments is one and the same and it is justified by these Apostolicall precepts 1. Thes 5. 21. Phil. 4. 8. 3. Ioh. 11. which allowe the Churches of Christ to reteyn any good thing and deny them the use of nothing but what is evill The former assumption is grounded upon the Doctors allowance of the Presbyterian discipline when he affirmeth it serm pag. 95. 97. to be good as silver and next to the best though he deny it to be of Apostolicall institution And the later assumption is the conclusion of his answere before set downe wherefore he cannot with any equity withdraw his assent from any of the coÌ„clusions of these arguments how soever the former conclusion is contradictory to the assumption of the later and the later conclusion directly contradicteth the assumption of the former argument Thus the reader may see that whiles the Doctor laboureth to A dubble contradiction in the Doctor winde out of one contradiction he sticketh fast insnared in two for fayling Neither let him think here to evade as before by saying that he affirmed not simple the presbyterian discipline to be good but only then when the episcopall government cannot be had for Mr. Doctor were simple if he could perswade himself that so slight an answere might free the reformed Churches that want Byshops from the obloquies of caviling papistes which he professeth to be his charitable intent in pleading so as he did for them and their discipline And since silver is simply good and at all times good though inferior in goodnes to golde he dealt deceitfully not simply or syncerely with his reader in comparing these 2 kindes of governments for their goodnes vnto silver and golde if he meant not to allowe the presbyterian government any other or larger goodnes then for those times or places where the episcopall regiment cannot be had But to look back once againe to the Doctors answere before set downe what if I should contradict his assumption and make use of his proposition to cut in sunder the windepipe of his conclusion in this manner ' Where that government which the Apostles ordeyned cannot be had there some other government might be admitted But whiles the Apostles lived in some Churches that government which they ordeyned could not be had Ergo whiles they lived in some Churches an other forme of government might be admitted The proposition I am sure he will acknowledge for his owne Th'assumption is fitted indeed to contradict his in the sense that he imbraceth vnderstanding by the government ordeyned by the Apostles the government by Byshops so that whereas he saith it might be had whiles the Apostles lived I on the contratie affirme that in some Churches at that time it could not be had And this I suppose will be made good by his owne words elswhere serm p. 69. The D. contradicteth himself Def. lib. 4. pag. 62. when he alledgeth the want of sit choise for one reason why all other Churches besides that of Ierusalem wanted Bishops for many yeares in the life tyme of the Apostles For how could Bishops be had to governe every Church when there was not sit choise of persons fit for that function The same reason is more plainly delivered by others that plead the same cause Bishop Barloe serm on Acts. 20. 28. fol. 6. saith that after the conversion of many people even in setled Churches the Apostles hasted not to place a Bishop because a presbyter fu to be made a Bishop is hardly found which the Doctor also acknowledgeth serm pag. 54. where he saith If a worthy Minister be amonge men as one of a 1000 as Elihu spukith Iob. 33. 23 vndoubtedly a worthy Byshop is as one of a millioÌ„ verie hardly therefore will he escape the bryars of another palpable contradiction And it will be no lesse hard to avoyde the stroak of the coÌ„clusioÌ„ which if he cannot turne aside then his propositioÌ„ now in question will lie in the dust overthrowne not by anie of our weapons but by the turninge of those upon him which he put into our hands As for the Arguments which he addeth to put new life and strength into his proposition though just exception may be taken against them for there is oddes betwixt the use of government not instituted by the Apostles in some Churches and the reteyning of it in all Churches or the altering of that government which they had once established yet will I not prosecure such advantages seing we are no lesse perswaded then he that there is a manifest truth in it The assumption followeth which hath two parts the one that Sect. 3. ad sect 2. c. p 38-44 the government by Bishops such as ours are was used even in the Apostles times the other that it was not contradicted by them both paâ—ts he indeavoreth to prove first by scripture then by other evidence His scripture proof for the former is nothing else then a naked repetition of the explication of his text scz that the 7. angels were the Bishops of the. 7. churches and for the substance of their calling like to ours which as he saith he hath proved for I may as confidently avouch we have disproved But for the proofe of the later besides the. 7. angels approved by Saint Iohn or rather by our Saviour Christ he alleageth section 6. Epaphroditus the Apostle or Bishop of the Philippians commended by Saint Paul as his funergos kai sustratiotes copartner both in his function affliction the Philippians commanded to have in honor such Phil. 2. 25. 29. Also Iames the just Bishop of Ierusalem approved of all Acts. 15. 21. Gal. 1. 19. Archippus the Bishop of Colossa in respect of his function approved of Paul Colos 4. 17. And Antipas who had been Bishop of Pergamus commended by the holy Ghost Apoc. 2. 13. His argument standeth thus In the Apostles times Epaphroditus was the Apostle or Bishop of the Philippians Iames the just the Bishop of jerusalem Archippus the Bishop of Colossa and Antipas the Bishop of Pergamus But Epaphroditus was commended of Saine Paulas his Copartner infunction and affliction Iames the juste generally approved Archippus in respect of his function approved by Saint Paul and Antipas commended by the Holy Ghost Ergo the function and government of Bishops was approved and not contradicted by the Apostles Here the Proposition if vnderstood of Diocesan Bishops such as ours is altogither false and the D. doth but begg the question in taking for granted what he should have The Doct. beggeth proved if he could But if it be vnderstood of such Bishops as the scriptures testify to have bin in the Apostles times seing they were no Lordly governors but Pastors or Bishops in another function eyther higher as was Iames the Apostle or inferior as Pastors of one
who is your Teacher he doth affirm that Epaphroditus is therefore called the Apostle of the Philippians vers 25. because he was their Byshop or Pastor In like manner touching Ambrose how loosely dooth he reason Ambrose saith that the Apostles mencioned 1. Cor. 12. 28. Ephe. 4. 11. were Bishops Ergo in saying that Epaphroditus was by the Apostle made their Apostle Phil. 2. 25. he meaneth that he was affixed and limited to the Episcopall charge of that Church in like sort as the later Bishops were and for that cause called their Apostle Nay rather it followeth from Ambrose his wordes that the function of Epaphroditus had some affinitie with the Apostleship I meane in this that he had onely a temporarie overfight of that Church as the Apostle himself had before during the time of his aboade there And this hath confirmation from the wordes that follow which the Doctor was wise enough to conceale his whole speach is this Erat enim corum Apostolus ab Apostclo factus dum illum in exhortationerie eorum mittebat ad eos quia vir bonus erat desiderabatur a plebe Where note he was desyred of the people not because he was their Pastor but because he was a good man and was now sent vnto them by the Apostle and so made their Apostle for their present instruction or exhortation not to take perpetuall charge of them for as afterwardes he saith in vers 27. necessarius erat ecclesiss he was necessary for many other Churches as one that yeilded solisium er auxilium both comfort help to the Apostle By all which it appeareth that in Ambrose his judgment Epaphroditus by his ministeriall function was an Evangelist and not affixed to the Church of Philippi as their Bishop There remaineth Theodoret whose wordes make the fairest shewe for him yet are they not so full as he pretēdeth for that which he saith in Phil. 2. 25. he called him an Apostle because to him the charge of them was committed c. might very well be affirmed of an Evangelist seing they had a temporary charge of some one or moe Churches committed to them Therefore it doth not necessarily argue his function to be properlie episcopall and such as now is controverted Yea the Doctor himself doth so vnderstand Theodoret when he faith in 1. Tim. 3. that those who now are called Bishops were at the first called Apostles and that thus Epaphroditus was the Apostle of the philippians c. For he gathereth from Theodorets testimony conferred with some wordes of Ierom Def. lib. 4. pag. 72. that the first Bishops so reputed were Apostles and Apostolike men that is Evangelists and that so long as any Evangelists or Apostolicall men remained none were chosen our of the Presbyters to the office of a Bishop whence it followeth that Epaphroditus in Theodorets judgment is called an Apostle not because he was a Bishop but for that he was an Apostolicall man or Evangelist Wherefore it is but a vayn bragge of Mr. D. 1. to conclude as he doth pag 67. that all the Authors which he cited give testimony with his exposition And 2. to ask with what face his Refut could deny it For although he hath face enough to affirme whatever may seem to advantage his cause and to colour the maintenance of what he hath once affirmed yet the truth will discover it selfe to them that with an upright eye search after it to their shame that seek to deface it Now whereas he addeth that his authors before mencioned Sect. 7. ad sect 13. p. 68. doe all goe against the interpretation of the word Apostolos which his Refuter bringeth he saith no more but what his Refuter had before acknowledged His Authors were produced not to confute his Refurer before he sawe his answer but to justify his owne collectiō from the words of the Apostle which since he cannot effect he shal doe best not to trouble his reader any further in examining their depositions especially seing in such a case as this when Interpreters doe varie about the meaning of any word or sentence in any text of Holy Scripture the judgment of the indifferent Reader must be swayed neyther by the number yeares or learning of the parties but by that weight of reason which leadeth them to think as they doe best accordeth with the circumstances of the text it selfe and with the use of the word or phrase in other places Wherefore the Refuter though he mencion the names of some which imbrace his interpretation yet grounded himselfe rather upon the probability of reason then the creditt of their testimony Notwithstanding the Doctor much forgetteth himselfe to reject so lightly as he doth the judgment of Mr. Beza and Piscator in saying they are asmuch parties in this cause as the refuter himselfe For if it be true he hath wronged Beza in affirming that in the question of Diocesan Churches and Bishops he goeth with him and against his Refuter Lib. 1. pag. 48. and Lib. 2. pag. 140. Lib. 3. pag. 11. and that he is so farr from condemning the A contradiction government of Bishops reteyned in other reformed Churches that he wished withall his hart that with the reformation of religion in the Church of Geneva the episcopall government had bin reteyned for so he sayth Lib 4. pag. 161. 166. but it is no strange thing to the observant reader to find the Doctor very often in this contradicting fault amongst others Let us see what he answereth to the reasons that were delivered to prove the Refuters construction the more likely viz. that Epaphroditus is called their Apostle or rather Messenger because he was sent by the Philippians in their stead to minister unto the Apostle Paul The first reason hath two braunches 1. That the words following in the same verse and Chap. 4. 18. doe shewe how he ministred unto him 2. the same phrase is vsed to the like purpose 2. Cor. 8. 23. where the breshren sent with Titus to receive the Corinthes benevolence are called Apostles that is messengers of the Churches In his answer 1. he acknowledgeth that Epaphroditus brought a gratuitie frō the Philippiās to Paul c. and that the brethren likewise which accompanied Titus were to receive the benevolence of the Corinthians 2. but he saith it is vnlikely that eyther he or they were called the Apostles of the Churches in that regard And why unlikely is not that interpretation mostly likely which best agreeth both with the parts of the same scripture and with the vse of the word or phrase in other places And doth not that interpretation much better agree with both them Mr Doct Let them be compared together and sentence given with the truth First touching Epaphroditus that he was their Imbassadour or Messenger to the Apostle Paul the evidence alleadged by the Refuter from the same verse and cap. 1. 18. is so pregnant that the Doct. cannot deny it yea he
doth acknowledge it The word apostolos therefore signifying properly any Messenger as he must also confesse it is more then probable even necesssarie to construe those words humoon apostolon your Messenger or at least to take them in this sense that he is called their Apostle because he was their Imbassadour sent by them to the Apostle unless some necessarie reason can be produced to demonstrate the contrary Now what saith the Doctor in this case Hath he any sentence or syllable from the text it self or any other scripture to justify any one of his Assertions viz. that Epaphroditus was their Bishop that he is therefore called their Apostle no such matter What then Forsooth it appeareth by diverse of Ignatius his epistles that when the Churches sent one vpoÌ„ a ChristiaÌ„ Imbassage the Bishop was coÌ„monly intreated to take that Embassage upon him In like manner the Philippians being to send as it were upon Embassage to Paul Epaphroditus their Bishop vndertook that voyage He being therefore both their Bishop and their Imbassadour it is more likely that he was called their Apostle because he was their Bishop then for that he was their Imbassadour I answere 1. may I not say that the Churches then sent forth their Bishops as the Apostles sent forth Peter Act. 8. 14. the Church Barnabas Act. 11. 22 2. Touching Ignatius Epistles will the D. stil presume upon the credulitie of his reader to take his bare word for proofe that the Churches in his time sent their Bishops in Embassage only upon intreatie There is small cause he should trust upon it when his reader shall vnderstand that he learned this evasion of BellaÌ„rmin The Doct. learnetn a shift of Bellarmine de Pont. Rom. lib. 1. cap. 16. who with this shift putteth off that argument which our Divines urge against Peters primacie from Act. 8. 14. where he is sayd to be sent with Iohn by the rest of the Apostles unto SamariÌ„a 3. And touching Epaphroditus seing he presumeth also that his word wil be taken in stead of better proofe that he was in like manner intreated to take the journey he deserveth to heare from me that which Bellarmin doth froÌ„ Doct. Whitakers de pont Rom. quest 2. pag. 260. Num adeum Philippenses supplices venerunt cnm eo precibus egerunt ut mitteree aliquem Romam si minus placeret ipsi proficisci nil eiusmodi habetur even this in effect there is no such matter Mr D. But be it that he went by their intreatie as Timothy at S. Pauls intreaty remayned at Ephesus 1. Tim. 1. 3. May the Church of Welles or rather of Canterburie for Philippi was Metropolis Macedonia as aferwards he telleth us pag. 71. send their Bishop abroad by the like intreatie upon the like busynes to wit to convey their benevolence unto some Bishop or person of great note that is a prisoner as Paul was at that time Who seeth not that even this Embassage argueth he was not a Bishop of that degree dignity that one of our Bishops bear at this day Moreover to pass by for the present his begging the questioÌ„ in asfirming him to be their Bp. if he were both their The Doct. beggeth againe Bishop and Embassadour is it not more likely that he was called their Apostle because he was their Imbassadour seing the word importeth so much then for that he was their Bp but he hath better probabilities in store to prove the coÌ„trarie let us givehim hearing It is unlikely saith he that the name of that sacred function of the Apostles of Christ who also himself is the Apostle of our profession should be used in Sect. 8. ad pag. 66. 67. the Scriptures to signify the Messengers of men Is it vnlikely why doth he not knowe that the offices of pastors and deacons are also sacred functions and that Christ himself is intitled our Shepheard and Pastor of our Soules Iohn 10. 16. 1. Pet. 5. 25. and the diaconos minister of the circumcision Rom. 15. 8. â— notwithstanding it is certeine that both these names poimen diaconos are given in the Apostolicall writings to Feildshepheards and servants of men Luc. 8. 8. 15. 18. 20. Iohn 2. 5. 9. In like manner though the word aggelos be the name of that sacred functioÌ„ of the celestiall spirits and communicated even vnto Christ himselfe Act. 7. 35. 38. Revel 10. 1. 5. yet it is given also in the Holy Scriptures vnto the messengers of men Iam. 2. 25. where Rahab is sayd to have received tous aggelous the messengers and sent them out another way It is apparant therefore that neyther the holynes of the Apostolike functioÌ„ nor the worthines of Christs person or office can yeild any probable argument to justify the Doctors affirming it to be unlikely that the word apostolos should be used in the scriptures to signify the messengers of men But heare we him again he addeth that in both places Phil. 2. 25. and 2. Cor. 8. 23. the Apostle intendeth by this title highly to commend Epaphroditus and the others but this had bene but a small commendation that they were messengers of the Churches But a small How small soever the commendation seemeth in the Doct. eyes who esteemeth basely of the church in comparison of their Bishop yet is it otherwise in their eyes see Heming Hyper in 2. Cor. 8. who concurre with us in the translation of both texts among whom are many the translators of our Church-bibles former later whom he dareth not accuse Iam sure to be parties with us in this controversie But what speak I of their judgment seing we have the Apostles own testimony that having given to one this high coÌ„mendation his praise is in the gospel throughout all the Churches doth yet enlarge his praise in saying not that onely but he was also chosen of the Churches to traveile with us with this grace which is administred by us c. 2. Cor. 8. 18. 19. and therefore also he signifieth 1. Cor. 16. 3. that he would not send those that were to carry the benevolence of the Corinths unto Ierusalem without their letters of commendations And by these testimonies of the Apostle we see the falsehood of that which he assumeth in his last reason specially fitted to prove that they in 2. Cor. 8. 23. were not called the Apostles of the Churches because they were their Messengers viz. that they were not sent by the Churches But let us look upon the colour he setteth vpon this vntruth it is evident saith he that Paul himself sent them for as it was required of him Gal. 2. 10. so had he undertaken to procure a supply for relâ—ife of the brethren in Iudea And â—o that end having deâ—lt before with the Corinthians sendeth Titus and two othersÌ„ to receive their contribution All which I graunt but hold it a very lame consequence and such as the Doctor with all his learning will never be able
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
plebs ipsa maximè habet potestatem vel eligendi dignos sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi quod et ipsum videmus de divina authoritate descendere And how oft doth Austin say that Peter signified the Church and bare the person of the Church when Christ sayd unto him Tibi dabo claves c. Mat. 16. August tract 50. 124. in Iohan. Item in Psal 108 de agonia Christi cap. 30. And Gerson Trilog 8. quest Claves inquit datae sunt ecclesiae ut in actu primo Petro ut in actu secundo On which words the Bishop of Chichester in his answer to Tortus pag. 65. giveth this note Cum vnum hunc nomino cum illo intellige omnes qui Constantiae fuerunt in Concilio omnes enim idem sentiunt But to passe by many others the wordes of Ferus in Act. 11 are worthy of the Doctors observation Peter the Apostle chief of the Apostles is constreyned to give an account to the Church neyther doth he disdeyne it because he knew himselfe to be not a Lord but a Minister of the Church The Church is the spouse of Christ and Lady of the house Peter a servant and Minister Wherfore the Church may not onely exact an account of her Ministers but also reject and depose them if they be not fit And in giving this preheminence to the Church above Peter doth he speak against the scripture or against reason Doth not S. Paul acknowledge the same touching himselfe and his fellow Apostles 1. Cor. 3. 21. 22. 2. Cor. 4. 5. Is it not then an absurd fancie if not frenzie to urge as the Doctor doth lib. 3. passim the superioritie of one Bishop in an whole Diocese or Province above all the Presbyters and people thereof Notwithstanding as the Refuter doth no where say so neither can it be gathered frō his words that the form of Church-governmēt was at the first or now ought to be wholly democraticall or popular the Doctor is not ignorāt as appeareth l. 3. p. 2. 3. that his Ref pleadeth for the Aristocraticall forme of government as that which in his opiniō ought to be established in the severall Churches Neyther doth he therein crosse himselfe or any of his fellowes that favour the parish discipline for they all as I am perswaded doe hold the ecclesiasticall government to be a mixt forme compounded of all three states as many worthy divines doe confidently mainteyne P. Martyr in 1. Cor. 5. see his Com. plac clas 4. sect 9. Baros de polit civ ecclesiastica lib. 2. pag. 42. 43. D. Whitak de Roman pontif pag. 13. 14. For as in respect of Christ who is the head not onely of the whole Church in generall but also of every particular visible Church Ephes 4. 15. 1. Cor. 12. 27 the Church may be truely reputed a Kingdome or Monarchy so it hath some resemblance unto a Monarchy in regard of that preheminence which the Pastor hath above other Church-officers But because no one Pastor or Bishop hath power to governe or determine causes ecclesiastical pro suo arbitratu after his pleasure but ex consilio compresbyterorum by the Counsell of his fellow-Elders the regiment of the Church more properly resembleth an Aristocracy And in asmuch as the peoples consent is not to be neglected in causes of greatest moment it agreeth in part with a Democracie notwithstāding a meere Democracie wherein all matters are handled of all aequato jure by an equall right we doe no lesse detest then that usurped Monarchie of Lordly Prelates which other reformed Churches have abolished Wherefore the Doctor dreameth of a dry sommer in a dripping Section 8. yeare when he supposeth in his third fancie that we hold the lawes of Church-government prescribed in the epistles to Tim. Titus to have bin provided for such a popular state wherein the people doe rule their leaders They were provided for a mixt state wherein many presbyters vnder the guidance of one Pastor or president doe administer execute all matters with the peoples consent approbation And in the affirmation as we have the assent of the most and the best divines of later times Calvin on Titus 1. 5. Beza on Tim. Cap. 5. 19. 22. and Tit. 3. 10. and sundry others so we have the Apostles owne warrāt in the close of his epistles with these words grace be with you or with you all 2. Tim. 22. Tit. 3. 15. for by this it appeareth that what was written specially by name to Timothy and Titus was intended to be of cōmon use not onely for other Ministers but also in some sort to all the Saints that then conversed in those places Moreover since the Apostle chargeth Titus to observe in the ordination of Elders that order which he had before enjoyned him Tit. 1. 5. whence can we better derive that order then from his owne practise and his fellow-Apostles who used aswell in ordination as in other Church-affaires both the advice and help of other Ministers and the approbation of the people as appeareth by these scriptures Acts. 1. 15. 23. 26. and 6. 2. 3. and 14. 23. and 15. 6. 22. 23. 1. Cor. 5. 3. 4. 2. Cor. 2. 10. The Doctor therefore is misledd by his owne conceit when he imagineth that the Apostles wordes unto Timothy and Titus Lay not handes rashly c. And doe thou avoid an Haeretick did so close up all power of ordination and jurisdiction in their handes that neyther people nor presbyters had or might have any stroak at all in those matters As for his gibing objection Belike the whole Island of Creete was a parish too it deserveth no other answer then this when he justifyeth his collection from any words in his refuters answer I will acknowledge him for an honest man mean while let the reader take notice of this that the Doctor in a fewe leaves after pag. 88 noteth this speach of his refuter that Creet had many Churches which argueth necessarily that the whole Iland could not be one onely parish The last fancy falsly fained by the Doctor is this that the popular Sect. 9. state of the severall Churches did first degenerate into an Aristocracie and after into a Monarchie he should haue sayd that the well tempered Democracie did degenerate first into a simple Aristocracie after into an absolute Monarchy But he endeavoreth to shewe that the severall Churches were at the first governed Monarchically to wit by the Apostles or Apostolicall men severally For Apostles he nameth Iames that ruled perpetually and Peter and Paul c. for a time And of Apostolicall men that were perpetuall governors he hath good store as Mark Timothy Titus Evodius Simō the sonne of Cleophas c. But where are his proofes that all these or any of them governed Monarchically and by their sole authority Concerning Iames it is already shewed that his government was farre short of that sole authoritie which our Bishops carry
all the grace he can to them closing all up saying that he leaueth that most pregnunt authentique euidence of Ignatius to his aduersary to muse upon See you not how bragge he would seeme to be as if he had gotten a great conquest yet what is this to the present question will he thus argue The Christians throughout Syria in the time of Ignatius who calleth himselfe the Bishop of Sy-ria made many Churches or congregations Ergo the Church of Antioch where of he had more properly the charge was more then one congregation Can there come a worse inconsequence from one that is but a smatterer in schoole disputations Thus are wee come to the testimonyes of the new writers viz. Tindall Bale Fulk Perkins Our great Church-Bible and D. Bilson Sect. 9. ad pag. 106. 107. All which the Doctor saith excepting two testimonies of Tindall the Refuter most childishly alleadgeth But what if his exceptions be more childish then his Refuters allegations let us compare them and leave the censure of both to the indifferent reader It is objected that the ancient translators of the new testament into the english tongue doe turoe the word ecclesia congregation when they speak of the Church of Ephesus and the rest in the Revelation and to the same purpose are the rest but Doct. Bilson alleadged And that translation is justified not onely by Mr Tindall Thomas More but by Iohn Bale sometimes a Bishop in his exposition of the word Churches and Candlesticks by D. Fulk against the Rhemists aunot in Ephel 5. and by Mr Perkins in his exposition of Apoc. 2. 3. affirming that the 7. Churches were particular congregations And D. Bilson against the Seminaries affirmeth that the word is never taken in the new testament for the Preists alone but for the congregation of the faithfull and namely that it is so taken Act. 20 28. FroÌ„ which allegations it is inferred that therefore in their judgement the Church of Ephesus other like chutches in cities were each of them but one particular coÌ„gregation and did not consist of many Now is not this inference grounded on good probabilitie for can it be imagined that these learned worthy men would have so interpreted the word ecclesie by congregation if they had not been perswaded that most naturally it expressed the meaning thereof And if so must not each particular Church be in their judgement one particular congregation If the Papists could prove any one of the 7. Churches of Asia to haue consisted of many distinct congregations were it not a more just exception then any they haue alleadged to weaken their interpretation seing a multitude distinguished into many congregations cannot properly be called one congregation But let us heare the Doctors exceptions First he telleth us that the ancient english Bibles doe use the word congregation not onely where mention is made of particular Churches but of the universall Church also as Mat. 16 18. Ephes 1. 22. 5. 25. even so and we know it well and esteeme the reason to be alike for as particular Churches are each of them one visible congregation and not many so is the Church universall one invisible congregation the former gathered togither into one assembly open to the eyes of men at one time and in one place the other gathered togither into one mysticall body which though hidden from men in this world yet is â—no nituitu manifest unto God and at the last day shal be actually congregated into one assembly in the viewe of men and angels Secondly the Doctor layeth downe the reasons mouing the first translators of the Bible into English to avoyd the name Church and in stead thereof to use the word congregation 1. Because CHURCH more properly signifieth the place of meeting then the congregation it self which is meant by ecclesia 2. Because the Papists had abused it to signify eyther generally the romish Church or particularly to import the romish Clergie And I wish the reader to consider whether this first reason doth not justify the refuters affirmation viz. that in the judgement of those Translators ECCLESIA doth properly note such a congregation as is gathered togither in one place whither the second doth any way infringe it Thirdly concerning the testimony of D. Fulk the Doctor saith Sect. 10. ad pag. 107. the allegation thereof sheweth extreame want eyther of indgement or beneftie but I perswade my selfe the want eyther of the one or other will more justly fall upon the Accuser then the Refut when things are indifferently weighed on both sides For wherein hath he fayled Is it not true which he saith that D. Fulkinstifieth the translation of ecelesia by congregation as better expressing the Greek then the word Church doth not this argue plainely that he heild the Church of Ephesus and all other Churches in cities to consist but of one particular congregation In deed if his defense of our Bibles translating ecclesia by congregation had been limited onely to that text Ephes 5. 23. as Mr Doctor indeavoureth to perswade the Refuter had shewed litle discretion in the choise of that restimony to argue that which he inferreth but as the Rhemists in their annot on that text taxe our first english Bibles with corruption not for mistranslating the word in that place onely but generally for not using so much at once in all the Bible the name of Church but in stead thereof congregation so D. Fulks answer is sitted in generall to justify the Translators in so doing They rather used saith he the word Congregation then Church to avoyd ambiguity because this word Church is coÌ„monly taken for the howse of the assembly of Christians and that the people might know that the Church is a gathering togither of all the members into one body which in the name of church doth not appeare Is it not plaine that in his understanding the word eccksia signifieth properly such an assembly of Christians as is gathered togither into one body in one house or place such as comonly we call a Church See I pray how he interpreteth himselfe in his answere to Gregory Martin Pref. sect 51. pag. 92. and cap. 5. sect 5. pag 148. Wherefore though he speak never a word of the Church of Ephesus in speciall yet his defense of the translations in generall doth not onely justify them in calling the Church in Ephesus the Congregation in Ephesus but also argue by consequence that the Church there consisted at that time not of many severall congregations but of one particular Church-assembly onely Wherefore the Doctor mought with more judgement honesty have set a lesse face upon it then to charge his Refut with want of eyther for alleadging his testimony Fourthly as touching the testimony of Mr. Perkins the same inference also clearely ariseth from his assertion viz. that the 7. churches were particular congregations For he would never have so said vnlesse he thought each of them