about some parts of his answer then to propose any sound argument for the justifying of the points impugned which is in deed the perpetuall course of this great disputer for the most part But let us see whether he hath so just cause as he suppofeth to Sect. 4. insult over his Refuter when he saith to let passe his scoffs more fit for a vice in a play then a Doctor of divinitie in re tam seria as this is that his Refuter wrangleth as a man confounded yet resolved to coÌ„ntradict though against the light of his conscience denieth the conclusion coÌ„tradicteth himselfe The contradiction objected will come to be examined in his defense of the Assumption All that is sayd to weaken the consequence or proposition he taketh to be but a bare deniall of the conclusion And first he so conceiveth of his quaestion what if every one of the Churches then were but one parish c. because he cannot see how it impugneth the consequence in any respect But had he had so much charitie towards his Refuter as he would have yeelded to himselfe he might have supplied that which the state of the question and the scope of his answer requireth to be necessarily understood q. d. what if though that were granted which he supposeth every one of the Churches then were but one parish which by reasoÌ„ of the multitude of people had many Teachers so he might have seen that he impugneth his consequence so farre as it inferreth that the Presbyteries were not appointed unto parishes and that therfore he both wrongeth him to say that in that respect he giveth it no answer at all and sporteth himselfe in vaine with the hope of a victorie that turneth to his ruine For his quaestion rightly conceived as before is shewed doth in plaine phrase of speaking import thus much q. d. Be it granted that parishes in the Apostles times were not distinguished in any citie and the country nere adjoyning nor presbyters assigned to their severall cures this nothing hindreth but that every one of the Churches which by their ordination injoyed a presbyterie or companie of teachers might be one parish that is one ordinarie congregation of Christians assembling togither in one place And that which is added touching the French Dutch Churches serveth not to prove the maine conclusion as the Doctor supposeth therein mistaking his Refuters Analysis but to justify the deniall of the consequence by a paralel comparing those outlandish churches here in England with the ancient Apostolike Churches in this manner It is well knowne that the French and Dutch Churches here in England have first a presbyterie or company of Teachers allotted to them 2. no parishes distinguished in any citie for them 3. nor presbyters so assigned to their several cures as our parish Ministers are Be it also graunted that the Apostolike Churches in cities had the like yet the French and Dutch Churches are neyther doth the want of distinct parishes and presbyters assigned to their severall cures hinder their being each of them one parishionall not a diocesan assembly that is one ordinarie congregation of Christians assembling togither in one place Why then might not those Apostolike Churches be yea how should the want of distinct parishes c. hinder their like being If the Doctor will needs have the comparison brought into a syllogism it may be thus framed What hindreth not the French Dutch Churches which here in England have a presbyterie or company of Teachers allotted to them from being each of them one parishonall assembly that cannot binder the Apostolicke Churches which in Cities injoyed their presbyterie or company of Teachers from being each of them one parishonall assembly The want of distinct parishes and presbyters so assigned to their severall Cures as our parish-Ministers are doth not hinder the French or Dutch Churches which here in England have a presbyterie or company of Teachers allotted to them from being each of them one parishonall assembly Therefore the like want cannot hinder the Apostolike Churches which in cities injoyed their presbyterie or company of Teachers from being each of them one parishonall assembly As for his cavils agianst his owne Argument framed I will not Sect. 5. say for the nonce to cavill withall but vpon a mistake of his Refuters meaning though I might passe by them as not directly touching any part of the argument before contrived yet because they contradict some pointers implied in the comparison I will remove them out of the way least any one should stomble at them First therefore whereas he hunteth after some differences between the Apostolike Churches and the French or Dutch Churches here in England thereby to shew that they are not of like condition as the Refuters comparison importeth I answer 1. the Doctor cannot be ignorant that comparisons are not to be racked beyond the purpose of the Author that produceth them neyther is he so simple but that he may see his Refuter principally intended herein to compare the Apostolike Churches with the FreÌ„ch and Dutch Churches that as the later have so also the former had by reason of the multitude of people many teachers to attend theÌ„ and yet remayned one Church assembly not distributed into severall congregations vnder severall Ministers Herein therefore if the comparison holde as himselfe confefseth and argueth for his advantage pag. 74. 75. all the differences that he alledgeth were they as many moe as they are cannot contradict or infringe the truth of the Refuters speach when he saith doe you not see the like in the French and Dutch churches here in England 2. But what are the dissagreements which he hath found out For the most part such as are now questioned concerning the Apostolike Churches for he saith Their Presbyterie consisteth for the most part of Lay-men placed among us not with purpose to convert either the Ciâ—â—â— or countâ—â—â— to them but to attend them of their owne Church whereas contrary wise the Churches in the Apostles times had a Bishop and a Presbyterie of learned men placed among them as leaven is put into the lump with purpose to convert the reâ—â— both in Ciâ—â—â— and Countrie As if he would argue that they agree not in the points assumed by the Refuter for his purpose because they answere not his expectation in the particulars which his imagination ascribeth though his arguments cannot conveigh them to the Apostolike Churches As for that other difference viz. that the French Church in London is but one among many prosessing the same religion whereas the Apostolike Churches were not so before the division oâ— parishâ—â— but planted among heathen peo-ple though he make it a chiefe one yet is it srivolous and of no value The Doct. pulleth downe with the one hand what he fetteth up with the other especially seing himselfe pag. 72. compareth the French Churches here with those ancient Christians who dwelt in Cities replenished with men of another saith
one word that savoureth of captious carping Yet if there were is it all one to to carp at the choise of the text and to spend of his spene upon the text it self But not to stay vpon this any longer the Doctor telleth vs that though the quarrel pleased the refuter so well that he repeateth it againe page 3. yet without cause for that seing the expositioÌ„ of the allegorie is not doubtful but confessed on both sides that as by 7. starres are meant the 7. angels so by the angels the Bps. of the Churches who seeth not that this assertioÌ„ the calling of the Bishops is lawfull and good is built on the foundation of the Apostle Iohn as it were vpon a rock But 1. lett him certify us 1. touching the exposition of the allegorie in his text and that if it be nothing doubtfull but confessed or agreed on on both sides why he doth in the 2. pag. of his sermon prepose this as a doubtfull point needfull to be examined viz. who and what manner of persons are ment by the angels of the Churches The D. coÌ„tâ—adicteth himself 2. Wherefore he tendered this for his first reason of examining the doubt because to vse his owne words def pag. 29. when the Holy-ghost expoundeth the starres by Angels this interpretation it selfes allegoricall and therefore needeth some exposition And. 3. Wherefore in the very next words of his defence he mâ—ncioneth 3. different opinions touching the persons or functions ment by the Angels viz. whether all Ministers in generall the Presidentes of the presbyteries or diocesan Bishops 2. Moreover can he without blushing saye that it is confessed on The Doct. speaketh vntruely both sides that by the 7. starrs are ment the 7. Angels Was it not flâ—ttly denied Not without reason or shewe of reason at leaste doth not he himself afterwards cap. 2. sectioÌ„ 3. spend paynes in opening the doubt and proving that the angels were just 7. and no more 3. Lastly if this be all that he can rightly and strongly build upon the Apostle in the words of his text viz. that the calling of the Bishops is lawfull and good his refuter hath good cause even still to affirm that this text neither was nor is any firme ground for him on which to set up such a mansion for his Diocesans as he assayed Who therefore seeth not that it is not the refuter with the text but the Doctor that quarrelleth with the Refuter in this pointe without a cause Especially seing when he coÌ„meth to that 3. page where he sayth the quarrell is repeated he doth wittingly both coÌ„ceâ—â— vnder an 〈◊〉 and overpasse without any answer that which is 〈◊〉 â—aâ—momâ—nt to justify his Refuter in this point For the Doct. 〈◊〉 â—noâ—lâ—dge a truth to lye in one of these assertions of of the Refuter to witt that eyther there is some other portion of scripture whâ—â—n that which he pretendeth to be here layd downe vnder a vâ—â—le is 〈◊〉 vnfâ—â—ed â—â—d delivered or that there is no such place to be sound 〈◊〉 the scripture Now let him make the best choise he can and which of them soever he choose the same shall make â—ood the refuters quarrell as the Doctor calleth it I meane the consequence of his reasoning in that place For 1. if he shall affirme that there iâ— some other text that plainely vnfoldeth the pointes here sayd downe vnder the vaâ—â—e of an allegorie then in reason should his censure be approved which saith it had bene fitter both in divinity and good discretion for him to have chosen some other more cleare portion of scripture then this which is allegoricall 2. If he shall grant as I think he will not that there is no such place to be found in all the scripture it will also inevitablie followe that the Refuters sentence was right when he sayd this text cannot be deemed a fitt Iudge to decide so great a controversy But it was one of his pointes of wisdome to passe by this dilemma Sect. 5. ad cap. 2. pa. 30. defen or two forked argument he thought it enough to repeate in that 30. page his former answere that the meaninge of the allegory is on all sides agreed on and to add this silly inference that since we doe confesse the Angels to be the Bishops of the Churches therefore by our confession the text was as fittly chosen as if it had bin sayd the 7. Starres are the Bishops of the 7. Churches See see how faine he would if he could The D. beggeth of us what he dareth not give himself wringe from us an acknowledgement of that which himself well advised I suppose dareth not affirme namely that an allegoricall texte is as fittly chosen to prove any conclusion as another which vnfoldeth the same more plainely But it shall not be amisse to lett him see the strength of his consequence by another of like force Our adversaries the D. I meane the men of his side doe affirme and teach that the Angels were diocesan Bishops superiour in degree to other Ministers and that the 7. Churches which they governed were properly Dioceses Therefore in their opinion the text was as fittly chosen as if it had bin said the 7. Starres are the diocesan Bishops who having a superiority in degree over other Ministers did oversee the 7. dioceses or diocesan Churches in Asia 2. As for the replie which he ascribeth to his Refuter viz. that though it be granted that the Angels are Bishops yet not such Bishops as The D. vntruely fathereth on the Refut what he said not the D. speaketh of if it had bin as truly his as it is vntruly fathered on him yet he giveth him no cause to answere as he doth viz. then the vnfittnes of the text belike is not because it is allegorical but because in his conceite it is impertinent He should rather have inferred thus Then I see the text is vnfitt in a double respect in parte because it is allegoricall and cheefly because though the meaning of the allegory be thus farr agreed on that it is confessed the Angels were Bishops yet it is a great controversy whether they were such Bishops as the Bishops of our Church are But the D. giveth litle hope that he will of his owne accord confesse so much this belike shal be answered with another inferred vpon a more sure ground It is certeine the consent of Interpreters being so farr divided as he acknowledgeth pag. 7. touching the nature of the function of these Angels can give his text no fitnes to conclude his purpose Belike therefore the fitnes that the Doctor imagineth to be in it is because in his owne conceit it is pertinent induced therevnto perhaps by the judgement of some fewe that are parties in the cause But his conceit though supported with the approbation of some that favour the Hierarchy is too light to be layd in the ballance against the judgment of all those Protestant wryters
Presbyters the Presbyters to the Bishops and the Bishops to Christ And asketh he not pag. 46. what a Bishop else is but such a one as holdeth and menageth the whole power and authoritie above all yea and doth he not pag. 30. 31. out of the council of Sardis and out of Optatus and Hâ—erâ—m make those 3. degrees answerable to the high Preists and Levites placing the Deacons and Presbyters in the roome of the Preists Levites and the Bishops in the roome of Aaron the High-Preist the very cheife and Prince of all With what face then can he deny vnto the Bishop in his diocese a sole superiority or solepower of rule or say that the word sole is foisted in besides his meaninge Let him weigh the force of this argument and give us a direct answer to it the next time he writeth Whosoever ascribeth to every Bishop in his Diocese a singular preheminence not of order onely but of power and rule eminent above all and admitting no partner to governe in fore externo the Presbyters aswell as the people as their Ruler and Iudge holding and menaging the whole power and authoritie above all all subiect to him and he subiect to Christ he giveth to every B in his Diocese a sole superioritie or sovereignty and sole power of rule But the Dostor prescribeth â—o every Bishop in his Diocese a singular preheminence not of order onely but of power and rule eminent above all c. Therefore he giveth to every Bishop in his Diocese a sole superioritie or sovereigntie and so power of rule The assumption is gathered from his owne wordes as is before shewed If he deny the proposition shall he not bewray in himself that evill conscience which he chargeth his Refuter with which is resolved to oppugne and deface the truth Can he be ignorant that a singular preheminence of power and rule eminent above all and admitting no partner put into the hands of any one to govern all the rest as their ruler and Iudge and he subject to to none but to Christ is not onely a sole superiority but a very sovereignty or sole and supreme power and rule Wherefore how soever every superiority in power or majority of rule be not a sole or sâ—preme power or superiority c Yet the Refuter hath rightly affirmed and the Doctor hath with check of conscience I feare denied the power of rule which he ascribeth to Bishops to be a sole power And touching our owne Bishops though he be loth to acknowledge Sect. 8. in plaine termes that they are sole ruling Bishops yet he affirmeth that which will easily evince it to be a truth For to let passe what he saith serm pag. 40. concerning ordination that the power thereof is ascribed and appropriated to the Bishop alone and that however by the councill of Carthage the Preâ—byters were to impose handes with the Bishop yet it was then as now with vs not for necessity but for greater solemnely c. To let this passe I say he confesseth lib. 1. cap. 8. pag. 192. that the advice and â—ssistance of presbyters which the ancient Bishops used grew longe since out of use because it seemed needlesse both to the presbyters desyring their ease and to the Bishops desyring to rule alone And to take a way all shew of difference betwene those ancients and our Bishops who have not the like assistance of their presbyters that they had in former ages he telleth us lib. 3. cap. 5. pag. 111. That when Bishops used the advice of their presbyters the sway of their authority was nothinge lesse then when they usâ—d it not for the assistance of the presbyters was to help and advâ—se but never to over-rule the Bishop like as the authority of a Prince who useth the advice of his Councell is nothing the lesse for it but the more advised The truth of this later speach is not here to be examined nor yet how well the former doth accord with the later there will come a fitter time for it hereafter for the present purpose it shall suffice to observe 1. That if a desire in Bishops to rule alone was one cause why the AssistaÌ„ce which formerly they had of their Presbyters grewe out of vse it may wel be thought that ours doe nowe rule alone seing they have no such assistance as they had 2. Neither can it be otherwise if that assistance which once they had was not to restreyne them of their willes but onely to yeeld them that help that great Princes free Monarches have of their grave Counsellors by whom they are advised in their affaires of state Here therefore I crave his answere to this argument Whosoever in their government proceeding to give sentence in any cause that is to be iudged by them have no assistance of any to restreyne them from swâ—â—ing the matter as pleaseth them they have a sole power of rule or do rule by their sole authoritie But our English Preâ—â—tes iâ— their Episcopâ—ll government and in proceeding to give sentence in any cause that is to be iudged by them have no assistance of any to restreyne them fâ—om swaying the matter as pleâ—seth them Let not the D. be ashamed to speake plainely what he closely insinuatâ—th Therefore they have a sole power of rule or do rule by theiâ— sole authoritie The proposition I suppose to be so cleare that the Doct. wil not deny it The Assumption is already acknowledged for true by himself I hope therefore in his next defence he will imbrace the conclusion and esteme it no longer an odious and absurd asserti on For why should he be ashamed to speake that plainly which he doth closely insinuate the rather for that one of his fellow Doct. D. Dove I meane in his defense of Church-government pag. 19. coÌ„ming to speak of a Diocesan D. Bishop ruling by his sole power saith that this is the cheefe matter now in question and further pag. 20. that he may speake something for the iustification of the Bishops ruling by their sole authoritie affirmeth that Timothy Titus were such Bishops Now no doubt the Doctor will expect an answer to that which was overpassed in the former chapter as impertinent to the point then in hand viz. That all power is not given to the Bishop alone because that in the government of the Church others are joyned with him some vnder him and some above him c. lib. 1. cap. 2. pag. 42. and he shall here according to promise have it And that he may see the force of his reasoning I wish him to remember that Christ saith of himselfe Math. 28. 18. all power is given to mean heaven and earth and to bethinke himselfe what answere he would give to one that shoulde thus argue In the government of the world there are others ioyned with Christ the Father is above him 1. Cor. 15. 27 28. and vnder him are both his Apostles and thâ—ir successors Mat. 28 19
erroniously and weakly mainteyned to be of Apostolicall institution To impugne the proposition were to labour to quench the light of reason and if the Doctor contradict the Assumption he must not onely eate up his owne words before set downe but also oppose himself against the judgment of the best approved Fathers who as himself testifieth have taught the contrary and then the stroke of his owne tongue which he whett as a sharp rasor against his Refuter will recoile into his owne sides in this manner Doe the Fathers restify with one consent that these two degrees of Ministers Bishops and Presbyters were instituted of Christ and hath the Doctor the forhead to denie it In a matter of fact as this is whether Bishops were first instituted by Christ himself or by his Apostles for any man to denie creditt to all antiquity it is a plaine evidence that he is addicted to noveltie and singularitie the Doct. himself being judge for they are his owne wordes lib. 3. pag. 23. Againe in a matter of fact the authoritie and testimonie of some one Father ought to overweigh the whole nation of disciplinariaÌ„s as the Doctor saith but let it here be Episcopalians or Byshoplings contradicting the same I could here give him a large handful of these kinde of flowers gathered out of his own garden but I will spare both him and them seing I am to attend upon those arguments which he hath produced to prove his episcopall function and government to be of Apostolicall institution The first argueth that function to be Apostolicall because it was generally and perpetually used in the first 300 yeares after Christ his Apostles was not ordeyned by generall councells which argument since it altogither balketh the whole book of God and is fitted onely to make some use of his extravagant learning and great reading in the Councells Fathers of his long digression in his former treatises to another question I shall doe him no wrong to passe by it for the present and referr the examination both of it and the testimonies therein vnto a fitter tyme for the question is not how long Bishops have had the possession of that superiority and government which now they reteine but by what authority and warrant of God or man they were first seased of it and there is good cause to suspect their title to be naught when their defendants not being able to bring forth any authenticall evidence signed sealed by the hands of the Apostles from whom they pretend to derive theire tenure doe laye the weight of their cause eyther upon prescription of long continuance or upon the testimony of Fathers that lived for the moste parte 2. or 3. hundred yeares after the thing was or should be done which they stand forth to restify Especially seing the true records of all ordinances delivered by the Apostles unto the Churches of Christ are neyther perished nor locked up in any private Cloysters or closets but communicated to the publick viewe of all men who lift to search what forme of government they prescribed Chapt. 3. Answering the 2. Chapt. of his 4. book and the reason there tendred to prove the episcopal function to be of Apostolicall institution bâ—cause it was as he falsly suppoâ—eth used in the Apostles times and not contradicted by them In the 2. Chapter of his 4. book he stayeth himselfe within the Sect. 1. ad lib. 4. cap. 2. sect 1. pag. 17. of the Doct. compasse of the Apostles times and indeavoureth to shewe that the Episcopall function now in question was then in use his argument for proofe thereof cartieth this forme serm pag. That government which even in the Apostles times was used in the Apostolicall Churches and not contradicted by them was undoubtedly of Apostolicall institution The government by Bishops was used even in the Apostles times and not contradicted by them It was therefore undoubtedly of Apostolicall institution Concerning the propositioÌ„ how ever it be true in their opinioÌ„ which holde that there was but one forme of government in the Church and the same instituted by the Apostles yet the Doct. was told by the Refâ—ter answ pag. 127. that it cannot serve his turn who by his distinction of gold and silver sermon pag. 95. mainteyneth that there may be an other government in the Church that good besides that which he affirmeth to be of Apostolical institutioÌ„ For the propositioÌ„ cannot be true but vpon this ground that the Apostles were not to suffer any governmeÌ„t save that which was of their owne institution and therefore in taking it for granted he did but reckon without his host This answere the Doctor laboureth to remove and then fortifieth his propositioÌ„ against all future assaultes But first he seemeth to repent the delivering of that his distinction of divers Church governments which he compareth for their goodnes as it is more or lesse to golde silver saying he did it in favour of the Dâ—sciplinarians therein clawing a churle according to the homely proverbe The disciplinariaÌ„s which were that churle in whose favour he spake were are the reformed Churches abroad where the Presbyterian discipline is established as himselfe acknowledgeth lib. 3. pag. 108. lib. 4. cap. vlt. pag. 145. But his own tongue discovereth the affection of his hart therein to witt how The D. bechurleth the reformed Churches he spake it as a clawback in hope to have got thanks at least at the hands of all that favour the discipline Which not obteyning of his refuter in revenge to him he throweth the name of a Churle on them And to him he returneth this answere that he said not simply that other governments may be admitted besides that which the Apostles ordeyned but onely there where that cannot be had But whiles the Apostles lived that which they ordeyned might be had To these premisses I will adde the conclusion which the Doct. aymeth at though he doth not expresse it viz. That therefore The D. removed not the coÌ„tradiction charged upon him by his Refut whiles the Apostles lived none other government might be admitted save that which they ordeyned But for our better satisfaction because he hath not in our understanding clearly removed the contradiction charged upon him by his Refuter answ pag. 1â—7 158. he and I both humbly pray in his next defâ—nce a direct answer to the premisses of these arguments following Whatsoever forme of Church-government is lawfull and good the same might lawfully be tollerated of the Apostles in some Churches But some other forme of Church-government besides that which they ordeyned is lawfull and good Ergo some other form of Church-government besides that which the Apostles ordeyned might lawfully be tollerated by them insome Churches Againe Whatsoever forme of Church-government is lawfull and good the same might lawfully be tolerated by the Apostles But none other forme of Church-governmeÌ„nt save that which the Apostles ordeyned might lawfully be tolerated or admitted
â—eae nolens addit mercedi detracting so willingly from his fame hath added against his will to his reward There was no neede therefore in regard of himselfe to free him froÌ„ the D. slaunders the testimonie †Aug. ad frat in Ereâ—◠〈◊〉 â—â— â—ihi quideÌ„ sufficit conscientia mea vobis aut necessaria est â—ama mea of his owne conscience being enough to him but for so much as his good name is necessarie for others his slanders are not therefore alwaise passed by but sometimes mett with and proved so to be and that not the Refuter but the D. is the slanderer yea such an one as to colour one hath not blushed to make two Wherefore it shall be good for him to follow the counsell of an ancient * â—asil ad â—unom he apaleipson sou ta remata he me arnou ten asebeian father in his next writing vz to blot out his slanders or to coÌ„fesse his iniquity Thirdly as touching his shiftings windings in and out let it be observed how in his defense he turneth his whole sermon vpside downe not onely wandring from the question but changing and subverting the state thereof yea changing his assertions and points of his sermon making them neyther eadem nor eodem numero The which not to mention how he altereth clippeth perverteth his Refut both words and purpose vvhat are they but ' Misera kresâ—â—geta seu tergiversantis effugia miserable starting holes scape-doores for him to â—lie out at that turneth his back vpon the cause and dareth not stand to it To conceale saith '†Aug. quaest vet test 14. Qui verba supprimit quaestionis auâ— imperitus est aut tergiversatuâ— qui calumniae magis studeat quaÌ„ doctrinae one or suppresse the words of the question argueth either want of skill vvhich must not be imputed to the D. for vve knovv vvhat he professeth of his ovvne skill in judging of an argument or a wrangling spirit more studious to cavill then desirous to teach or learne Fourthly hovvever the state of the question standeth as he hath layd it dovvne in his sermon or defence looke vve to his proofes and it vvill appeare that as in his sermon he scarcely assaied to prove the same by any vvord of his text so vvith so little successe hath he travailed in his defence to dravv it or any other scriptures to the justifying thereof that I dare boldly say he hath no one place of scripture vnder the shadovv vvhereof he can find any shelter to shrowd his episcopal fuÌ„ctioÌ„ as a divine ordinaÌ„ce Novv vvho knoweth not that in al questioÌ„s of this nature no other testimony or argumeÌ„t caÌ„ strike the stroke to persvvade the coÌ„scieÌ„ce but the authentical records of the Holy Ghost or some inevitable consequence grounded vpon them For as one vvell saith '' Chrisâ—st in Psal 95. ad finem Si quid dicatur absque scriptura and itorum cogitatio claudicat nunc annâ—ens nuâ—â— haesitans et interdum sermonem ut frivoluÌ„ aversans interdum ut probabilem recipiens verum vbiâ—â— divinâ— scriptura vocis prodijt testimonium et loquentis sermonem audientis animaÌ„ confirmat If any thing be spoken without scripture the minde of the hearers halteth now stooping to it now sticking at it sometimes turning froÌ„ it as frivolous sometimes turning to it as probable but wheÌ„ the testimony of the speaker coÌ„meth from divine scripture it confirmeth both the speach of the speaker and mind of the hearer The vvhich had the D. regarded so carefully as he ought much labour might have bene spared both to himselfe his Refuter and Reader for as all that he hath alleadged from the scriptures both in his sermon and defence being dravven togither vvould scarsely amount to so many lines as he hath filled leaves so vvould it have bene of more force then all his councells and fathers to inforce the conscience had it made but halfe so much for his advantage as he supposeth For vvho is not of their minde vvho thought †Panormit in cap sig extrv de elect Gers part 1. de exâ— doctr it meet that one poore lay-man rightly alleadging a text of the old or new testament ought to be preferred before the generall councels The vvhich because the D. hath not done he hath done nothing to the purpose for hovvever he and his Bps. be as one '', Bishop Barlow seâ— in Act. 29. 28. of them saith no Arcadians to fetch their pedegre from beyonde the moone yet before the D. can prove their calling to be a divine ordinance he must fetch it from the divine scriptures farre beyond his councels and Fathers alleadged Fiftly I graunt indeed he alleadgeth scriptures asvvell as other testimonies but they are such as prove vvhat vvas never doubted of or such as prove those points that directly conclude not his assertions but referred by him to questions besides the question or else to let passe hovv he taketh one part of the question to prove another such as are meere begging of the question tvvise 20. times at the least Wherefore though he had againe and againe * Etiamâ—â— millies repeteret nihil quam Sisiphi saxum volveret nec hilum proâ—iâ—eret a 1000. times after the same manner gone over them what hath he else done but turned the stone of Sisiphus and left it vvhere he found it vvth out profit to his cause or hurt to his adversary Sixtly vvhich is yet more the reader may see hovv foule he falleth and often vpon his ovvne ancres for he is almost as full of contradictions to himselfe as of beggings of the question so that the saying of the Orator †Phil. 2. Tâ—m eras excors ut tota in ora tione tecuÌ„ ipse pugnares ut non solum non cohaeâ—entia inter se diceres sed maximè disiuncta et contraria ut non tanta mecum quanta tibi tecuÌ„ esset contentio against Anthony as fitly agreeth to him as if it had bene first spoken to him he being indeed throughout his whole discourse at such odds with himselfe that he hath not onely vttered things not hanging togither but so different and contrarie that he is at greater variance with himself theÌ„ with his adversarie The which what can it else argue but that as he is a maÌ„ * epilanthanâ—menos heactou forgetful of himself and not likely to be agreed with that disagreeth so much with himself so he is not a little pusâ—ed in in the cause but vnabble to mainteyne it Now that vve may knovve vvhat to stand to be he intreated against his next vvriting to settle himselfe upon one and the same ground If vve may judge of that vvhich is to come by that vvhich is past it is likely he vvill streine the best of his vvits for some distinctions to recoÌ„cile those differences cure those botches but let him deale more sincerely then formerly he hath
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
answere thereunto is easy For putt case those cheife treatises which he read and from whence he received satisfaction be without sound proofe as in deed they are may he not have the pith and substance of them all and yet all he hath be without ptoofe 2. He telleth vs that it is not possible that all which he and all the rest can say can be comprised in so short a sermoÌ„ And I beleeve it For by this his defence it appeareth that he himself can saie a great deale more then can be comprized in so short a sermon for besides all that he hath spoken pertinent to the purpose though nothing to prove the point in question I dare be bolde to affirme there are a century of vntruthes sarcasmes slanders and many things of like sort But all this while how proveth he that double contradiction he spake of Nay where doth the Ref. saye as the D. insinuateth that all that he and the men of his side can saie is comprised in his sermon That which the Ref. saith is possible enough to witt that the pith and substance of all how much soevet it be that he and all of his side can say in this controversy to any purpose may be comprized in as short a sermon as his which filleth vp an 100. pages and was not onely preached before that most honorable auditorie as he faith but also vpoÌ„ second thoughts and mature deliberation enlarged and published to the world Thus we see how well he hath proved both the vnreasonablenes of the Ref. motion and the contradictions charged vpon the reason thereof As for his good admonitions in his epilogue and elsewhere how ever delivered by him not without mixture of gall wormewood we have so learned to make use and profit of the wordes of our enemies as we willingly imbrace them ¶ Thus much in reply to that which the Doctor hath answered Sect. 5. D. page 20. 21. 2â— concerninge the Refuters preface he should nowe have defended his owne praeface against the answere to it but that he vtterly refuseth because 1. it is a mere libell consisting of notorious cavillations mallicious calumniations and personall invectives 2. there is no material thing in it which is not fully answered in the defence of his sermon 3. the defence of his sermon it selfe being growne to so great a volume he should greatly wrong both himself and his reader in answering it 4. his refuter beinge in the darke and he in the light it is a verye vnequall combate c. And therefore in steade of answeringe he falleth to advisinge as we shall see when I have given answere to these severall pointes Lett the reader concerninge the first judge whether the Dâ—s owne wordes may not be banded backe agayne and charged more justly vpon his preface theÌ„ vpon the answere to it But albeit both that his preface and this whole defence are in the highest degree guiltie of those 3. notorious evils charged vpon the Refu answere yet I will spare him therein and onely demaund whether it standeth with any equitie for him at his pleasure to smite as with his tongue yea utter in printe wordes more sharp then swordes and not forus once to oppose a sheild of juste defence to beare of his blowes for him as Tullie saith venenata tela jacere but not for us medicinam facere As if Caius Fimbria were revived who when Orar. pro Râ—scio Amerino he had not as he desited slaine Q. Scevola accused him in judgment quod non totum telum corpore recepisset that he had not suffred the whole weapon wherewith he was smitten to enter his body To the second I answer that the reason were good yf what he saith were true but the reader comparinge them togither will finde no one materiall thing eyther fully or once in part answered in the defence of his sermoÌ„ how ever here and there he shall meete with revylinge and reproachfull speaches cast vpon the Ref. for it As for the third I will not deny but his defence is growne to a great volume in deed and so great that he should not onely have wronged himself and his reader by making it greater as he sayth but that he hath wronged them both and his Ref too in making it so greate as it is considering it is growne to that greatnes as by many notorious vntruthes so also by those three imputations falsly charged vpon his Ref And I wish he had regarded more seriously what he had committed to the Presse for the judgment of the present age and all posterity and that he had not so much yeilded to his inordinate affection and corruption as to make his volume swell with such bitter speaches so full of choler vnpleasant flowers of his rethorick not respecting what became him that commendeth mildenes to others proposeth for that purpose the very example of our Lord and Mr. Christ If he had defended truth as truth requireth to be defended he would never have presented that plesant spectacle he speaketh of to the coÌ„mon adversary If in any sort bitternes hath bin vsed in our defense by any who have bin strangely dealt with through which perhaps some have vttered some distempered speach the D I doubt not hath paid them all home their owne againe with large interest and measure even full running over as one that counted it whatsoever he professeth to the coÌ„trary a disparagement to be overcome in such a contention Lastly touching the fourth where he casteth them into the dark that doe not putt their names to their writings c. What argueth that speach of his besides the wrong offred to the pen-men of the sciptures and other good men many moâ— as is before sayd but extreame dealing of the Bishops towards us why else should we not dare to be seene in a cause so clearely taught in the word of God and so famously professed and practised by so many even the best reformed Churches in the world As for the refuter he is asmuch in the light as the Doctor and as wel knowne to be the Refuter as the D. is to be the defender Let his Lordbishops lay by their imprisonment and other extreame dealings and cease to be Iudges in their owne cause and that without baile or mainprize or benefitt of appeale inforcing us to indure their sentences and the D. shall soone see his adversarie in the face Till then the reader will both judge his request vnreasonable seing manifest experience witnesseth that the mildest men for bookes written without bitternes have drunk deep of the Bishops cupp mixt with the spice of their imprisonments degradations and such like and also deeme him a man of no great valour for counting that combate vnequall when he figheth with an Adversary that is not shutt vp in prison and hath not his weapons blunted or rather taken from him by that meanes Thus much breifly to his reasons pretended for not replying to the
in this question to use his owne words cap. 3. pag. 60. 61. he must confesse vnlesse he will confesse himself to be ignorant in logicke that this disjunction is implyed The Churches of Christe are to be governed either by a presbytery in every parishe or by one Bishop set over an whole diocese And this disjunction as it is ex hypothesi necessarie it being agreed vpon on both sides that either the one or the other forme of goverment is to be imbraced and that one and but one of these assertions is true or false so it doth necessarily import both that they which affirme the former doo give vnto every parishe Church and her presbytery for the government of it self the same power which they take from diocesan Churches and their Bishops And that they which pleade for the government of Bishops doe allowe vnto every Bishop in his diocese the same power and authority which they denie to the severall parishes and their presbyteries For as it were a foolish question if both partes of the disjunction were true soo it were no lesse foolish if both partes were vntrue or false as it must be if that power of government be not lawfull for the one which is denied vnto the other Now to come to the vntruthes which the D. chargeth vpon his Sect. 9. ad Sect. 10. pag. 41. 42. Refuter he findeth in his assumption these two 1. that all authority is by the Drs. taken from the Pastors Elders and people in every parishe 2. That all is given to the Bishop alone To prove the first an vntruth he first granteth one parte of it true saying the Elders in deed I reject as a new devise 2. As for the parishioners though for our credit sake as he saith he leaveth out that dotage of their cheife authoritie as if we held it and so maketh vs beholding to him for leaving that out which wee never put in for where did he ever read that we give them the chiefe authority in government in them he acknowledgeth some authoritie in chusing or consinting to the choise of some Church officers And 3. as touching the Pastors of the Parishes he leaveth them that Pastorall power which ever was granted to them since the first distinguishing of Parishes to witt their power of order as they are all Ministers and a power of spiritual or inward iurisdiction to rule their flock after a private manner and as it were in the Court of conscience The Elders indeed have little cause to thanke him but see how much the people and their Pastors are beholding to him he is content the people shall have some authority he had once sayde to choose but that was too much and therefore recallinge it he sayth to consent to the choise of some Church officers but they must stand to his curtesy hereafter to vnderstand at his pleasure who are those some Church-officers to whose choise they have authoritie to consent and who are those other some to whose choise they have no authoritie so much as to asâ—ent whether by the former he meane their Pastors and perhaps the Church-wardens and Parish clerks and by the later the Bishops Deanes Prebends Archdeacons c. yea or no. In like manner he alloweth to the Pastors of parishes a pastorall power both of order and jurisdiction but their Pastorall authority is not in foro externo but in fore consâ—ientiae and whatsoever it be it is delegated and coÌ„mitted to them by the Bishops serm pag. 45. to whom the care of the whole Church beloÌ„geth so that the authority is not theirs they are but as servaÌ„ts to the Bps so rule under theÌ„ as they are rued by theÌ„ as at large he assayeth to prove serm p. 45. 46. 47. 51. Yea in this defence p. 42. he leaveth to them that pastorall power onely which ever was granted vnto them since the first distinguishing of parishes and allotting of severall Presbyters to them as if their power and function were not of divine or apostolicall but rather of humane papall institution Thus we see how deeply indebted the Pastors and people are to the Doctor for his allowance towards them 2. But how will these parts of power or authority thus allowed them by the D. prove an vntruth in the Refuter when he said that the question being as he said whether the Church should be governed by Pastors and Elders with the people or by Diocesan Bishops the Doctor taketh all from them all c. Must not that all which is said to be taken away be limitted to the question before proposed q. d. all that power of government which is controverted whether it belongeth to the Pastors with the elders people of every parish or to the Bishop in his whole Diocese all this I say the Doctor taketh from the Pastors Elders people and putteth the same not all simply into the hands of his Diocesan Bishop alone And in this sense which is the true sense though the Doct. shifteth out of it the refuters words are true as before is shewed The Doct. shifteth the sense Neyther can the Doctor without shame deny it seing that externall power of government which standeth cheefly in ordeyning censuring and absolving c. is the thing controverted in the quaestion before expressed which the Doctor holdeth to be the Diocesan Bishops right and unlawfully given to the parish-Bishop his Elders Wherefore the first vntruth falleth back upon the Doctors owne head when he falsly sayth that his Refuter affirmeth of him that he taketh all manner of authoritie from the Pastors Elders people And so also doth that second vntruth inasmuch as himself well vnderstandeth and elsewhere rightly interpreteth the refuters The D. chargeth the refuter with 2. vntruthes but they both fall back vpon his owne heade meaning in the proposition set downe page 41. to be of giving to the Bishop that power which is taken from the severall Pastors c. and not all power simply As for that he objecteth to prove that he giveth not all authority to the Bishop alone because others are in the ecclesiasticall government ioyned with him some vnder him as Deanes Archdeacons c. some above him as Archbishops and provinciall Synodes c. It shal be answered cap. 4. sect 8. where it is nothing to the purpose but an other shift from the question which is not defactâ— and of the time present viz what order of government now standeth in our Churches by our present lawes and constitutions but de â—â—re what forme of Church-government ought to be or at least lawfully The D. shifteth the question may be as being of divine or Apostolicall institution Or if dâ— facto yet it is for the time past for the first 200. yeares after Christ as the Positions which himself proposed to oppugne serm pag. 4. doe declare Wherefore if the Doctor will discharge himselfe from giving all the power of government in question to one Bishop
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
evasion to avoyde if it were possible that perpetuall necessity which his words doe equally throwe vpon the function of Timothy and Titus aswell as on their authority For 1. If he had cast but one cie vpon the propositioÌ„ of that brave syllogisme wherevnto the former senteÌ„ce is fitted as the assumption he might have observed that the word authority is superfluous idlie inserted in the later seing it is wholly omitted in the former The proposition of his argument is this The supposed evangelisticall function he saith not evangelisticall functioÌ„ and authority but evangel function of Timothy and Titus was to â—nd with their persons and admitted no succession being both extraordinary and temporary Wherefore to make the assumption sutable to this proposition he should have sayd not as he then did and still doth the function and authority but the function which they had as being assigned to certeine Churches was not to ende with theire persons but to be continued in their successors And theÌ„ the words following must of necessity be carried also to their function onely q. d. their function was not to end with their persons because it was both ordinary and perpetually necessary c. And vnlesse he will yeeld to this construction of his assumption I meane either to blot out the word authority or at least to acknowledge that he userâ—â— those two words function and authority as synonima to expresse one onely thing to wit their office or function he will be inforced If the D. seeketh to avoyd one he falleth into another evill to lye downe under this foul imputation also viz. that he doth sophisticate and by foure termes in stead of three utterly marreth the frame of his supposed blamelesse syllogisme 2. Moreover if he will vouchsafe to peruse his Defense lib. 4. pag. 97 98. he may perceive that as his purpose was by a newe supply of arguments as he saith to prove that Timothy and Titus were Bishops so his maine argument there set downe concludeth the very function of Timothy and Titus to be ordinarie and episcopall because it was not extraordinarie and Evangelicall For although to conforme his first argument to his prosyllogisâ—â—es that follow he coupleth function and authoritie together yet the frame of his words doe shewe that by both termes he understandoth one thing onely to wit their proper function or office which was as he confesseth the onely thing now in question Otherwise having sayd in the proposition that their function and authoritie was eyther extraordinary and evangelisticall or ordinarie and episcopall he would never have set downe the assumption and conclusion so as he doth But it was not extraordinary and evaÌ„gelicall therfore ordinary and episcopall For neither grammer noâ— logick Neither grammer nor logick will indure the D. disjunction will permit him vnder this one word it to comprehend two things so distinct as he nowe taketh function and authoritie to be when he affirmeth the one denieth the other to be perpetuallye necessarie 3. But if he will needs begin with that disiunction with which he endeth he shall fall into a twofolde absurdity which he cannot avoid viz. an untoward laying downe of the question in the beginning and a shamelesse begging of the question in the end For neyther doe they hold the function onely of Timothy and Titus to be ordinarie or their authoritie onely to be episcopall neyther doe the Disciplinarians teach their function onely to be extraordinary and their authoritie onely to be evangelicall but rather affirme their function to be both extraordinarie and evangelicall as in the proposition of his first syllogisme he confesseth And as for their authoritie vnderstanding thereby as the Doctor doth nothing else but a power to ordeyne and to exercise a publik spirituall jurisdiction they doe no where affirme it to be eyther extraordinarie or proper to an Evangelist Yea the Doctor acknowledgeth pag. 84. and 100. that his Refuter graunteth that others were to succced Timothy and Titus in the authoritie which they had but not in their office and that their authoritie though not their function was perpetually necessarie Wherefore if he take not authority and function for one and the same thing or at least restreyne authotitie to that peculiar power which distinguisheth their function froÌ„ all other ministeriall callings he hath apparantly falsified the state of the questioÌ„ And wâ—â— is worse in the winding up of his The D. falsineth the state of the question The Doct. bewrayeth the beggerie or his cause dispute bewrayeth the extreame beggerie of his cause wheÌ„ he proveth their functioÌ„ to be ordinarie because it was ordinarie For the conclusioÌ„ of his first syllogism p. 98. affirmeth the function of Timothy and Titus to be ordinarie his medius terminus to prove it is this It was not extraordinary which to confirm he saith that their function was not to ende with their persons but to be continued in their successors aâ—d therefore was not extraordinary And to prove the AntecedeÌ„t he argueth thus Their function was ordinary and therefore was not to ende with their persons So that his whole reasoning-commeth to this issue Their function was ordinary and therefore it was ordinary To amende all these defaultes since it is apparant that in his maine conclusion he affirmeth their function to be both ordinary and episcopall as before I shewed the word authority to be superflous so it followeth froÌ„ thinges before delivered that the word ordinary in that prosyllogisme which he laieth downe pag. 99. 100. so as he received it from his Refuter is also superfluous and fit to be expunged that the syllogism may run currant in this manner That function which is perpetuâ—lly necessary not onely for the wel-being but also for the very beinge of the visible Churches was not to ende with the persons of Timothy and Titus but to be continued in their successors But the function which they had wheÌ„ they were assigned to certeine churches is perpetually necessary not onely for the well-beinge but also for the very being of the visible Churches Therefore the function which they had being so assigned was not to ende with their persons but to be continued in their successors Wherefore the Refuter hath not wronged the Doc. in charging The refut wrongeth not the D. bur the D. wrongeth himselfe when to avoid one absurdity he throweth himself into many him to asfirme that the episcopall power or function is perpetually necessary not onely for the well being but for the very being of the visible Churches The D. rather hath wronged himself in that whiles he laboureth to avoide the rocke of this one absurdity he throweth himself into the gulfe of many others And to him more fitly agreeth that which without cause he saith of his Refuter pa. 99. he roves and raves as men use to doe who being at a non-plus would faine seeme to answere somewhat To conclude then this pointe seing the direction of the
Holy-Ghost who guided the Apostles in the execution of their function doth as strongly conclude every jus apostolicum to be jus divinum Sect. 7. as it doth everie ordinance apostolicall to be a divine ordinance and the perpetuitie of divine ordinances or precepts dependeth not on the authoritie of the person from whom they proceed immediately whether from God or holy men authorized from God but vpon the perpetuity of the causes or grounds that give strength therevnto seinge the Doctor acknowledgeth the superiority and function of Bishops to be not onely a divine ordinance in regard of the first institution but also such an ordinance as is necessary to be reteyned for the same cause viz. the avoydinge of schismes for which it was first instituted yea such an ordinance as on which the vnity perpetuity and eutaxy of every Church dependeth seing also he affirmeth that the perpetuall directions and commandementes given to Timothy and Titus for ordination and jurisdiction are not common to other Ministers or Presbyters but peculiar to Bishops as being their successors not onely de facto but also de jure and that the Churches of succeeding ages have much more need of men furnished with episcopall authority to governe them then those Churches that were first planted by the Apostles And seing he doth so farre grace our owne Bishops that he sayth they are authorized to the exercise of their jurisdictioÌ„ jure Apostolico urgeth the conscience of his hearers both to acknowledge their function and to obey their authority as an holy ordinance of God Lastly seing he did in his serm avouch though now he disclaimeth it in the dâ—fâ—se thereof the episcopall function to be perpetually necessary even for the very beinge and not for the well-ordering onely of the visible Ch he stil mainteineth their functioÌ„ to be no lesse necessary for the ordeyning of Ministers theÌ„ the office of Ministers is for the baptizing of other ChristiaÌ„ disciples seing I say these things are so evident apparant truth that none of them can be denied it is no lesse apparant that the D. stryveth in vaine to quench the light that shineth to his coÌ„science when he indeavoureth to perswade that he mainteineth not the episcopall function to be such a divine ordinance as is juris divini or of generall perpetuall use for the churches of Christ For the reader may easely perceyve that it were easy for us by sundry syllogismes that would carry good consequence and cleare evidence of truth with them to confirme even froÌ„ his owne words that which I now affirme to be the state of the question but I will content my self to use one or two at this time onely and thus I reason The episcopall function such as ours is at this day in their opinion which hold it to be of divine institution must needs be reputed â—yther such an extraordinary and temporarie office as that of the Apostles Prophets and Evangelistes specially appointed for the first planting and establishing of the Churches or such an ordinary and perpetuall function as that of Teaching Elders or Ministers of the Word and Sacraments fitted for the generall use of all Churches to the wordes end or at least such an office as was â—f necessary use onely for the times of persecution and in want of a Christian Mâ—gistraâ—e as some have estemed the governinge Elders to be But in the Doctors opinioÌ„ who holdeth the episcopall function such as ours 〈◊〉 at this â—â—y to be of divine institution it was neyther so extraordinarie or temporarie aâ— that of the Apostles Prophets and Evangelists specially appointed for the first planting establishing of the Churches neyther of necessary vse onely for the time of persecution and in want of a Christian Magistrate 〈◊〉 some have esteemed the governing Elders to be Therefore the episcopall function such as ours is at this day in the D. opinion who holdeth it to be of divine institution is such an ordinarie perpetuall function as is the functioÌ„ of teaching Elders or Ministers of the word sacrameÌ„ts fiâ—ted for the generall use of all Churches to the worlds end Or thus Whatsoever function was once of divine institution and still remeineth lawfull and good the same is eyther arbytrary and at the pleasure of Church Magistrate to receive or refuse or else is generally perpetually and immutably necessary But the episcopall function in the D. opinion was once of divine institution and still remayneth lawfull and good and noâ— arbitrary and at the pleasure of Church and Magistrate to receive or refuse Therefore in the Doctors opinion it is generally perpetually and immutably necessarie And consequently the maine doctrine of the Doct. sermon which he raiseth from his text and set downe in these words The episcopall function is of apostolicall and divine institution or thus The function of Bps. is lawful and good as having divine both institutioÌ„ approbatioÌ„ must thus be understood q. d. the functioÌ„ of Bishops such as ours are at this day viz. DiocesaÌ„ sole ruling Bb. is such an apostolical or divine ordinance as may be called divinum jus Gods lawe as being of generall and perpetuall use for the Churches of Christ Notwithstanding because we differ in judgement from the D. Sect. not onely touching the perpetuitie of this office but also touching the first originall thereof esteeming it to be of humane and not of divine institution yea seing we deny the function not onely of sole-ruling Bishops but also of Dâ—ocesan Provincial Bishops lifted up in degree of office and ministery above other Ministers to be of divine or Apostolicall institution I will therefore joyne issue with the Doctor in his owne termes and as respondent in this question stande to mainteine the contrary assertions scz that the function of Bishops such as ours are viz. as himself explaineth his owne meaninge serm pag. 52. Diocesan and provinciall Bishops superiour in degree to other Ministers having a singularity of preheminence for terme of life and a pâ—â—relesse power both of ordination and jurisdiction is neyther of apostolicall nor of divine institution And first because he boasteth that he hath proved his assertion from the text which he handled I will take liberty to follow him in his rovings at random and to drawe togither into one continued tract whatsoever he hath in any parte of his sermon or defense thereof that carrieth any colour of argumeÌ„t to justify the doctrine which he pretendeth to have drawne from the true and naturall explication of his text that his Refuters censure may appeare to be true when he saith answ pag. 4. that his text yeildeth nothing to prove his kinde of Bishops nor to shewe any such quality of their function as he imagineth The which being done I wil in the second parte 1. Examine all other testimonies or arguments which he draweth from the Scriptures to justify his assertion that all men may see it cannot be a divine ordinance since
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
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
own testimonie of more worth in this case then all the rest in his sermon of the dignitie dutie of the Ministers pag. 46. and 61. he telleth us and that with proofe from scripture that neither the name of Angels nor the whole title Angels of the Churches doe argue any preheminence in degree Wherefore to ende this point since I have made it cleare that the D. hath neither proved the number of Angels in his text to be limited to 7. nor removed that which his Refuter objected to shew that their nomber is not limitted the Refuter or his freind hath done enough to pull that vaile from his eies which was the occasion as it seemeth of his wandring so farre as he doth out of the right way of truth in his sermon and the defence thereof For vnlesse a man would freely yeeld vnto him what he assured to prove but neyther did nor can namely that the Angels in his text are 7. singular persons and no 〈◊〉 he hath no colour though never so light to inferre as he doth that they were Diocesan Byshops But howsoever he cannot by strong arguments overthrowe Sect. 〈◊〉 his Refuter as he wisheth yet by opposing him with a few questions and 2. syllogismes pretended to be drawn from his words he doth his best to weaken his cause In answering the questions I will begin with the last first and because his 2. syllogismes are grounded upon the 3. last questions I will take them in by the way First therefore whereas he asketh whether in Ephesus there were more particular congregations seing his Refuter saith that in Ephâ—sus there were more angels I answere as his Refuter had told him before and he could not but heare that the Church of Ephesus was then one onely congregation And that many angels or Bishops in Ephesus cannot prove that there were in Ephesus many particular congregations For since the holy Ghost calleth the Christians at Ephesus one Church and one flocke Act. 20. 17. 28. neyther dare I nor the Refuter without better reason then the Doctor doth yet bring any forsake the grammaticall sense and expound him as speaking of more then one particular congregation To the next question whether the Refuter answer pag. 2. taught not that the angels mentioned Apoc. 1. 20. were such Bishops or Ministers as were Pastors onely of particular congregations I answere that the last time I talked with him he told me he tooke the word Angels to belong in coÌ„mon to all the Ministers of the word whether they be such as are properly called Pastors or such as are more properly named Doctors or Teachers And therefore when he saith that the Bishops signified by angels are Ministers Pastors onely of particular congregations that last clause is added to exclude not any such as have the office of Teachers in one congregatioÌ„ but the D. Bishops such as exercise a Prelacie over an whole Diocese in that regard have appropriated to themselves the name of Angels or Bishops or Pastors And here to put in an answere to his second syllogisme the Doctor may be pleased to knowe that his skill in reasoning much fayleth him as will soone be seene if his Refuter who is as he saith but a smatterer in logick doe but devide his one argument as it must be into two The first is this Where are many Pastors of particular congregations there are more particular congregations then one But at Ephesus there were many Pastors Therefore at Ephesus there were more particular congregations then one The Doct. syllogisme hath 4. termes Behold here 4. termes in stead of three wherefore the conclusion may be and is false though both the premisses be true If the Doctor wil amend his fault he must change his assumption say thus But at Ephesus there were many Pastors of particular congregations The which as it is evidently false so it is no lesse slaunderous to father such a saying on his Refuter whom he calleth his adversarie If The D. assumption false and slanderous he shall strive to make good the assumption thus changed by that secoÌ„d argument which is closely infolded in his reasoning he must argue in this manner Where were many Angels there were many Pastors of particular congregations At Ephesus were many angels Therefore there were at Ephesus many Pastors of particular congregations And then I must returne him his proposition as having no colour eyther of allowance from the refuters words or of confirmation in his owne defense In deed if he had said that many angels of particular congregations are many Pastors of severall coÌ„gregations his proposition might have passed without controlement the word Pastors being taken in a large construction for all Ministers which breake the bread of life to their people But then he should be as farre to seek for the proofe of that which he must assume viz. that at Ephesus there were many angels of particular congregations for it hath bene already sayd that the Refuter holdeth the Christians of Ephesus to be but one Church or Congregation though it had many angels or Bishops to oversee and feed the same Now by this that hath bene spoken the answere to his 3. question or 2. as he hath set it downe and of his first syllogisme will ask no great study or labour For whereas he demaundeth whether in one particular congregation there were more Pastors then one I answere that the word Pastor being in a large sense put for every one that by his office is bound to oversee and feed the flock over which he is set may be given to many in one congregation aswell as the name of a Bishop is Actes 20. 28. Phil. 1. 1. so teacheth D. Bilson Perpet Govern pag. 284. D. Whit de Pont. Rom. pag. 351. And in this sense the Refuter taketh the word as is before noted when he saith answ pag. 2. and 4. that to be ST ARRES of heaven and ANGELS in this kingdome is not proper to diâ—cesan Byshops but common to all true Pastors of particular congregation and that by Angels in the Doct. text are signified such Pastors For finding that the D. confoundeth these names serm pag. 2. of Angels Byshops and Pastors he was well content to forbeare all strife about words and thought it sufficient to seclude diocesan Byshops by restrayning the Angels mentioned in his text to the feeding and oversight of particular congregations Wherefore the D. reasoneth deceitfully and seeketh advantage by adouble construction of the word Pastor when he thus disputeth The Pastor or Byshop of a particular congregation is but one But each Angell of the Churches saith the Refuter did signifie a pastor The D. reasoneth deceitfully and seeketh advantage by the double construction of the word pastor or Byshop of a particular congregation Ergo each Angel did signifie but one For the proposition is false in the Refuters construction of the word at large viz. for every one that hath
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
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
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
cap. 17. sect 2. pag. 316. D. Reynolds Conf. cap. 5. divis 3. p. 224. doe acknowledge to be in part grounded upon an excellencie above the rest in vertue and grace For Augustin de Bapt. cont Donatist lib. 2. cap. 1. saith his primacie was conspicuous and preheminent with excellent grace And Eusebius lib. 2. cap. 13. calleth him reliquorum omnium Apostolorum propter virtutis amplitudinem facile principem Wherfore if the Doctors meaning be to equall Iames every wayes with his fellow-Apostles in all spirituall grace that adorneth the function of a Minister of Christ he must be beholding to his Reader to take it upon his owne word for it will be hard to make good proofe of it But if he limit the equalitie he speaketh of to the power of the Apostolike function which is all the equality that he can with reason maintein he shall shew himselfe too absurd to avouch that onely for kindred sake vnto Christ he was worthy to be preferred before the rest or that the Apostles were bound to be lead by this respect in the distribution of ecclesiasticall honours This is in deed carnall divinity and such as argreeth not with the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles Mat. 12. 48. 50. Iam. 2. 1. Act. 15. 9. 2. Cor. 5. 16. and 12. 5. It might be asked if in respect of love and reverence to Christ the founder of the Church at Ierusalem it were necessarie to preferre one of his kindred to the Bishoprick thereof before the rest that were otherwise equall whether the like respect ought not to haue place in the choise of such as were to succeed any of the Apostles in the Churches which were founded by them and in such as are at this day to succeed men of special reputation in any Church whatsoever For S. Paul testifieth of Andronicus and Iunia Rō 16. 7. that they were his kinsmen and fellow-prisoners which giveth them a singular note of preheminence above many others they were episemoi en tois apostolois famous or of speciall note among the Apostles and before him in Christ Yet we never reade that they were preferred to a Bishoprick in any of the Churches which were many that Paul had founded Is it not a shrewd presumption that he was ignorant of any such president since he had no care to walk by the same rule Againe may I ask M. Doctor why Iames was not aswell before his election to his Bishoprick as after for the same reason honoured by his fellow-Apostles with that precedēce which they gave him when they made him a Bishop To conclude if any such primacie of honour above the rest of the Apostles accompanied Iames his ordination to that supposed Bishoprick why should it not by cōmon consent be rather cast upon one of those whom Christ preferred before the rest for were not all his disciples bound to give most honour to them whom he most honoured If then Peter Iohn and Iames the brother of Iohn were by Christ preferred in honour before his Iames though for his pietie surnamed the Iust was it not an injurie I say not to them but even to Christ their Mr in controwling that order of preheminēce which he had set among his Apostles to give one of their inferiors a place of dignitie above them Wherfore as the Refuter wronged not Clemens or Egesippus in charging the speach of the one to be vnsavourie and the respect alleadged by the other to be carnall so it is no injurie to Eusebius who buildeth vpon their reportes to say he was too credulous in interteyning for truth upon their words that which upō due examination appeareth unworthy of any credit And the same is the fault of the rest which in later time without any further search gave credit vnto their testimony Which sottish imitation as one Mr. Bell calleth it epist before his tryall of new religion pag. 1. Survey of popery part-3 cap. 7. pag. 342. if it were the cause of many errors even in matters of doctrine as is for instance shewed in the errour of the Chiliasts I see no reasō to the cōtrarie why it might not also be a cause of many errors in matters of fact or historie Yet the Refuter did and so doe I still so farre tender their estimation that wee withdraw not any assent from their report but when there is better warrant eyther of scripture or sound reason leading another way Now whereas the Refuter saith that Iames neyther was properlie Sect. 6. ad sect 5. Bishop of Ierusalem nor might be because he continued in his Apostleship a distinct office from it The D. to make him odious with his Reader replieth that he giveth all his witnesses the lie But though he be a Doctor he useth a false finger to justify his suggestiō thrusting out the word properly which the Refuter inserted pag. 132. of his answ and charging him to say plainly that Iames was not Bishop of Ierusalē not could be It is plaine and the Doctor acknowledgeth it that the Refuter here denieth vnto Iames he doth it not so much of himselfe as from the mouth of some late writers of worthy account D. Whitakers D. Reynoldes Bishop Iewell and others In charging him therefore to give his witnesses the lie what else doth he but through his sides wound their credit seing the fault if any ligteth on their heads But the truth is neyther he nor they doe oppose the former denaill to the testimonie of the fathers but to their assertion which from the name of a Bishop given to Iames or Peter in the writings of the Fathers doe inferre that Iames or Peter were properly Bishops For the Refuter in his wordes imediately before going saith that the Fathers might will call Iames by the name of a Bishop which then was of greatest dignitie seing it is certeyne he had though an higher yet the same place in Ierusalem that afterwards Bishops claimed and possessed in other Churches And elsewhere answere pag. 143. he explaineth his judgment more plainely in the words of Doctor Whitakers de pont pag. 303. who saith that when the Fathers call Iames or Peter a Bishop they take not the name of Bishop properly but call them Bishops of those Churches in which they aboad somewhat long c. I now adde the words of D. Reynolds Conf. with Hart Cap. 4. divis 2. because the Doctor to finding the place quoted thought his name was used onely for a shewe concerning Iames he saith that he which maketh him a Bishop of one citie whom Christ made an Apostle to all the nations of the earth bringeth him out of the hall as they say into the kitchin And in answer to Chrysostome alleadged by Stapleton and Hart as he is by the D. to confirme his supposed Bishoprick he addeth It seemeth he spake it vpon the word of Clemens apud Euseb lib. 2. cap. 1. And when Hart sayth he should not help him with such shifts against the
in this sort If none other Apostle had his seat fixed to any certeyne place then neither had Iames his seat fixed to Ierusalem But none other Apostles had his seat fixed to a certeyne place Ergo neyther had Iames his seat fixed to Ierusalem The Doctors answer is that he hath shewed sufficient reason why he should not graunt the consequence in setting downe the difference between Iames and the rest of the Apostles But are the differences such as he can and will mainteyne that they necessarily argue the one to be properly a Bishop and the rest nor otherwise they neyther are nor can be a sufficient reason of his deniall of the cosequence Let us therfore peruse them First he saith that Iames herein differeth from the rest that to him at the first the Church of Ierusalem was assigned I answer that an assignement to the oversight of one Church maketh not a Bishop unlesse he be also confined unto it alone and that for perpetuitie But the Doctor can never prove that Iames was so coÌ„fined to the charge of the Church of Ierusalem Moreover we have better evidence for Pauls assignement to the Church of Corinth Act. 18. 9. 10. 11. 1. Cor. 9. 2. 2. Cor. 10. 13. then can be alleadged for Iames his assignemeÌ„t to Ierusalem And if we may beleeve the D. he telleth us pag. 52. that at what time Iames was assigned to Ierusalem the rest were assigned also to their circuite one to one part and an other to an other This first difference therefore is eyther none at all or not such as can give the function of a Bishop to the one and deny it to all the rest Secondly the Doctor addeth that Iames did not traveile as the rest from one country to an other being not confined to one province But it is shewed in the former section that Iames was neyther confined to Ierusalem nor debarred from traveil abroad and that the grounds whereon the Doctor buildeth will confine some others to certeine countryes as Thomas to Parthia Andrewe to Scythia and Iohn to Asia no lesse then Iames to Ierusalem And let me aske him what proofe he can make worthy of credit that Matthew Matthias and Iames that was martyred at Ierusalem Act. 12. 2. spent their daies in traveil froÌ„ one country to an other And if Iames be to reckoned a Bishop because he rested at Ierusalem when others traveiled from place to place why he should deny the rest to be also properly Bishops when they took up some speciall place to rest in as he sayth Iohn did at Ephesus c. specially seing the fathers intitle them Bishops of those places where they rested Thirdly an other difference he noteth scz that wheras the other Apostles having planted Churches when they sawe their time coÌ„mitted the same to certeine Bishops yet Iames coÌ„mitted the Church of Ierusalem to no other But can he tell us to what Bishops the Churches of Iconium Lystra Derbe Antioch in Pisidia and sundry others planted by Paul were coÌ„mitted For why should not he be the Bishop of those Churches which being planted by him received no other Bishop to governe them if this reason proveth Iames to be the Bishop of Ierusalem The consequence therefore of the argument abovesayd is nothing weakned by the differences which the Doctor putteth betwene Iames and the rest of the Apostles as he affirmeth Notwithstanding that the reader may see how grossely he erreth in combyning these two functions of an Apostle a Bishop in one person I will here propose some of the reasons which D. Sutlif a zealous mainteyner of the episcopall governmeÌ„t hath pressed against Peters supposed Bishoprick at Rome De pont lib. 2. cap. 10. The Apostles saith he and Pastors or Bishops properly so called are â—o distinguished that an Apostle is one thing and a Pastor or Bishop is another Sect. 6. He hath given us as saith Paul Ephes 4. 11. some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists some Pastors Teachers What can be spoken more cleerely he hath given some Apostles others Pastors and Teachers quosdam dedit Apostolos alios autem Pastores et Doctores Wherefore as he concludeth concerning Peter so doe I concerning Iames if Iames were an Apostle he could not be a Bishop Pastor to speak properly vnlesse we will confound both the gifts of Christ and membra dividentia the members of the division set down by the Apostle 2. The Apostles had this priviledge that they were called sent by Chrst iÌ„mediately Mark 6. 7. Luc. 6. 13. Gal. 1. 1. Acts. 1. 24. But with Bishops it is farre otherwise they were not called iÌ„mediately of God but by men Paul prescribeth lawes vnto Timothâ— what manner of men were to be chosen Bishops warneth him to lay no hands suddenly upon any man 1. Tim. 3. 2. and 5. 21. Seing therefore Iames was by Christ alone not by men called chosen and ordeyned wheÌ„ce could he have a Bishoprick given him As for those Fathers which say that Iames was by his fellow-Apostles ordeyned Bishop of Ierusalem we have already Cap. sect 22. heard Doctor Sutliffs answer this onely now I add that the Doct. cannot without contradiction to himself take it for ordination to the function of a Bishop seing he saith that Iames receyved the episcopall power of order from Christ as Bishops sine titulo as is also before shewed cap. 5. sect 13. 14. 3. The office of Bishops is farre inferior to the office of Apostles and after a sort included in it for the Apostles ordeyned Bishops heard their causes c. Moreover they had power to deliver the Canonicall scriptures and for that cause were lead by the Holy Ghost into al truth Iohn 14. 26. 16. 13. But Bishops had no such prerogative for there were none more greivous schismes raised in the Church neyther any more foul heresyes sprang from any then froÌ„ Bishops Wherefore seing Iames was an Apostle quid opus erat ut quasi capite diminutus ad inferiorem ordinem et dignitatem velut Patritius ad plebem transiret I might adde his 4. and 9. arguments but because they come nere to things already urged I passe them over onely that it may appeare he putteth no difference betwene Peter and Iames in the limitation of their ministrie as the D. doth I will close up all with that which he hath elswhere cap. 11. pag. 52. Immo nec Iohannem nec Iacobum Apostoluns propriâ— dicimus fuisse Episcopum rationeÌ„que hanc reddidimus quia Apostolici officij â—ines nullâ— eranâ— Episcopi aut em suas habuere certas dioceses et provincias Yea saith he we say not that the Apostle Iohn or Iames was a Bishop properly we have rendred this reason for it that there were no bounds or limitts of the Apostolicall function whereas Bishops had their certeine diocesâ—s and provinces Which reason seing he saith Bellarmin wincked at as being vnable to answer it I hope the
Doct. will not doe him that favour to oppose himself therein to D. Sutliffe specially seing he hath already yeelded thus farre pag. 58. that if any be not perswaded of this point he will be content to suppose that Iames was not a Bishop of Ierusalem Notwithstanding as if the whole cause in a manner wholly relied Sect. 7. ad sect 8. pag 58. 59. upon this instance of Iames he indeavoreth by it to confute the learâ—eder sort of disciplinarians who holde that Bishops were not superior to other Ministers in degree nor yet for termes of life and therefore if we may believe him deny that Iames was superior in degree to the presbyters of the Church at Ierusalem or President of the presâ—yterie otherwise then in his course not for any contynuance Of these conceites he maketh Mr. Beza the Author and because the Refuter â—ould him that he wronged Beza seing there is not a sillable nor a letter at all of him in the place he quoteth he saith all this adoe ariseth from the misprinting of a letter in the margent c. being put for p. and therefore now citeth a saying of his cap. 3. pag. 23 which if it be not againe miscarried by his printer seemeth to be foysted in I know not how For in the same Chap. and pag. Impress Anno. 1592. by Ioh. le Preux there are no such words as he alleadgeth But say that Beza in some later edition which I have not yet mett with hath such a saying viz. that though Iames the brother of our Lord was in order first in the church of Ierusalem yet it followeth not that he was in degree superiour eyther to the Apostles or else to his fellow Ministers what hindreth but that the Refuters answer might stand to wit that by his Bishopprick or presidencie he was not superiour to any degree but in order onely for when he compareth togither the differing functions of Apostles Evangelists and Bishops or Pastors he doth very often acknowledge in that treatise an imparitie and difference betwene them not in order onely but also in degree and power In istis functionibus ex Apost Eph. 4. 11. â—â—tearepetitis inter se computatis non simplicem tantum ordinem sed etiam gradum agnosco cap. 1. pag. 5. To which purpose also he speaketh cap. 3. pag. 20. cap. 9. pag. 53. But to let the Doctor see how much he wrongeth him these wordes are fittest pag. 9. Apostolatus functionâ— fuisse illos 12. propria non tantum ordinis sed etiam potestatis eminnetia pralatos absit ut inficiemur ut mer am calumniam esse omnes intelligant quum nobis hoc mendacium tribuunt In which he calleth it no better then a calumniation to charge him as the Doctor doth And since he professeth to prove against Mr. Beza that Bishops were in degree superiour to other Ministers why putteth he not his hand to remove the objection there urged by Mr. Beza to shew the contrary Quantâ— majus est et gravius ecclesias plantare quam rigare sive fundamentum illarum ponere quam superstruere et structas regere tanto magis istum gradum vtgere inter ipsos Apostolos oportuit 2. Et si tum esset ut nonnulli contendunt velut ipsa natura precipiente in omni sacro caetâ— gradus iste ad servandum inter collegas consensum necessarius saltem quam diu simul Hierosolymis congregatâ— fuerunt Apostoli nempe saltem ad illam dispersionem quae Stephani mortem est consecuta Act. 8. 1. vâ—um quempiam jam tum supra suos co apostolos extitisse oportuisset Wherevnto I will add the assumption and so inferre the conclusion But among the Apostles there was no superioritie in degree 2. neyther was it necessarie for the preserving of vnitie and consent among them that one should hold such a superiority above his fellow-Apostles whiles they remained at Ierusalem before the scattering that followed the death of Steven Wherefore it is not likely that among the Bishops or Pastors of particular Churches there was any one superior in degree to the rest 2. neither can it be necessarie as some suppose even by the light of nature that in every sacred societie for the preservation of consent among colleagues one should have such a superiority in degree among the rest But to leave Mr. Beza let us see how the Doctor can make good Section 8. his purpose from this instance of Iames vz. that Bishops were superiour in degree to other Ministers and had a singular preheminence over them for term of life Why contriveth he not his argument syllogistically that the force thereof might the better appeare for he is much deceived if he think to gaine his cause by such a sophism as this Iames was superiour to the presbyters of Ierusalem in degree and held a superiority over them during life But Iames was a Bishop Therefore Bishops were in the Apostles tymes superiour vnto presbyters in degree and that for terme of life For though we should graunt the assumption which is before disproved the argument is no better then if a man should argue in this manner Iames Mountague to whom D. D. dedicated his his sermon is superior in degree of Ministerie to al the Ministers in the Diocese of Bath and Wells But Iames Mountague is the Deane of the K. Maiesties Chappel Ergo the Deanes of the K. Maiesties chappell are superior to all other presbyters in degree of Ministery I doubt not but the Doctor can well discerne in this latter a double deceipt because it inferreth a generall conclusion from premisses that are but particular assigneth a false cause of that superioritie above other presbyters And if he winketh not hard he may well see the same defaults are to be found in his reasoning For besides the generality of his coÌ„clusion there is an evident mistaking of the cause both of that superioritie in degree which Iames had above the Presbyters of Ierusalem and of his continuance in and about Ierusalem to his dying day To begin with the former whereas he should shewe that his Bishoprick gave him a superioritie in degree above the Presbyters of that Church it is apparant he hath no other Medius terminus to prove it then this that he was an Apostle and his honour degree by his Bishoprick not impaired so that in effect he reasoneth thus Iames being an Apostle and a Bishop was superiour in degree to the Presbyters of Ierusalem Ergo all other Bishops not being Aposteles as he was have the same superioritie above other Presbyters The Doct. proofe therefore which he presupposeth to be plaine and pregnant for his purpose is a plain inconsequence which with all his skill he can never justify Neyther can he easily mainteyne that which he assumeth for a truth viz. that Iames his honor degree by his Bishoprick was not impayred for as is already shewed cap. 6. sect 1. the authority of Clemens is
argument to another in shewe is but to dazell the eyes of his reader that he might not discerne his grosse begging For in effect this is all he can say They were furnished with episcopall power therefore their authoritie was episcopall or S. Paul made them Bishops and therefore they were Bishops of his ordeyning As for those two questions which he debateth Sect. 15. 16. viz whether it be perpetually necessary that the sway of the ecclesiasticall authoritie should be in one and what forme of Church-government is to be preferred as the best I forbeare to follow him in those digressions His resolution to the former being negative doth scarce accord with the conclusion of his last argument which affirmeth that such governors as were Timothy Titus in his opinion furnished with episcopall power are much more necessarie after the Apostles death then in their life time But his resolutioÌ„ to the later is grouÌ„ded on such a reason as wil put life againe into the same if there were an undoubted truth in it For could he prove the Monarchicall government of Bps to be of divine institutioÌ„ as he affirmeth it would follow not onely that it is the best forme of Church-government but also necessarily to be continued And as I nothing feare to graunt him that consequence so I knowe he boasteth in vain of warrant in the scriptures for the episcopall function He hath sought for it first in the Angels of the 7. chueches then in Pauls approbation of Archippus Epaphroditus he proceeded to Iames his presidence at Ierusalem now he hath done all he can to prove it by the Apostles ordeyning Timothy Titus to the function of Bishops In all which disputations of his I have clearely shewed that the scriptures give him no colour for his assertion We are therefore now ready to listen to those testimonies of antiquity which if we might beleeve him with a generall coÌ„sent beare witnes to his assertion that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus Titus of Creet Chap. 12. Concerning the testimonies of Antiquitie alleadged by the Doctor to prove Timothy to be the Bishop of Ephesus and Titus of Creet FIrst he alleadgeth the subscriptions annexed to the end of the Sect. 1. ad sect 17. pa. 105. epistle to Titus of the second to Timothy wherein the one is sayd to have bin ordeyned the first Bishop of the Church of the Ephesians and the other the first Bishop of the Church of the Cretans Being asked by his Refuter whether he thought them to be of the Canon or added by the Apostle he signifieth that he is not of that opinion Whence I inferre that their evidence can never justify his maine purpose which is to prove that the function of diocesan Bishops is of divine institution But he saith It is certeine they are of great antiquity and of better credit then the Refuter other disciplinarians would make them If it be certeine their antiquity is great their credit very good why doth not the D. give us the proofs whereon he groundeth his certeinty First for their antiquity they deserve not that preheminence which he giveth them to be heard before Eusebius the rest of the fathers which he alleadgeth for the authors of the most ancient Syriac and the old latin translations found no mencion of an episcopall ordination bestowed on Timothy Titus in the greek copies which they followed And yet the books which the old latin Interpreter imbraced doe fully accord in the subscriptioÌ„ of all the former epistles with those latter copies into which that clause of that Bishoprick was foisted in If therefore their credit have not some better support then their antiquity their evidence is little worth The Doct. greatest labour in defense of their credit is to remove out of the way his Refuters objection who saith The subscription set vnder the epistle to Titus affirming it to be written from Nicopolis is contrary to Pauls owne words Titus 3. 12. because of Paul had been at Nicopolis when he wrote after this charge given vnto Titus Indeavor to come to me to Nicopolis he would not have sayd â—kei gar kekâ—â—ka c. for there but rather entautha here I have determined to winter The Doctor paveth the way to his answer with this preface In deed saith he if any other learned man that were not a party in this cause had censured these subscriptions I would have respected their censures but the Cavillations of the disciplinarians against them are to be rejected You may see how partiall the Doctor is who yet would seeme to hate partiallity and how little credit these subscriptions have with the D who therefore hath resolved to give them what grace he can because they are disciplinarians who have disgraced them The Rhemists may freely controull the subscriptions of sundry other epistles because they are not parties in this cause see their Argument on 1. Cor. 2. Cor. Gal. 1. and 2. Thess and 1. Tim. for the place whence the epistles were sent But Mr. Beza can have no indifferent hearing his reasons are but Cavillations But heare I pray how the Doctor confuteth him If you will saith he consider with me that Paul being as usually he was in peregrination Titus could not tell where he was Paul therefore being at Nicopolis wrote as any discreet maÌ„ would in the like case Come to me to Nicopolis for I meane to winter there whereas if he had written as the Refuter would have had him Titus might have sayd where Paul as being vncerteine where Paul was whither himselfe was to goe It seemeth the Doctor eyther did not consider or would not take notice 1. that it was needlesse for Titus to be informed where Paul was at the writing of this epistle seing he was not to goe presently to him but to make himselfe ready to come upon a new message as these words declare when I shall send Artemas to thee or Tichicus be diligent to come to me 2. that Paul his being then in peregrination as the D. conceiveth doth very probably argue the contrarie to that which he collecteth to wit that as yet he was not come to Nicopolis were he resolved to spend the winter and to wait for Titus his coÌ„ming thither But because the Doct. would seeme to build upon the coÌ„mon judgement of such as are discreet I very willingly submit the triall of this difference to the discreet reader which observeth in the writings and speaches of them that are discreet the different use of these adverbs hic illic here there whether it stand with discretion 1. for the K. Almner which followeth the court when he is at Greenewich to send for one of his followers with the like words When I send A. B. or C. D. to thee then come thou vnto me to Greenewich for there I meane to winter or rather thus for here I meane to winter 2. for his follower that receyveth his letters if
he say there I meane to winter to conclude for certeinty that his Mr. was at Greenewich when he wrote 3. And if he say here I meane to winter to send to his Mr. for new direction where to find him As for the testimony of Athanasius Oecumenius and others which following the error of him that first iÌ„magined Paul to be at Nicopolis when he wrote to Titus drunk it in without any further examination it cannot overweight the force of any just probability to the contrary for in questions of this nature yea of greater event often times the heedlesse receiving of that which some one or moe of the Ancients have imbraced hath bin the cause of many errors But if the rest of his witnesses be no more resolute for him then the authors of the Centuries he might well have spared the citing of them for they leave it doubtfull whether the epistle were sent from Ephesus or Nicopolis In the next place he urgeth the generall consent of the ancient Sect. 2. ad sect 18. pag 107. c. Fathers as Eusebius Dyonisius Dorotheus Ambrose Hierom Chrysostome and others to the number of 16. which testify that Timothy and Titus were Bishops To all which he received a threefold answer Frst that the fathers in so calling them take not the name properlie for the functioÌ„ of a Diocesan or provincial Bishop but improperlie in a more generall signification like as they call some of the Apostles Bishops for the work and preheminence sake wherein Bishops afterwards succeeded them This answere is wittingly mistaken of the Doctor for a bare deniall of that which they affirme wherefore it shall suffice to urge him vnto the proofe of the point denyed and by him wholly neglected scz that the Fathers did so term them properly as giving them the very function of Diocesan Bishops for which he pleadeth Secondly he was tolde their consent was not so generall as he would make us beleeve the truth of which answer is evident by this that among all the fathers summoned to give in their evidence we heare not the names of Ignatius Irenaeus Tertullian or any other that lived in the first 300. yeares For that counterfeyt that shrowdeth himself under the name of Dyonisius Areopagita is demonstrated by many worthy divines D. Reynolds Conf. with Hart. cap. 8. divis 2. pag. 488. Cent. 1. lib. 2. de Dyonis Areopag Perkins problem pag. 9. Scult Medull de Dyonis script pag. 484. to be such a novice that he was unknowne to Eusebius and Hierom or any other of the ancients before Gregorie the great Wherefore it will give the Doct. little reliefe to graunt him that in his time it was generally received that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus especially seing the Papists may also from his testimonie likewise conclude that in his time the Monkes were of great credit in the Church many of their ceremonies as annoyntings crossings Incense coÌ„secrations c. were in vse and that in his time it was generally coÌ„fessed that Bishops onely were allowed divina ordinatione Chrisma conficere Hierarch eccles Cap. 4. 5. And whereas unto that objected out of Ignatius that he was so farre from esteeming Timothy as a Bishop that he rather maketh him a Deacon epist ad Trall the Doctor answereth by distinguishing the times that he was such an Evangelist as first ministred to Paul as a Deacon afterwards was ordeyned a Presbyter lastly a Bishop he explayneth not but rather perverteth Ignatius his meaning whose purpose is nothing else but to shew what service Deacons doe owe to Bishops by comparison of that service which holy Steven did to blessed Iames Timotheus Linus unto Paul c. In which comparison though he match Tim. with the DeacoÌ„ and not vvith the Bishop as T. C. rightly observeth yet as he giveth not to Paul the function of a Bishop so neyther unto Timothy the office of a Deacon Nay rather he shadoweth out in Timothy the office of an Evangelist in that he maketh him an assistant unto Paul in his Apostleship As for that fancie vvhich the Doct. broacheth of Timothies serving first in the office of a Deacon then of a Presbyter lastly of a Bishop it is not for his credit to father it upon Ignatius or Ambrose It is true that Ambrose saith Timothy was ordeyned a presbyter and that he was a Bishop because he had no other presbyters before him yet affirmeth he withall that there is but vna ordinatio episcopi presbyteri that there is but one ordination of a Bishop and a Presbyter vterque enim Cacerdos est Com. in 1. Tim. 3. Wherefore that one ordination whereof Ambrose speaketh confuteth that thrice ordination vvhereof the Doctor dreameth And if Ignatius had bene acquainted vvith Timothies ordinatioÌ„ to the Bishoprick of Ephesus doubtlesse in vvriting to the Ephesians he vvould not have associated him vvith the Apostle Paul as a joynte Teacher or Mr by vvhom they vvere instructed in the faith Vos ergo tâ—les estote a â—alibus magistris eruditi Paulo Christifere Timotheâ— fidelissimo He would rather haue distinguished their functions like as he doth the Pastorall charge of Evodius from the Apostolicall function of Peter and Paul who first planted the gospell at Antioch as his words alleadged by the Doctor serm pag. 82. ad Antioch shewe In vaine therefore braggeth he of a generall consent of the auncient fathers when of all that lived in the first 300. yeares there cannot any one be alleadged that giveth to Timothy and Titus the name of a Bishop much lesse the function of a diocesan Bishop Here perhaps the Doctor will againe put us in minde of Eusebius Sect. 3. who reporteth out of former histories that Timothy first had the Bishoprick of the Church of Ephesus Titus of the Churches in Creet And because this his report is the maine foundation whereon all the rest are grounded I will vouchsafe it this particular answer following It is worth the noting that what he speaketh he delivereth not as a certain truth grouÌ„ded on the holy scriptures but as a doubtfull report derived from other stories from whence no sure proofe can be drawne in divinitie as before hath bene observed But not to insist on this exception why doth not the D. fortify the consequence of this argument Timothy obteyned first episcopen the oversight tes paroikias of the Church in Ephesus like as Titus had of all the Churches in Creet Ergo they had each of them the function of a Diocesan Bishop in those Churches For Timothyes charge being paroikia en ephesoo the parish in Ephesus was too narrow a compasse for a Diocese Titus having the oversight of all the Churches in Creta an Iland that had an 100. cities and therefore called hekatompolis had too large a jurisdiction for one province Moreover since there are no records of like authoritie to shew that any one Bishop in the Apostles dayes enjoyed the like superintendencie
Creta hath as yet received no firme support no not from humane evidence much lesse from the holy scriptures Chap. 13. Concerning Evodius Linus Mark Simeon others whom the D. saith the Apostles ordeyned Bishops THe Doct. now leaving the scriptures searcheth after other ancient Sect. 1. ad sect 20. pa. 112. records to see if he can find any other places where or persons whom the Apostles ordeyned Bishops which if we should wholly overpasse in silence we should neyther wrong him nor the cause seing the records of men subject to error drincking in many errors through oversight or want of judgment cannot substantially conclude the question now in hand as hath bin often observed But because he glorieth though without cause as shall appeare in answer to his next page that the evidence of truth put his Refuter to silence we will enter into a neerer search after the truth make no doubt but we shall lay open to the conscience of the indifferent Reader both the falshood of some of his records and his false or deceitful handling of the rest And first he beginneth with Antioche vvhich as he saith serm pag. 81. had the first Bishop after Ierusalem ordeyned by the Apostles Peter and Paul about the yeare of the Lord. 45. vvitnes Eusebius Chron. anno 45 and Hist lib. 3. ca. 22. and Iguat ad Antioche I ansvver there are many parts of S. Lukes sacred â—â—ory that vvith hold us from acknovvledging any such episcopall superiority in Evodius as the Doctor ascribeth to him for many matters of great moment are recorded concerning the Church at Antioch vvhich fell out after the 45. yeare of Christ and yet there is no mencion of Evodius much lesse of his Bishoprick After the death of Herod vvhich vvas in the end of the. 3. yeare of Claudius Euseb lib. 2. ca. 9. ex Iosepho and. 45. of Christ as Euseb accounteth in Chron. an 45. Paul and Barnabas returned froÌ„ Ierusalem to Antioch Acts. 12. 23. 25 at which time there were certeine Prophets and Teachers there by whose imposition of hands Paul Barnabas were seperated to the work wherevnto the Holy Ghost called them Cap. 13. 1. 2. 3. Now if Evodius had bin the Bishop of that Church at this time would S. Luke have overpassed his name in silence when he rekoneth up the principall Teachers that then were there And if Peter had gone after his imprisonment to Antioch there to constitute Evodius his successor would not S. Luke have given some notice of his being there with Paul Againe when Paul and Barnabas came back to Antioch they gathered the Church togither and rehearsed all that God had done by them there aboade a long time with the disciples cap. 14. 27. 28. In this their stay there grew that dissention about circumcision which occasioned that meeting at Ierusalem to end the question Cap. 15. 1. 2. c. where was Evodius all this while was he a non-resident from his charge had he bin the Bishop of Antioch and there resident how is it that we heare nothing of his enterteyning Paul and Barnabas at their returne and of their relating to him as Paul did afterwards to Iames at Ierusalem Cap. 21. 18. 19. the successe of their traveiles why heare we nothing of his partaking in the controversy eyther with or against Paul and Barnabas why nothing of his going up to the Synode at Ierusalem for who more fit to be imployed in such a busynes then their Bishop for which part soever he tooke it was necessary for the Churches instruction in all succeeding ages that as the Angells of the Asian churches Apoc. 2. 3. so he should have his due praise or dispraise for resisting or supporting those false Teachers that disturbed the peace of the Church To goe forwards as the the storie leadeth after the the Synode was ended Iudas and Silas were sent with Paul and Barnabas vnto Antioche aâ—d letters were written not to the Bishop but to the brethren of the Gentiles and they were accordingly delivered to the multitude assembled who rejoyced for the consolation Cap. 15. 22. 23. 30. 31. Iudas and Silas stayed there for a time so did Paul Barnabas till they were so styrred that they parted companies vers 32. 35. 39. 40 but before Paul and Barnabas were divided Peter coÌ„ming thither was withstood by Paul to his face for that offence which he gave in withdrawing himself from the fellovv-ship of the Gentiles as Paul himselfe relateth Gal. 2. 11. 12. 13. In al these events vvhat did Evodius worthy the name or place of a Bishop indovved vvith such a singularity of povver and honor above all other Teachers though of an higher degree then Presbyters as loÌ„g as they are vvithin his Diocese If vve may beleeve the Doct pag. 136. lib. 3. ought not he to have interposed his episcopall authority in coÌ„manding his people to keep the decrees ordeyned by the Apostles and in appeasing those contentions vvhich arose betvveene Paul and Peter and betvveene Barnabas and Paul vvhiles they conversed vvithin his jurisdiction Surely vvhat ever the D. conceiveth of these matters who can perswade themselves that S. Luke and S. Paul would have buried in silence the name office and indeavours of Evodius if he had bin so long before ordeyned by Peter and Paul to the Bishoprick of Antioch As for Eusebius his Cronicle it doth too much discredit it selfe Sect. 2. to be credited of us in this case for it saith that Peter in the last yeare of Tiberius which was the. 39. of Christ placed his chaiâ—e at Antioch and there sate 25. yeares and that in the 2. yeare of Claudius he removed to Rome and there sat also 25. yeares Because both these computations cannot stand togither the first 25. yeares is generally esteemed an error and reduced to 7. yeares but yet these absurdities remaine 1. that Peters aboad 7. yeares at Antioch and his remove to Rome in the second of Claudius cannot accord with S. Lukes storie for his continuance in Iudea and his imprisonment by Herod not long before the death of Herod see Doctor Reynolds Conf. with Hart. Cap. 6. divis 3. and D. Whit. de pont Rom. quest 3. pag 346. 347. 2. that Peters removing from Antioch to Rome in the 2. yeare of Claudius contradicteth the D. assertion scz that Evodius was ordeyned Bishop of Antioch by Peter and Paul in the yeare of our Lord 45 which was the. 3. yeare of Claudius by Eusebius his owne account Notwithstanding I deny not but there may be a truth in the main point avouched by Eusebius and Ignatius to wit that Evodius was the Pastor or Bishop of Antioch there placed before Ignatius For a parish-Bishoprick that is the function of a Bishop set over one particular coÌ„gregatioÌ„ is granted by the Refuter to be established every where by the Apostles but that function of a Diocesan Bishop which the Doct. contendeth for is denyed and worthyly seing it is
before shewed in answ to cap. 6. lib. 2. pag. 105. 106. that the Church of Antioch in the Apostles times was but one ordinary congregation assembled in one place Thus much for Evodius It followeth now of Liuus concerning Sect. 3. whom the Doctor telleth us serm pag. 82. that Peter and Paul being at Rome and there continuing somewhat above two yeares about the yeare of our Lord 56. ordeyned him Bishop of Rome who continued Bishop there â—0 yeares before the death of Paul 12. yeares â—fter and for proofe thereof citeth Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 3. Euseb lib. 3. ca. 13. 16 In his Margin he saith that Peter came to Rome in the 2. yeare of Nero to oppugne Symon Magus and Paul shortly after from whence after 2. yeares they both departed To begin with this last can the Doctor be ignorant that Eusebius and Hierom two of his best witnesses for the antiquitie of the episcopall function doe referre Peters oppugning Symon Magus at Rome to the 2. yeare of Claudius or can it be unknowne to him that many of our divines of great reading and sound judgement doe contradict both branches of his assertion and shewe from the sacred scriptures that Peter was not at Rome neyther at the time of Pauls first coÌ„ming thither nor yet in the time of his two yeares imprisonment there I forbeare to lay downe the particulars which are urged to this purpose the Doct. may peruse at his leysure what is written by D. Reynoldes in his Conf. with Hart the place before noted And Doctor Whitak de pont Rom. pag. 353 -359 Catal. test verit col 61. last edition and confute their reasons if he can He shall surely therein gratify the Romanists for Bellarmin convinced with the arguments on our side alleadged confesseth that Peter was not then at Rome when Paul came thither and from thence wrote so many epistles as those to the Colos Ephes Galat. Philip. and others which make no mencioÌ„ of Peter Now if Peter were not at Rome in those two years of Pauls remayning prisoner there how could he joine with Paul at that time in ordeyning Linus to the Bishoprick of the Church of Rome Add herevnto those perswasions which induce us to think that he had no such function at that time with Pauls allowance For why should he forget his paines or deny him that honor which he affoardeth to others that were his felow-workmen in the Ministery of the Gospell to make mencion of his name and labours at least in some one of those many epistles that he wrote from Rome in the time of his aboad there yea had he bin the Bishop of Rome when the Apostle Paul sent so many epistles from thence to other Churches would not he rather have made choise of him to joine hands with him in the Inscriptions of the epistles to the Philip and ColossiaÌ„s then of Timothy who in the D. opinion was eyther yet standing in the degree of a presbyter or if a Bishop the Bishop of Ephesus in another country In deed his name is remembred among other that sent salutations to Timothy 2. Tim. 4. 21. but since it is without any note of preheminence eyther in office or labours it argueth strongly that Paul was ignorant of any such episcopall charge or superiority as the D. alloweth him 10. yeares before Pauls death As for the ancient Fathers and Historiographers Eusebius the Sect. 4. D. best witnes for computation of times expresly saith lib. 3. ca. 2. Linus obteyned the Bishoprick of the Church of Rome after the Martyrdome of Peter and Paul which cutteth off the first ten yeares which the Doctor giveth him in the government of that Church But Damasus whose report the D. imbraceth as if it were an oracle serm pag. 23. affirmeth in pontificali de Petro that Linus ended his race in the Consulship of Capito Rufus which was more then one yeare before the death of Peter and Paul as D. Whitakers sheweth de pont Rom pag. 343. Wherevnto Iunius also assenteth Animadvers in Bellar. cont 3. lib. 2. ca. 5. not 15 and 18. I forbeare to prosecute that variety of opinions in all writers old and new touching the first Bishop of Rome and the order of their succession some giving to Clemens the first place some confounding Cletus and Anacletus some severing them and some conjoyning Linus and Cletus togither in the episcopall charge as doth Rufinus prefat recognit Clement But since there is such disagreement and the same so great that it perplexeth the learnedest favourites of the Romish succession it may give us just cause to affirme that their testimonie can yeeld no certaine proofe of any one whether Linus Clemens or any other that by the Apostles appointm t had the singular and setled preheminence of a Bishop in the Church of Rome It followeth concerning Mark the Evangelist whom the Doctor Sect. 5. affirmeth to be the first Bishop at Alexandria by the appointment of Peter and that testified as he saith by Nicephorus Gregorie Eusebius Hierom and Dorotheus In deed Nicephorus is worthy to be the foreman of the Doctors Iurie in this question for who fitter to cast a cloak of truth upon a fable then one known to be the author-of many fables Of S. Mark many things are repeated in the scriptures that will hardly be brought to accord with his supposed Bishoprick at Alexandria or with that which the Doctor affirmeth of him to wit that he was Peters disciple and his perpetuall follower For to overpasse his first attendance on Paul and Barnabas Act. 12 25. 13. 4. 5. 13 and on Barnabas when he was parted from Paul Act. 15. 37. 39. he was with Paul at Rome as one of his work-fellowes unto Gods kingdome Coloss 4. 10. 11. Philem. vers 24. and departed thence to visite the Saints at Colosse and in other Churches adjoyning Col. 4. 10. and he was with Timothy or neer to him when Paul wrote his last ep to him 2. Tim. 4. 11. But to overthrow his Bishoprick the very name of an Evangelist which the Doctors best witnesses with one consent allow him is sufficient seing we have before proved that an Evangelist could not assume the office of a Diocesan Bishop Neyther can the Do take that exception against Mark which he doth against Timothy Titus scz that be was but in the degree of a Presbyter seing he granteth him to be one of those that are kat hexochen called Evangelists Ephes 4. 11. cap. 4. sect 12. pag. 95. Moreover that which Eusebius and Ierom doe report of his writing his gospell at Rome according to that which Peter had there preached and of his carying it into Egypt and preaching it in Alexandria see Euseb lib. 2. cap. 14. 15. Hieron catal in Marco this I say is contradicted by Irenaeus more ancient then both for he lib. 3. ca. 1. testifieth that Mark wrote his gospel after the death of Peter Paul And this testimony
Assumption And herevnto the lesse labour will serve seing we have already shewed that Archippus if he were a Bishop of that Church yet could not be a diocesan Bishop such as ours For Epaphras their first Teacher still continued one of them and a faithfull Minister of Christ for them Coloss 1. 7. 4. 12. And Archippus is subjected vnto the Churches admonition and censure in the very words wherevnto the Doctor sendeth us Coloss 4. 17. which is palaion in deed but nimis apostolicum too apostolicall for our times as Musculus upon those wordes saith But let us see what releef the Doctor foreseeing that his assumption would be denied yeelded to support it For proofe hereof saith he it sufficeth me that Archippus was as Ambrose noteth in Colos 4. 17. Bishop of Colosse which was a citie seeing I have manifestly proved before that the Bishops of cities were diocesan Bishops And must this proofe needs suffice others because it sufficieth him knoweth he not that we expect he should yeeld â—s some cleare proofe from the holy scripture why made he shew at the first as though he would prove Archippus his Bishoprick from Colos 4. 17. and now falleth from those words of Paul to the testimony of Ambrose who lived well nigh 400. yeares after Belike upon his second thoughts he discerned that the same exhortation used to Archippus which he gave to Timothy 2. Tim. 4. 5. doth not necessarily argue that he had the same office Or else he thought he should prevaile little in so arguing with those which hold Timothy to have bin an Evangelist and not a Bishop And surely it availeth his cause as little to send us to S. Ambrose seeing he hath not one word that can argue a diocesan Bishoprick in Archippus he calleth him praepositum illorum et rectorem qui post Epaphram accepit regendam eorum ecclesiam Which may argue I grant an episcopall ministery at large but will not serve to conclude the preheminent superiority of a diocesan Bishop Nay this is rather confuted by Ambrose who saith of Epaphras that he was â—vis illoruÌ„ et affectu vnanimitatis charissimus c. for if he remained Civis illorum then also their Teacher and Bishop though absent for a time from them and nothing inferior to Archippus but rather in order at least as in affection before him His assumption therefore having no releife neyther from the Sect. 4. Apostle Paul nor yet from S. Ambrose relieth wholly upon this poore argument borrowed from some other parts of his defence The Bishops of cities were diocesan Bishops Archippus was Bishop of Colosse which was a citie Ergo he was a dioecsan Bishop I answer first to the propositioÌ„ which he saith he hath before manifestly proved Although Bishops were Diocesans whence once the whole body of people inhabiting cities became subject to the oversight of one Bishop yet the first Bishops of Churches planted in cities were not diocesan Bishops for the Churches whereof they were Bishops being but a small handful to a large heap in comparison to the whole citie could not be properly dioceses as we have sufficiently shewed in our answer to all his proofes produced to the contrary Secondly to his assumpion I answer that as it is a knowne vntruth to affirme the citie of Colosse to have bin vnder the government of Archippus so neyther is it true that he had that sole or singular preheminence over the Church of Colosse which apperteyneth to Bishops such as the Do. contendeth for If therefore he will hereafter indeavor to make good the assertion that Archippus was a diocesan Bishop so ordeyned of God he must seek out some more pregnant proofes then his study for his sermon the defense thereof hath as yet affoarded him Lastly as touching the Angells of the 7. Churches whereas he should conclude the same which he had affirmed of Timothy and Archippus viz. that they were ordeyned of God he altereth the conclusion to this that they had divine institution and approbation for their funâ—tion The Doct. changeth to the end But of this change we have spoken before His. 3. arguments distinctly propounded in his sermon pag. 93. 94. he now reduceth to this one syllogisme Those who were called by the Holy Ghost Angells of the Church he should have sayd of the 7. Churches and were signified by the 7. starres that were in Christs right hand had divine both institution approbation But the diocesan Bishops of the 7. Churches were called by the Holy Ghost the Angells of the 7. Churches and were signifyed by theâ— starrs that were in Christs hand Ergo they had divine both institution approbation The assumption which he knew would not without good proofe be admitted he saith he went not about to prove now because it was proved at large in the former part of the sermon And since he hath added nothing else for the proofe thereof but that which is answered to the full already till some better evidence come in place his conclusion must lie in the dust And we may I hope with the Readers good allowance conclude that he hath not any one argument from any part of the Canonicall scripture to shew that that the function of diocesan Bishops such as ours be is of divine institution There remaineth now that leaving the scriptures we examine that first argument of his 3. touching the government of the Churches the first 300. yeares after Christ handled by him serm pag. 56. 60. defense lib. 4. cap. 1. where all his humane testimonies come to be handled but because this second part is already large enough I will here break of and referre the examination thereof togither with that first point of his five which coÌ„cerneth governing Elders to the third part